God Damn Michelle Obama

Keep on making calls to Oregon and Kentucky.

Polls close in Kentucky at 7:00 p.m. (EDT) and Oregon’s mail balloting ends at 11:00 p.m. (EDT). Join us for celebration when the polls close.

* * *

Clinton Supporters Count Too have asked us to post this reminder:

NO NBC ALL DAY. IF YOU CAN, MAKE A SIGN AND STAND IN FRONT OF YOUR LOCAL STATION. TAKE YOUR FRIENDS. IF YOU CAN ORGANIZE A DEMONSTRATION AT YOUR STATION, CALL FOX AND ABC AND ASK THEM TO COVER YOU.

Keep on message:

1. We will not stand for the sexist and hateful treatment of our candidate, Hillary Clinton (a sitting U.S. Senator and lifelong public servant who deserves the respect of EVERY AMERICAN!)

2. In the face of this media behavior, we deplore the shameful silence of the DNC and the Party for whom she has worked tirelessly, for most of her life.

3. Hillary Clinton is the most qualified candidate and best qualified to lead our country for ALL AMERICANS.

PLEASE, STAND UP FOR YOUR COUNTRY AND YOUR CANDIDATE, LADIES. BOYCOTT NBC TODAY!

* * *

When we read that Barack Obama demands that Josephine Michelle Obama – daughter and soldier of the Chicago thug machine is “off limits” to attacks – we knew we would have to respond.

We knew we needed to respond. We knew we needed to respond in language that Barack and Michelle would understand. Therefore we chose the language of their church and of their pastor. We chose the language Barack and Michelle exposed their daughters to for years. God Damn Michelle Obama.

Jake Tapper noted that Obama and the Democratic? National Committee have been consistently attacking Cindy McCain.

Michelle Obama is being attacked, recall, for comments she made from a stage while campaigning for her husband. Should the Democrats “lay off” Mrs. McCain as well, to use Obama’s words? Is it “low class” to go after Cindy McCain on the tax issue?

Obama wants his lantern jawed wife to be “off-limits”. Michelle apparently is the only spouse to get such special treatment. It was Michelle of course that debased herself by trying to dredge past right-wing attacks on Bill and Hillary Clinton. It was the Obama campaign that circulated anonymous memos attacking spouse Bill Clinton.

We are not the only ones listening to Michelle Obama. Recall when Michelle refused to say she would endorse Hillary if Hillary won the Democratic nomination? Michelle said I’d have to think about that. I’d have to think about that, her policies, her approach, her tone.

Michelle refused to say she would support Hillary. Now Michelle’s … um … chickens, are coming home … to roost.

Women say “NO” to Obama. Clinton Supporters Count Too.

Share

146 thoughts on “God Damn Michelle Obama

  1. I’m ready for election night, and I have a feeling it may be a long one…..
    Think they will actually do their job and call KY when the polls close??

    I have a feeling that things are ever so slowly turning, although you wouldn’t know by watching the MSM. I think a scandal is about to hit obama flat in the face…… 😉

    And IF, and I still believe, I might be a bit worried on the surface, but deep inside of me, I DO believe she will be the nominee. If obama gets the nom (by cheating!!) I will take great pleasure from watching him go down!!! And see the american map in all red on general election night!!! Then he will forever be out of politics!!! Heading back to chicago with his tail between his legs.

    That said, GOO Hillary!!! You will win this!!!!

  2. Great post. The arugula crowd is wrong as there are millions of us who will not vote for the pretender.

    Get cool
    Get unaffiliated

    Stay the course, Hillary!

    Mail in your new voter registration cards today.
    “Yes we can walk away.”

  3. Would it be in the best intrest of Hillary to susped (if the math is not in her favor) her campagine rather than quit. Because if something comes out about Obama between now and the convention she could restart her campaign.

  4. “A Surprise About Obama, Clinton, and Turnout

    Conventional wisdom has it that Barack Obama’s primary victories are based on his ability to increase turnout.

    A look at what happens when voter turnout increases in the primaries proves that this notion is wrong. In fact, Obama has had his greatest primary (and caucus) victories when turnouts have been low.

    Obama received 66% of the primary vote in Georgia when 22.7% of all registered voters in the state voted in the Democratic primary. In Virginia, Obama received 64% of the primary vote when 21.1% of all registered voters in the state voted in the Democratic primary. In Mississippi, Obama received 61% of the primary vote when 24.4% of all registered voters in the state voted in the Democratic primary.

    Hillary Clinton received 67% of the primary vote in West Virginia when 30.1% of all registered voters in the state voted in the Democratic primary. In Pennsylvania, Clinton received 55% of the vote when 27.7% of all registered voters in the state voted in the Democratic primary. In Ohio, Clinton received 54% of the primary vote when 30.5% of all registered voters in the state voted in the primary.

    There are exceptions (such as Arkansas, Tennessee, and Rhode Island), but Clinton, and not Obama, tends to win in the states where turnouts are higher. The relationship is strong enough that Democratic primary turnout can be predicted using Clinton’s share of the vote.”

    This really should put the DNC on its heels! Forget those pictures of the huge ralleys, they don’t translate into votes. Lets hope we see a huge turnout in Oregon and KY and PR. This was a really huge eye opener!

    FROM AMERICAN RESEARCH GROUP

  5. I am ready for the election results too. I am looking forward to hearing Senator Clinton victory speech!

  6. No NBC for me for the rest of the election cycle. None, zip, nada.

    Admin — Fantastic.

    Cindy McCain has been attacked for being wealthy, for being a former drug addict, for being called a “c*nt” by the Mac Daddy.

    You know what’s unbelievably pathetic?

    It’s more “acceptable” in the MSM to talk about Cindy’s drug past than Obama’s.

    Think about that. That’s how absolutely freaking pathetic this entire charade has become.

    Michelle is going to get crushed, and rightfully so. She is a race-baiting, Hillary-doesn’t-have-her-own-house-under-control saying, ungrateful, America-hating, Wright-loving POS. She is a disgrace. IMAGINE the world-wide embarrassment of having her as First Lady. Shiiiiiiiiiii…

    Give us something here!” cousin Dick, because Lord knows $4 million isn’t enough.

    Remember all the glee with the shots of HRC looking ‘old,’ and the coffee machine, etc.?

    Anyone taken a good look at Michelle’s ass lately?

    It’s pretty tough to miss. Just sayin.’

    You dished it out, chick, and now you’re going to have to take it if Bambi wins the nomination. You AND the husband you outweigh.

    Aw, the poor Obambis don’t like that? They’re afraid Mish went all “whitey,” maybe?

    Tough sh*t. Better get the flak jackets ready, because you are going to be one of the prime targets and a HUGE liability for hubby.

    Just as you should be.

    *

    (Repost from last thread):

    Ted Kennedy has done a lot of admirable things, and that makes it doubly hard to watch him go out on the double ‘down’ notes of backing a loser and scheming and becoming falsely outraged over MLK/LBJ (that is, no JFK) in order to achieve his true aim: Stopping the Clintons from overshadowing the Clintons.

    It is very hard to watch him go out this way. Someone mentioned that the tumor may have affected his judgment.

    I have no idea if that is true, but if it were true it might help to explain some of his more recent, irrational decisions and statements.

    Who knew that when BaJoke tried to take shots at McCain for ‘losing his bearings,’ the reality could well have been much ‘closer to home’ for Obama and his inner circle of surrogates?

    Good luck to the Kennedys and Ted.

    Paul F. Villarreal
    VillarrealSports.com

  7. Over on TM, from a poster:

    Claire McCaskill on MSNBC saying the Obama campaign WILL celebrate tonight! Says long protracted campaign made it hard for Obama to campaign “everywhere” – like Kentucky or West Virginia. (whine, whine, whine – “hillary’s making me work sooooooo hard”) Such a sellout!

  8. I read that Obama is in Iowa and planning on making a speech tonight, I thought he had changed his mind about an acceptance speech? Why Iowa?

  9. Universal, that’s a very good point about Cindy McCain’s drug use and BO’s. Cindy, Bill C, and Bush’s alcoholism are all fair game, but dare mention BO’s, you’re a racist. But everyone knows that when you talk about BO and drugs, you’re calling all AA drug addicts.

  10. Yeah, Claire, it made it hard to campaign everywhere since he is a little fraidy cat. He is too scared to campaign in Appalachia, he also thinks he is above those people!

  11. i am ready for the returns also. the oregon results are going to be slow coming though. and no exits polls so no projected winner there for hours.

  12. Birdgal — Excellent.

    A leopard cannot change its spots.

    Bambi was an arrogant pr*ck from the word “go.” No matter how much he and his Cult try to hide that reality, another “Bittergate,” “sweetie” or Oregon party is right around the corner to bring that asshatishness right back to everyone’s attention.

    Perfect.

    🙂

    Paul F. Villarreal
    VillarrealSports.com

  13. confloyd, several theories:

    Look to the next Primary states: Montana and South Dakota – 2 lily white states. IA will remind the voters that Obama won with the majority of whites.

    Another possibility may be an endorsement. Any IA SD left?

  14. Left out the third:

    Coming full circle. IA gave BO his first victory. He’s returning there for his “victory” run.

  15. filbertsf, you may be right, but I think a lot of whites all over the country are now questioning his nomination because of his background/friends!

  16. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqU8407iof8&eurl=http://feministing.com/archives/008162.html

    Now, there was a time
    when they used to say
    that behind ev’ry great man,
    there had to be a great woman.
    But oh, in these times of change,
    you know that it’s no longer true.
    So we’re comin’ out of the kitchen,
    ’cause there’s something we forgot to say to you.
    We say, Sisters are doin’ it for themselves,
    standin’ on their own two feet
    and ringin’ on their own bells.
    We say, Sisters are doin’ it
    for themselves.
    Now, this is a song to celebrate
    the conscious liberation of the female state.
    Mothers, daughters,
    and their daughters too, woh yeah,
    woman to woman,
    we’re singing with you, ooh, ooh.
    The “inferior sex” has got a new exterior.
    We got doctors, lawyers, politicians too,
    ooh ooh ooh, ooh.
    Ev’rybody, take a look around.
    Can you see, can you see, can you see,
    there’s a woman right next to youou.
    We say, Sisters are doin’ it for themselves,
    standin’ on their own two feet
    and ringin’ on their own bells.
    Sisters are doin’ it
    for themselves.
    Now we ain’t makin’ stories,
    and we ain’t layin’ plans.
    Don’t you know that a man still loves a woman,
    and a woman still loves a man
    just the same, though.
    Ooh ooh ooh
    ooh ooh ooh ooh.
    Sisters are doin’ it
    for themselves.
    There was a time,
    oh, when they used to say
    that behind ev’ry great man,
    there had to be a great woman.
    In these times of change,
    you know that it’s no longer true.
    So we’re comin’ out of the kitchen,
    ’cause there’s something we forgot to say to you.
    We say, Sisters are doin’ it for themselves,
    standin’ on their own two feet
    and ringin’ on their own bells.
    Sisters are doin’ it
    for themselves.
    Sisters are doin’ it
    for themselvesselves.
    Sisters are doin’ it, doin’ it,
    doin’ it, doin’ it, doin’ it, doin’ it…
    Sisters are doin’ it for themselves,
    uhhuh, uhhuh, yeah.
    Sisters are doin’ it for themselves,
    uhhuh, uhhuh, uhhuh, yeah.
    Sisters are doin’ it
    for themselves.
    I say, yeah, yeah,
    Sisters are doin’ it for themselves,
    standin’ on their…
    Sisters are doin’ it
    for themselves.

  17. Confloyd:

    Yep, Iowa was pre-Wright.

    Amazing what some “US of KKK A” can do to one’s standing with patriotic voters, huh?

  18. FROM THE END OF THE PREVIOUS THREAD, REPEATED HERE…

    # 1950democrat Says:
    May 20th, 2008 at 12:32 pm

    See my page with quotes from Brazile, Dean, Pelosi and SDs about what criterion the remaining SDs should use. This takes quotes from different periods in the race.

    http://www.ironmyvote.com/superdelegates-follow.htm
    &&&&&&

    1950, extremely useful. Nice work.

    I like this little Pelosi-ism (kind of like a Yogi Berra-ism, in that it tinkers with logic, but unlike yogi-isms in that Nancy’s don’t make you smile, and they are not illuminating):

    “Pelosi has said superdelegates should take into account whatever is important but not give the nomination to the candidate who lags in delegates.”
    In other words, whatever else you SDs would want to take into account, there is only ONE overriding criteria: delegates.

    And on that count, Pelosi is vague. “Committed” delegates are the results of primaries and caucuses. “Pledged” delegates adds SD pledges into the mix. On top of that, SDs can change to whom they are pledged. So Ms. Pelosi, perhaps you’d like to clarify what the heck you mean.

    Earlier, when Obama was behind on SDs, They (Obama & Cabal, MSM, and the DNC) were adamant that SDs keep their nose out of the mix. “We don’t think it’s right that SDs should override the will of the people”.

    I am curious to go back to Jan, Feb, etc, to CNN and NYTimes coverage of what made up the “delegate race”, to see if/when they started mixing in the SDs into the mix as part of the “pledged” dels. I recall that in Feb., when Obama was racking up wins after SuperTuesday, they would very carefully contrast his 150-ish delegate lead, against Hillary’s Establishment SD lead, as if commingling the two would give her some unfair advantage.

    It would be nice to catch MSM changing how they report “the game”.

    But now, with him coming up short, suddenly, it’s “pledged delegates”, and blurring the distinction that SDs (who don’t even have a real say until the convention, because supposedly they are only needed if no nominee wins the nomination with COMMITTED delegates) are part of the mix now, now that it helps Obama.

  19. Filbertsf/universal: It will be very easy to ship thousands in from Chicago at a much lower price!:)
    That might be an angle too!

  20. of course he’ll bus in all his paid mourners to make the crowd look huge.

    what a fraud being hoisted upon the American people .. shame that some are buying it .. but you know the old saying, some people are just stupid.

  21. rgb44hrc:

    One of the things we will do in the months to come if Obama is coronated by the elites is dig up ALL relevant quotes and goalpost-changing by Bambi and the Bambettes.

    Much of it has occurred, a lot around the popular vote as the final arbiter.

    It will be a turkey shoot.

    Paul F. Villarreal
    VillarrealSports.com

  22. Confloyd: Remember the count the votes letter, it came from a delegation in MA. There has been a group of women in MA, that have been very supportive of Hillary, and have received quite a bit of pressure from Kennedy, Kerry, and their wives, to support BO.

  23. birgal, I have noticed most of the SD’s that are coming now to Hillary are women. I think most women feel we have been pist upon!

  24. Confloyd:

    “Filbertsf/universal: It will be very easy to ship thousands in from Chicago at a much lower price!:)
    That might be an angle too!”

    Great point. This is exactly what is going to happen. Just like the caucus itself.

    Again, people like Bryzenski have been doing this kind of thing for decades, and on a global scale. As devious as Deval Patrick’s Daddy Axelrod is, he has nothing on Trilateral Commission, One World Governmentist Bryzenski or that ilk. These people are propagandists of the highest order.

    Paul F. Villarreal
    VillarrealSports.com

  25. henry, I got one.

    BTW, I’m a Flyers fan but wish the Pens luck against the Red Wings in the Cup finals. 🙂

  26. everyone here please contact WV Governor Joe Manchin. He stated publicly on several occasions that he would endorse the winner of his state primary. It’s been a week now and he should step up.

    1.888.438.2731

    Be polite but firm. He needs to do the right thing by his people.

  27. confloyd Says:

    May 20th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
    birgal, I have noticed most of the SD’s that are coming now to Hillary are women. I think most women feel we have been pist upon!

    Well, we have been taken for granted, deinigrated, and verbally abused. That group in MA, knows the score and they are not taking it.

  28. NEW SUPERDELEGATE FOR CLINTON

    –Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley.

    Massachusetts Attorney General and Automatic Delegate Martha Coakley Endorses Hillary

    Massachusetts Attorney General and automatic delegate Martha Coakley announced her support for Hillary Clinton today. The Massachusetts State Democratic Committee elected her one of its automatic delegates to the Democratic National Convention on May 10.

    Attorney General Coakley’s statement follows below:

    “I am determined to see a successful Democratic campaign for President in November. I believe that the Democratic primary has demonstrated to the American people that there are two able and hard working candidates, either of whom can win the presidency. Either will be a huge improvement for America over what the Republicans have offered for the last eight years and what they offer now for the next four. I will support whoever is the nominee of the party.

    “However, as one of two unpledged delegates elected by the Massachusetts State Committee, I have determined to cast my vote for Hillary Clinton. Running for office under any circumstances is arduous and stressful; it is at times exhilarating and at times exhausting. It tests the issues, the families and supporters, and the very core of the candidate. Running for President of the United States is all of that many times over.

    “Regardless of the outcome of the primary, Mrs. Clinton’s energy, stamina, and resolve have changed the course of history for women seeking office, including the presidency, and I dare say, have changed the course of history of Presidential politics in the United States. It is for these reasons that I will vote for Hillary Clinton in August at the Nominating Convention.”

  29. I am very sensitive to womens rights because of my age and of coarse I work for MCP! I’ve had my vacation cancelled to make sure one of the men could get his. I wanted to be there for my daughter to have her baby, I was but had to work two double shifts when I got back to pay everyone back. Now, he complaining about my vacation in August to go to Denver! 🙁

  30. Hmm, when BO thought they had the popular vote, they were all screaming that the popular vote was what mattered. Now that Hill has the popular vote, the Obama campaign is screaming that it is the ‘pledged delegates’ that matter. Hey, whatever helps Bambi, right?

  31. from TM:

    “pyw…

    I livein the Pacific Northwest and it’s all over the newsbreaks. SAying a huge turn out in Oregon. I also have friends in both Portland and the rural areas. None of them turned in their ballots until today.”

  32. Emmy, I have noticed that too. Whatever makes the case for the fraud! Do they really think we all that stupid and would not notice it?

  33. Paula
    Flyers fans are in a league of thier own. I went to college in Philly and went to a few games. Wow. The word passionnate doesn’t even come close.
    Did your survey include a letter from Hill? Why not one from Bambi?

  34. # JAS Says:
    May 20th, 2008 at 2:26 pm

    Would it be in the best intrest of Hillary to susped (if the math is not in her favor) her campagine rather than quit. Because if something comes out about Obama between now and the convention she could restart her campaign.
    &&&&&&

    I think “suspending” one’s campaign is something you do if you are in Huckabee’s or Edwards’ position. I think Hillary should just say now that she has already earned herself the right to stand before the convention. Putting her campaign into a “limbo” state would be admitting defeat, and would only leave open the hope for some drastic scandal to tear down Obama. But the DNC and MSM would try to defend him, circling the wagons.

    After June 3rd, Obama is not going to “suspend” his campaign, he’s going to shift his focus to a) McCain, b) trying to ensure that he’ll win a floor fight against Hillary, who he KNOWS is going to show up ready for a rumble.

    After June 3rd, Hillary should not suspend her campaign either, she should shift her focus to
    a) McCain
    b) trying to ensure that the DNC doesn’t throw the game for Obama
    c) work on SDs to change their minds (based on popular vote, election fraud, caucus misrepresentation of committed delegates, electability, large state/swing state math)
    d) work on seating FL / MI, and if they are not seated, work out the math showing how she (and her 17million – plus voter base) are being unfairly deprived of due process within DNC rules
    e) opening the DNC rule book and reading chapter and verse about what are the “Rules are the Rules”.
    f) please add more to this ToDo list, oh Worthy Ones.

  35. birdgal, thanks for the SD post. I think you read my mind. I was going to post about whether HRC got any new SDs this week. I didn’t post b/c I was afraid someone would reply, “ever heard of google?”

  36. Two things about tonight:

    1. KY exit polling is crucial. If BHO continues to show damage having been done with working class whites, the superdelegates and both parties will be all over this. The KY exit polling is far more relevant than any OR exit polling because of the similarities in the KY electorate and the electorates in crucial swing states such as PA, OH, MI etc. OR is not a swing state, and its electorate is non-reflective of the above-mentioned battlefield states as KY is.

    2. Is Bambi really going to be partying on a night when top surrogate Ted Kennedy announced he has a malignant tumor? Isn’t that kind of disrespectful and somewhat macabre? Wouldn’t some somberness and respect work a bit better, ESPECIALLY since Obama will have won nothing?

    Extremely poor taste, IMO.

    Two things to monitor tonight.

    Paul F. Villarreal
    VillarrealSports.com

  37. Has anyone noticed that it seems that the bots have infiltrated our candle site for HRC. Check it out and see if you agree!

  38. I’m glad BO decided to give his faux victory speech tonight. This will give HRC the opportunity to confront/mock him in her KY speech tonight.

  39. I guess elections/social history moments such as these bring out the best and the worst in people.

    I just want to say that I am glad that I am on the side of the “best.”

    You people rock! 🙂

  40. Kentucky Primary off to smooth start:

    usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-05-20-kentucky-primary_N.htm

  41. JanH
    15 generic questions
    how closely have you followed the race/how likelely are you to vote blah blah blah
    but my favorite #9
    “Thinking about our Party’s plan for the 2008 campaigns, which of the following strategies do you think is the key to electing more Democrats in November?”

    —- Investing in grassroots efforts like canvassing and get-out-the-vote drives

    —-Devoting more resources to radio and television ads that reach the most votes.

    —ENSURING A FAIR ELECTION PROCESS SO THAT EVERY VOTE COUNTS.

    —Deporting bambi and spouse to Kenya.

    —Democrats need to invest in all of the above strategies to win in November.

    Made up the 4th option, but oh were it so.

  42. Universal:

    2. Is Bambi really going to be partying on a night when top surrogate Ted Kennedy announced he has a malignant tumor? Isn’t that kind of disrespectful and somewhat macabre? Wouldn’t some somberness and respect work a bit better, ESPECIALLY since Obama will have won nothing?

    Extremely poor taste, IMO.

    Yes, I read on TM, that 4 blocks have been blocked off, for the celebration.

  43. LOL…Henry : —Deporting bambi and spouse to Kenya. 😉

    This one is definitely a red herring:

    —ENSURING A FAIR ELECTION PROCESS SO THAT EVERY VOTE COUNTS.

  44. birdgal,

    He’ll probably start with a moment of silent prayer and then boogy the night away. I wonder how many self-inaugurations this guy is going to give himself….false prophet that he is.

  45. Universal, you are famous or infamous:

    From a TM poster:

    Obama supporters are out in full force following Obama’s lead in blaming Muslim smears on the GOP:

    A quote,

    Obama is genius — blame this on the GOP when it was really the Hillary supporters – campaign workers/Taylor Marsh/Larry Johnson/Universal/etc who spread this crap. This will help pivot the enemy to the GOP candidate rather than Hillary and hopefully bring her supporters into the fold.

    Posted By: Sinbad | May 20, 2008 at 10:25 AM

    I have been here and have NEVER seen a SMEAR against Obama EVER.
    zenguy12 | 05.20.2008 – 3:23 pm | #

  46. Emmy:

    Correct. Whatever helps Bambi.

    The key thing to remember here — as TX and another state (can’t recall which at the moment — WA?) definitely showed — is that caucuses aren’t democratic and they do not reflect the will of the voters.

    What this means, simply, is that PD’s earned from caucuses are essentially irrelevant because they are not indicators of how the total electorate of a state feels.

    That is, Obama is not leading in any material metric:

    – Popular vote
    – Votes among reg’d Dems
    – Swing states won
    – Electoral map

    Regardless of what happens tonight, Obama is going to be hammered in Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico should go a long way to ensuring that Clinton wins the popular vote.

    What we are next going to hear is that Puerto Ricans — like working-class whites, Asians and seniors — don’t matter. Their votes shouldn’t be counted, like FL and MI.

    Crap.

    PR’s in, they are part of “the rules.” They count, and they are holding a real election — a primary — and not a sham caucus.

    Damn right PR counts!

    The Dem elite really looks like it is going to support this fraudulent, leading-in-no-democratic/just candidate.

    As Prez Bush correctly (ugh, hard to say) said recently, appeasement is not the solution to any problems.

    And this includes the appeasement of AA’s which the Dem elite is readying to execute.

    Bad, ugly stuff. The stuff of losers. Also-rans choosing their latest member.

    Paul F. Villarreal
    VillarrealSports.com

  47. I was just over at a Kentuchky Tv station and they also have roads blocked off in downtown Louisville for Senator Clinton. Bill and Chelsea will be there with her tonight! They are saying a huge turnout!

  48. confloyd Says:

    May 20th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
    birgal, I have noticed most of the SD’s that are coming now to Hillary are women. I think most women feel we have been pist upon!
    &&&&&&&

    And by extension of logic, most of Obama’s recent SD pledges have been from …ahem…”Penile Americans”.

    So it must be true, men think with the d$cks.

  49. I think I have an idea of what kind of President HRC will be.

    Prior to John Paul II, most Popes were sedentary. They didn’t travel the world to meet and greet worshippers. John Paul II changed all of that and he’s remembered for being the traveling Pope.

    Just from watching how HRC interacts with her supporters around the country and how she’s willing to fight for every vote, you can tell this woman will be criss-crossing the country.

    While BO may be able to woo supporters by just standing on a stage and reading his speeches, HRC actually goes into the crowd, embraces her supporters.

    BO is definitely the “manager holed up in his office,” whereas HRC will roam the office making sure everything the job is getting done and the people are happy.

  50. Universal Says:
    May 20th, 2008 at 3:35 pm

    Regardless of what happens tonight, Obama is going to be hammered in Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico should go a long way to ensuring that Clinton wins the popular vote.
    &&&&&

    What’s the word on the ground from Puerto Rico? Any rough estimates?

    I recall the head (“governor”? “territorial honcho”?) supposedly is an Obama supporter, but he had some scandal dragging him down, the the populace is not happy with his lead.

  51. confloyd Says:

    May 20th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
    Has anyone noticed that it seems that the bots have infiltrated our candle site for HRC. Check it out and see if you agree!

    I don’t see any difference. It is usually high when there is a primary election. Everyone goes there to light a candle. The primary with Indiana the candles were high

  52. So essentially, BO will be another Bush. He appears likeable to the common man, but once you’re up close and personal, you realize he thinks you’re beneath him and he freezes up.

  53. Bo will not let the “little people” get anywhere near him. He will have his “waffle moments,” his “sweetie moments,” and lots and lots of “I don’t really know anything about it but I will find out and get back to you” moments.

    Michelle will have her “let them eat cake” moments.

  54. PLEASE HELP HILLARY TODAY!

    IF ANYBODY CAN HELP MAKE CALLS…NOW IS THE TIME…SHE’S ASKING FOR OUR HELP AND REALLY NEEDS IT NOW. LAST MINUTE CALLS MUCH APPRECIATED AND MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

    PLEASE, HELP HILLARY NOW!

    tools.hillaryclinton.com/calling/

  55. dot48 and curiosity, your fame is ‘confirmed’?

    ‘doreena’ has posted again at noquarter:

    Comment by Doreena | 2008-05-19 23:37:17
    As it turns out, I got my final confirmation and contact information (yes, those are their handles, so they are at H44!), so I’m all set, thanks!

  56. Jan H — YOU are great! 🙂

    Birdgal —

    Hmm, I guess they’re talking about this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_N1rqVo2W0

    It’s not like anyone’s seen it or anything (viewed in over 100 countries so far).

    This is why I was kicked off MyDD & DK — They know that if I say I’m going to work to bring you down, that it is on like gladiators. This is just the beginning.

    None of the people who front-page on either one of those sites could last 5 minutes with me in a debate on this contest. All parties involved know that, and so they just tried to shut me up and hoped that I would fade into oblivion. Kos won’t even allow links to my site.

    Ha ha ha.

    We are HRC supporters. We are strong and the opponent is weak. We are not surrendering, not retreating, not budging. And when Bambi sends the FEC to my site next, they will find the same response:

    BZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTTTTT

    Bambi, the Clinton supporters are going to post you up and throw down on your sorry, race-baiting ass.

    We aren’t faking the funk on the nasty dunk, either.

    Paul F. Villarreal
    VillarrealSports.com

  57. in between of making calls to kentucky and oregon i am streaming hannity’s radio radio. the obamabots are really giving hannity a earful on the stop obama express. that said hannity is a hillary hater all the way but he is a joy to listen to against obama.

  58. Hey admin!!! Hillfans! Gosh, I haven’t been here in seems like forever, but just like always, I get a second wind when I come here!!! God Damn Michelle and God Damn Barack! I haven’t listened to Keith Overbite as Mark Levin calls him, in months and I don’t have any intention of listening to that bastard ever again. There needs to be a “regime change” in the MSM if you ask me. What can we do about that!!!?

  59. Doreena just confirmed that the ObamaBots are stupidier than SHIT.

    Doreena needs to learn to use google effectively.

    Doreena needs to learn that Dot48 is not even my real name .. I bet Doreena actually was stupid enough to make her handle her name.

    Doreena needs to learn some geography .. she and Bambi seem to think with the same brain.

  60. If anyone gets bored might I suggest setting up an email account under a silly name and posting on pro-bambi sites. I know it is very small of me but I get a delicious reward everytime I ghet an email. You fight fire with fire.

  61. FIineo Says:
    May 20th, 2008 at 11:01 am

    “P. Rico, Montana, and South Dakota”
    ——————

    Wow! that is really you. I am a big fan and you are a GENIUS with your videos. Thank you. Thank you.

    minor point of curiosilty: which is it — FIineo or Flineo?

  62. dot48
    I had a field day with reporters gone wild video. Must have rec’d 300 plus emails. laughed my ass off reading them.

  63. I have decided after watching Geraldine and Rachel on TM that Dear Rachel does not deserve to have ovaries. SHe is definiately in the column of “sisters that hate and are jealous of their sisters”. She is so totally in the pocket of Barack Hussein Obama!

  64. (IN A WORLD GONE MAD)…NOW I’M AGREEING WITH THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION???

    &&&&&&&
    http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/arts/AP-NBC-Bush.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Bush+letter+NBC&st=nyt&oref=login

    White House complains about edit of Bush interview

    By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
    Published: May 19, 2008
    10:53 p.m. ET

    NEW YORK (AP) — The White House called out NBC News on Monday for what Bush aides called ”deceitful” editing of an interview in which the president is asked whether comments about the president of Iran were directed at Barack Obama.

    Bush aides were angered by how the president’s answer was portrayed when correspondent Richard Engel questioned him about his address last week to the Israeli Knesset. NBC stood by its treatment of the interview Monday.

    Bush had mentioned the president of Iran in his speech, and said: ”Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along.”

    Obama’s campaign considered that statement an attack on him, which the White House has denied. Engel asked Bush if he was referring to Obama.

    As it appeared on ”Nightly News” Sunday and the ”Today” show Monday, Bush’s response was: ”You know, my policies haven’t changed, but evidently the political calendar has … And when, you know, a leader of Iran says that they want to destroy Israel, you’ve got to take those words seriously.”

    The White House said NBC edited the following passage from between those sentences: ”People need to read the speech. You didn’t get it exactly right, either. What I said was that we need to take the words of people seriously.”

    Bush counsel Ed Gillespie, in a letter to NBC News President Steve Capus, said that ”this deceitful editing to further a media-manufactured storyline is utterly misleading and irresponsible.” He asked that the network air Bush’s response in full on the two programs.

    NBC countered by saying the unedited interview has been available since Sunday on the network’s Web site, and that the reporting accurately reflects the interview. The extra sentences by Bush were included during a report on Sunday’s ”Today” show.

    ”Just as the White House does not participate in the editorial process at the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal or USA Today, NBC News, as part of a free press in a free society, makes its own editorial decisions,” NBC said in a statement.

    In NBC’s nightly newscast on Monday, anchor Brian Williams noted that the White House objected to how it presented the Bush interview. That didn’t satisfy Gillespie, who issued another statement moments later. ”It’s simply absurd for people to have to log onto the Internet and stream video to get accurate information from NBC News,” he said.

    The White House routinely pushes back against news stories it does not agree with. The one against NBC News stands out for its angry tone and its accusation that the news division deceptively and deceitfully edited the president’s words.

    Gillespie brought up some other grievances, too, including NBC News coverage of the Iraq war and the nation’s economic woes. The White House was not happy when NBC News decided to call the situation in Iraq a ”civil war” — and called attention to its decision.

    Gillespie said NBC News has quietly stopped referring to a civil war in Iraq. Capus said it was better to discuss the other issues ”in a more appropriate forum.”

    NBC News has angered Democrats this year, too. The Clinton campaign has been unhappy with Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann, along with NBC Washington bureau chief Tim Russert’s declaration after last week’s primaries that Obama was the Democratic nominee.

    Clinton is running a campaign ad in Oregon, where there is a primary on Tuesday, in which the announcer says, ”In Washington, they talk about who’s up and who’s down. In Oregon, we care about what’s right and what’s wrong.” Pictures are shown of Russert, Matthews and Olbermann, with the only non-NBC personality depicted was George Stephanopoulos of ABC News.

    AP writer Ben Feller contributed to this report.
    &&&&&&&

    I’m trying to see if I can get hold of the actual letter sent by the WH.

  65. confloyd
    i attempted to take the high road, but once i started I figured I was doing the world a favor by distracting the morons and it made me laugh.

  66. The White House is setting NBC up perfectly. The McCain campaign can now come right out and call them on biased coverage. Clinton Camp never fought back hard enough but they were not in the position to do so. Bush doesn’t have to worry and he can go after them while McCain stays out of it.

    They are setting this up perfectly. McCain is not going to be railroaded by the media

  67. politico.com posting Re: WH letter to NBC

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0508/White_House_to_NBC_Report_was_misleading_and_irresponsible__.html

    The above text follows for your convenience

    May 19, 2008
    Categories: White House

    White House to NBC: Report was ‘misleading and irresponsible’

    Ed Gillespie, special counselor to President Bush, sent a strongly-word e-mail today to NBC News President Steve Capus claiming that the network engaged in “deceitful editing” of the president’s interview with NBC correspondent Richard Engel.

    Gillespie requested that the network air complete versions of the president’s responses to two questions, which were broadcast on the “NBC Nightly News” and “Today.” That said, NBC already put up the entire interview online before Gillespie’s letter. (Here’s what was broadcast on the evening news).

    After the jump is the full letter, where Gillespie also takes the time to criticize NBC’s coverage of the Iraq War (using the term “civil war”) and the economy (by mentioning the word “recession”).

    Mr. Capus:

    This e-mail is to formally request that NBC Nightly News and The Today Show air for their viewers President Bush’s actual answer to correspondent Richard Engel’s question about Iran policy and “appeasement,” rather than the deceptively edited version of the President’s answer that was aired last night on the Nightly News and this morning on The Today Show.

    In the interview, Engel asked the President: “You said that negotiating with Iran is pointless, and then you went further. You said that it was appeasement. Were you referring to Senator Barack Obama?”

    The President responded: “You know, my policies haven’t changed, but evidently the political calendar has. People need to read the speech. You didn’t get it exactly right, either. What I said was is that we need to take the words of people seriously. And when, you know, a leader of Iran says that they want to destroy Israel, you’ve got to take those words seriously. And if you don’t take them seriously, then it harkens back to a day when we didn’t take other words seriously. It was fitting that I talked about not taking the words of Adolf Hitler seriously on the floor of the Knesset. But I also talked about the need to defend Israel, the need to not negotiate with the likes of al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas. And the need to make sure Iran doesn’t get a nuclear weapon.”

    This answer makes clear: (1). The President’s remarks before the Knesset were not different from past policy statements, but are now being looked at through a political prism, (2). Corrects the inaccurate premise of Engel’s question by putting the “appeasement” line in the proper context of taking the words of leaders seriously, not “negotiating with Iran,” (3). Restates the U.S.’s long-standing policy positions against negotiating with al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas, and not allowing Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon.

    Engel’s immediate follow-up question was, “Repeatedly you’ve talked about Iran and that you don’t want to see Iran develop a nuclear weapon. How far away do you think Iran is from developing a nuclear capability?”

    The President replied, “You know, Richard, I don’t want to speculate ? and there’s a lot of speculation. But one thing is for certain ? we need to prevent them from learning how to enrich uranium. And I have made it clear to the Iranians that there is a seat at the table for them if they would verifiably suspend their enrichment. And if not, we’ll continue to rally the world to isolate them.”

    This response reiterates another long-standing policy, which is that if Iran verifiably suspends its uranium enrichment program the U.S. government would engage in talks with the Iranian government.

    NBC’s selective editing of the President’s response is clearly intended to give viewers the impression that he agreed with Engel’s characterization of his remarks when he explicitly challenged it. Furthermore, it omitted the references to al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas and ignored the clarifying point in the President’s follow-up response that U.S. policy is to require Iran to suspend its nuclear enrichment program before coming to the table, not that “negotiating with Iran is pointless” and amounts to “appeasement.”

    This deceitful editing to further a media-manufactured storyline is utterly misleading and irresponsible and I hereby request in the interest of fairness and accuracy that the network air the President’s responses to both initial questions in full on the two programs that used the excerpts.

    As long as I am making this formal request, please allow me to take this opportunity to ask if your network has reconsidered its position that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war, especially in light of the fact that the unity government in Baghdad recently rooted out illegal, extremist groups in Basra and reclaimed the port there for the people of Iraq, among other significant signs of progress.

    On November 27, 2006, NBC News made a decision to no longer just cover the news in Iraq, but to make an analytical and editorial judgment that Iraq was in a civil war. As you know, both the United States government and the Government of Iraq disputed your account at that time. As Matt Lauer said that morning on The Today Show: “We should mention, we didn’t just wake up on a Monday morning and say, ‘Let’s call this a civil war.’ This took careful deliberation.'”

    I noticed that around September of 2007, your network quietly stopped referring to conditions in Iraq as a “civil war.” Is it still NBC News’s carefully deliberated opinion that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war? If not, will the network publicly declare that the civil war has ended, or that it was wrong to declare it in the first place?

    Lastly, when the Commerce Department on April 30 released the GDP numbers for the first quarter of 2007, Brian Williams reported it this way: “If you go by the government number, the figure that came out today stops just short of the official declaration of a recession.”

    The GDP estimate was a positive 0.6% for the first quarter. Slow growth, but growth nonetheless. This followed a slow but growing fourth quarter in 2007. Consequently, even if the first quarter GDP estimate had been negative, it still would not have signaled a recession ? neither by the unofficial rule-of-thumb of two consecutive quarters of negative growth, nor the more robust definition by the National Bureau of Economic Research (the group that officially marks the beginnings and ends of business cycles).

    Furthermore, never in our nation’s history have we characterized economic conditions as a “recession” with unemployment so low ? in fact, when this rate of unemployment was eventually reached in the 1990s, it was hailed as the sign of a strong economy. This rate of unemployment is lower than the average of the past three decades.

    Are there numbers besides the “government number” to go by? Is there reason to believe “the government number” is suspect? How does the release of positive economic growth for two consecutive quarters, albeit limited, stop “just short of the official declaration of a recession”?

    Mr. Capus, I’m sure you don’t want people to conclude that there is really no distinction between the “news” as reported on NBC and the “opinion” as reported on MSNBC, despite the increasing blurring of those lines. I welcome your response to this letter, and hope it is one that reassures your broadcast network’s viewers that blatantly partisan talk show hosts like Christopher Matthews and Keith Olbermann at MSNBC don’t hold editorial sway over the NBC network news division.

    Sincerely,
    Ed Gillespie
    Counselor to the President

    (This post was updated after a second version of the White House’s letter was made available, which corrected typos).

  68. politico.com posting includes full WH letter to NBC

    May 19, 2008
    Categories: White House

    White House to NBC: Report was ‘misleading and irresponsible’

    Ed Gillespie, special counselor to President Bush, sent a strongly-word e-mail today to NBC News President Steve Capus claiming that the network engaged in “deceitful editing” of the president’s interview with NBC correspondent Richard Engel.

    Gillespie requested that the network air complete versions of the president’s responses to two questions, which were broadcast on the “NBC Nightly News” and “Today.” That said, NBC already put up the entire interview online before Gillespie’s letter. (Here’s what was broadcast on the evening news).

    After the jump is the full letter, where Gillespie also takes the time to criticize NBC’s coverage of the Iraq War (using the term “civil war”) and the economy (by mentioning the word “recession”).

    Mr. Capus:

    This e-mail is to formally request that NBC Nightly News and The Today Show air for their viewers President Bush’s actual answer to correspondent Richard Engel’s question about Iran policy and “appeasement,” rather than the deceptively edited version of the President’s answer that was aired last night on the Nightly News and this morning on The Today Show.

    In the interview, Engel asked the President: “You said that negotiating with Iran is pointless, and then you went further. You said that it was appeasement. Were you referring to Senator Barack Obama?”

    The President responded: “You know, my policies haven’t changed, but evidently the political calendar has. People need to read the speech. You didn’t get it exactly right, either. What I said was is that we need to take the words of people seriously. And when, you know, a leader of Iran says that they want to destroy Israel, you’ve got to take those words seriously. And if you don’t take them seriously, then it harkens back to a day when we didn’t take other words seriously. It was fitting that I talked about not taking the words of Adolf Hitler seriously on the floor of the Knesset. But I also talked about the need to defend Israel, the need to not negotiate with the likes of al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas. And the need to make sure Iran doesn’t get a nuclear weapon.”

    This answer makes clear: (1). The President’s remarks before the Knesset were not different from past policy statements, but are now being looked at through a political prism, (2). Corrects the inaccurate premise of Engel’s question by putting the “appeasement” line in the proper context of taking the words of leaders seriously, not “negotiating with Iran,” (3). Restates the U.S.’s long-standing policy positions against negotiating with al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas, and not allowing Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon.

    Engel’s immediate follow-up question was, “Repeatedly you’ve talked about Iran and that you don’t want to see Iran develop a nuclear weapon. How far away do you think Iran is from developing a nuclear capability?”

    The President replied, “You know, Richard, I don’t want to speculate ? and there’s a lot of speculation. But one thing is for certain ? we need to prevent them from learning how to enrich uranium. And I have made it clear to the Iranians that there is a seat at the table for them if they would verifiably suspend their enrichment. And if not, we’ll continue to rally the world to isolate them.”

    This response reiterates another long-standing policy, which is that if Iran verifiably suspends its uranium enrichment program the U.S. government would engage in talks with the Iranian government.

    NBC’s selective editing of the President’s response is clearly intended to give viewers the impression that he agreed with Engel’s characterization of his remarks when he explicitly challenged it. Furthermore, it omitted the references to al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas and ignored the clarifying point in the President’s follow-up response that U.S. policy is to require Iran to suspend its nuclear enrichment program before coming to the table, not that “negotiating with Iran is pointless” and amounts to “appeasement.”

    This deceitful editing to further a media-manufactured storyline is utterly misleading and irresponsible and I hereby request in the interest of fairness and accuracy that the network air the President’s responses to both initial questions in full on the two programs that used the excerpts.

    As long as I am making this formal request, please allow me to take this opportunity to ask if your network has reconsidered its position that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war, especially in light of the fact that the unity government in Baghdad recently rooted out illegal, extremist groups in Basra and reclaimed the port there for the people of Iraq, among other significant signs of progress.

    On November 27, 2006, NBC News made a decision to no longer just cover the news in Iraq, but to make an analytical and editorial judgment that Iraq was in a civil war. As you know, both the United States government and the Government of Iraq disputed your account at that time. As Matt Lauer said that morning on The Today Show: “We should mention, we didn’t just wake up on a Monday morning and say, ‘Let’s call this a civil war.’ This took careful deliberation.'”

    I noticed that around September of 2007, your network quietly stopped referring to conditions in Iraq as a “civil war.” Is it still NBC News’s carefully deliberated opinion that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war? If not, will the network publicly declare that the civil war has ended, or that it was wrong to declare it in the first place?

    Lastly, when the Commerce Department on April 30 released the GDP numbers for the first quarter of 2007, Brian Williams reported it this way: “If you go by the government number, the figure that came out today stops just short of the official declaration of a recession.”

    The GDP estimate was a positive 0.6% for the first quarter. Slow growth, but growth nonetheless. This followed a slow but growing fourth quarter in 2007. Consequently, even if the first quarter GDP estimate had been negative, it still would not have signaled a recession ? neither by the unofficial rule-of-thumb of two consecutive quarters of negative growth, nor the more robust definition by the National Bureau of Economic Research (the group that officially marks the beginnings and ends of business cycles).

    Furthermore, never in our nation’s history have we characterized economic conditions as a “recession” with unemployment so low ? in fact, when this rate of unemployment was eventually reached in the 1990s, it was hailed as the sign of a strong economy. This rate of unemployment is lower than the average of the past three decades.

    Are there numbers besides the “government number” to go by? Is there reason to believe “the government number” is suspect? How does the release of positive economic growth for two consecutive quarters, albeit limited, stop “just short of the official declaration of a recession”?

    Mr. Capus, I’m sure you don’t want people to conclude that there is really no distinction between the “news” as reported on NBC and the “opinion” as reported on MSNBC, despite the increasing blurring of those lines. I welcome your response to this letter, and hope it is one that reassures your broadcast network’s viewers that blatantly partisan talk show hosts like Christopher Matthews and Keith Olbermann at MSNBC don’t hold editorial sway over the NBC network news division.

    Sincerely,
    Ed Gillespie
    Counselor to the President

    (This post was updated after a second version of the White House’s letter was made available, which corrected typos).

  69. Only because I was looking for facts about Reagan in 1976 staying in did I wind up at daily-kaos, but someone there
    a) sees it proper to let Hillary decide to stay in, based on historical precedents.
    b) they admit the race is not 100% in the bag.
    c) And at the end, they call for Obamabots to be nice to “Clintonistas” (my quotes, not theirs), if Obama would have a chance.

    Again, this is taken from the Obama-infected dkos, so put on your rose-tinted glasses and your hip-waders.

    So, now for something completely different (from the usual kos chaos):

    &&&&&&&&&
    On Hillary Staying In
    by Wufacta
    Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:48:32 AM PDT

    First of all I was pleasantly surprised and very appreciative of the rapid jump on this site of many people willing to be gracious winners and try to rebuild bridges with Hillary supporters after the end of the race, and even to treat the Senator herself with respect, despite that most of you are strongly opposed to her. It is a credit to this site, and something to hold onto for when the nominee is actually decided.

    However, I think people here are jumping the gun. This race is not over. Oh, I know that Obama will almost certainly win on every concievable metric: pledged delegates, the popular vote, and even the popular vote including Florida and Hillary’s margin over uncommitted in Michigan. I know the chances of the superdelegates overturning that are slim. However, they are not nonexistent. If they were nonexistent, the superdelegates would have moved already, in private if not public.

    In short, the nomination battle is not finished.

    The AS LONG AS clause

    One common sentiment is that Hillary can stay in as long as she does not actually say bad things about Obama or anything that could be divisive. “Hillary can stay in AS LONG AS…”
    That is patronizing, because you can’t pursue two goals at once. It is like saying “You can have your day in court, as long as you don’t actually try to argue your case.” She can’t simultaneously help elect herself and help elect Obama (well she could, but she would be working at cross purposes). It is stupid, from her perspective, to have two goals. So Hillary might as well drop out if that were the case; it would help Obama more if she dropped out right now, and thus allowed the Obama campaign to begin focusing on the General Election right now, than if she stayed in and ran a window-dressing campaign. It helps neither her nor Obama for her to stay in the race “as long as”.

    Hillary is hurting the party by staying in, therefore she should drop out

    Again, the problem with this is that it is too charitable. The truth is, she has been hurting the party ever since Feb. 5, because the extension of the primary battle into February, then March, then April incrementally hurt the party. If Hillary’s first priority was Democratic victory, and that came before her own campaign, she would have dropped out on Feb. 6, and endorsed Obama. Conversely, if Obama’s first priority was Democratic victory, and that cam before his campaign, he would have dropped out on Feb. 6, as well. Obama has been hurting the party for the past 3 months by staying in. Even today, he could help the party by dropping out. Does that mean he should? No. It would be a stupid, batshit, crazy, insane thing to do. But he could. End this divisive primary now if he wanted. Just as Hillary could.

    Another interpretation is that her first priority is a Democratic victory, but she believes that since she is the only electable candidate, Democratic chances in November vanish with her concession. Hence, she is doing Democrats a favor by staying in. Either way, May 6 changed nothing. The divisive primary did not start hurting the party on May 6. It has been hurting the party since February.

    It is somehow unseemly or unusual for her to stay in the race while have such a small chance

    This is wrong. Ted Kennedy was behind by 750 delegates in 1980 yet he took his campaign all the way to the convention in Madison Square Garden, then tried to get Jimmy Carter’s pledged delegates released. He failed, but he tried, and today he remains a respected patriarch in the party (his biggest personal flaw remains the Martha Moxley manslaughter accusation; no one faults him for staying in the Presidential race until the convention in 1980; in fact, most credit it as the height of his career since he gave his best speech at that convention).
    As Wikipedia states:

    Carter was still able to maintain a substantial lead even after Kennedy swept the last batch of primaries in June. Despite this, Kennedy refused to drop out, and the 1980 Democratic National Convention was one of the nastiest on record.

    Then there is the Mondale/Hart analogy. In 1984, after the end of the Democratic primary Gary Hart had about 36 percent of the vote to Mondale’s 38 percent, trailing the popular vote by about 450,000. But Hart did not drop out until after Mondale had sewn up the mathemtical delegates he needed to clinch the nomination, including superdelegates:

    ABC: Did you question [the superdelegates’] role at that time?

    GH: They were all there according to party rules, so there was very little to question.

    I did speak to all 700 of them, my wife and I did, individually between the end of the primaries and the convention, and ask for their support. But many of them had pledged to Vice-President Mondale even before the primaries began and they felt that they were morally obligated to support him even though they felt I might be the stronger candidate

    Then you have the Reagan/Ford analogy. Perhaps the closest analogy. In the spring of 1976 Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford ran a spirited race for their party’s nomination, and:

    The 1976 Republican National Convention was held in Kansas City. As the convention began Ford was seen as having a slight lead in delegate votes, but still shy of the 1130 delegates he needed to win. Reagan and Ford both competed for the votes of individual delegates and state delegations. In a bid to woo moderate Northern Republicans, Reagan shocked the convention by announcing that if he won the nomination, Senator Richard Schweiker of Pennsylvania, a moderate, would be his running mate. The move backfired, however, as few moderates switched to Reagan, while many conservative delegates were outraged. The key state of Mississippi, which Reagan needed, narrowly voted to support Ford; it was believed that Reagan’s choice of Schweiker had led Clarke Reed, Mississippi’s Chairman, to switch to Ford. Ford then won the nomination, narrowly, on the first ballot.

    Reagan stayed to the convention and had a floor fight. This was the guy whose supposed golden rule was not to say anything bad about another Republican. It did nothing to hurt his chances in 1980. George H.W. Bush attacked his “voodoo economics”, not the fact that he hadn’t dropped out early in ’76.

    One can decry Hillary’s decision to stay in the race, but the MSM and the Obama supporters should recognize that it is perfectly normal. For those calling for her to drop out:
    Did Ted Kennedy drop out prematurely in 1980?
    Did Gary Hart drop out prematurely in 1984?
    Did Ronald Reagan drop out prematurely in 1976?

    The answers are no, no, and no. None of these candidates eventually won their nomination, but they all not only stayed in, but tried to win. No one has ever stayed in while not trying to win. Find me one example in modern history where a candidate who has come so close to the nomination dropped out before the other candidate had absolutely clinched a mathematical victory. None. Obama has not clinched a mathematical victory. The race goes on, and while it goes on Obama and Clinton are going to campaign.

    Finally, this is an explanation, not an endorsement. What do I want her to do? I want her to drop out. However, that is not my decision to make. And I recognize she is only making the same decision that every other candidate in her position has made.

    * Does this mean I think it is useless for Obama supporters to act like gracious winners at this point? No; the reason is that while Hillary herself goes on many of her supporters may at some point or another, due to her long odds, fall by the wayside. These people, IMO, ought to be treated with respect. Thank you ahead of time.

    ** One day one of the two nominees will drop out. If it is Hillary, I would appreciate it very, very, very much if Obama supporters would take stock of their feelings and, afterwards, be as gracious as you can possibly muster toward Hillary and her supporters who are willing to support Obama, if only to help Obama. Such a day has not yet come.

  70. I watched MSNBC earlier in the day becase I did not know about the boycott. Hillary was again compared to Glenn Close in Fatal attraction by Barbara Comstock . Mika pretended as though she did not approve. I feel they are green lighting their guests to say really nasty things about her. I wish there is some way to sue these bastards.

  71. OMG, I am really depending on the republicans to get Obama out if Hillary is not the nominee. We as Americans can’t let this man anywhere near the WhiteHOuse!

  72. struggling with how to word fuck you to the dnc in response to a survey I rec’d today. the last question is what would you suggest. Thought about just writing down all of bambi’s flaws, but as i will return the survey I would love some input. Interesting that the survey seems to have been sent to PA voters

  73. Universal asked about the word from Puerto Rico. Well, FINALLY, it looks like the HRC campaign is getting off the ground (money issues, no doubt). I was told I could go by campaign HQ to pick up stuff. Obama’s flyers are all over campus and they are trying to appeal to PR nationalists (most of the students). The meeting the Obama reps had with students was a real bomb — no one was interested in volunteering, but that was a few weeks ago.

    I don;t know what kind of a turn out there will be here, as Puerto Ricans have never been involved with U.S. politics much, since we can;t vote for president. I plan to get involved as much as possible.

  74. Henry – IMO, the DNC is just doing advance work for Bambi – using party money before we have a nominee. Your decision whether or not to help them – 🙂

  75. How much can General Electric take?? NBCU is causing them bad press and possible govenment contracts. I beleive that after the Olympics, NBCU will be placed on the auction block.

    Stay away from all GE products, this includes: Lowes, JCPenny’s,GAP, Mens Warehouse, Brooks Brothers private credit cards, do not charge on these accounts!

  76. By the way Hillfriends, IMHO, people who refer to other people as “low-class” have no class.

  77. There used to be election fraud back in the ’40s, a long time ago. I would say it has not been a problem. Sure, there have been accusations, but it is not a big problem. Each precinct has representatives from all parties, and they all count the votes together. We don;t have voting machines, just paper ballots. You have to have a voter;s card with your picture, and it gets punched. there are all kinds of cross-checks to make sure people don’t vote twice. I would be SO happy if Puerto Rico put Hillary far in the lead with the popular vote! No doubt the Obama camp would say we shouldn;t count.

  78. Sorry, now I’m just being silly – just wanted to check in before I leave work – going home to watch Hillary win Kentucky. On Fox. Go, Hillary!

  79. Henry, I just meant if we fail which is really not likely. I think Hillary will take it to the floor and win and that in of itself will be another history making process!

  80. electionresults.ky.gov/KyElectWeb/kes?AC=3&RF=0&AR=0&R=A01000000&L=1999&N=U.S.+PRESIDENT&RV=1040438&DV=1629845&TP=3545&TC=120

    so far:

    Hillary 75%
    Obama 19%

  81. can someone please define low class for me. I have worked high end parties and seen the children of the affluent behave monstrously, yet today i took my grand neice to breakfest at Mcdonals i am 40 and i assume that the porter thought i was the father as he went out to the parking lot to thank me for having my little one clean up after herself. Poor she maybe but with a little help from the “Village” she will know wealth.

  82. Leave it to Obama, calling us racists,bitter and now we are low class! He knows how to make people like him and get votes in the general election!

  83. polls close at 7? in kY
    what time do they close in OR. is it a six hour difference? I am on east coast

  84. parts of the Kentucky polls closes at 6 pm and the other at 7 pm

    they close at 8 pm but results should be in at 11 pm est

  85. I made real mint julips that i will crack open at 7. unfortunately i will imbibe alone as i am i a new yorker misplanted in pittsburgh and everyone i have befriended is a bambi supporter. They think he is cool. EGADS. never used the word egads before.

  86. I have heard of exit polls of young people in Kentucky going for BO, has anyone heard this?

  87. my mom has taken over my computer 🙁 and my tv!!! she’s leaning obama but i am trouncing her with truth!
    i will change her before the primary 😀 I am making her read ALL OF THE PRINGLE ARTICLES 😀

    i have been gone today looking at farms in South dakota (we’re moving mid summer) and just got home, trying to catch up
    but…..i want to respond to birdgal first with this:

    birdgal Says:
    May 20th, 2008 at 12:42 pm

    Those who will not vote for Obama.

    please add

    djia, her husband, son and her best friend and her husband(from S.D.) and i am working on my mom (From MN ):D

  88. hillfans, i was on the naral.org’s blog and WOW! hillary’s supporters are out in force blasting their endoresent of obama. i posted a comment on the blog.

  89. 41 year old gay man who will vote McCain if need be
    I have four bothers two sisters and all will vote McCain if need be. And I will bust my ass to get everyone I championed for hill to do the same.

  90. 52 to 44 but its Louisvilles votes coming first, Obama’s lot and she’s equal there.

  91. Birdgal,

    Add me to your nobama list!

    Louisville numbers just came in and KY is something like 52 -48 HRC but that should increase significantly as the other counties report.

    Henry, i can’t drink (yet) but have a mint julep or 2 for me. 😀

  92. so some votes are coming in and it looks closer, but this is louisville. Are their lots of AA’s there?

  93. basil9
    one does not make a single mint julip. hell i probably will have no memory of whatever happens as i plan on consuming the whole bit. took three days and alot of booze, but my first sip as i all alone toast our girl I will make it for you. 15 minutes and counting

  94. may i suggest to anyone joining the nbc/ge blackout that you use your parental controls on your remote. block out nbc/msnbc/usa/bravo and they will hear that.

  95. Low class is MO making a tacky statement in a roomful of peoplle – referring to HRC – “how can she take care of THAT house when she can’t even take care of her own”………and wears her skirts so tight that they “Cup” her butt. LOW CLASS………………………….

  96. don’t worry hillfans. jefferson county is the best obama is gonna do there. the rest of the state is going to be like 70-30 in hillary’s favor.

  97. He’s winning Lexington and Louiville but FOX Exit Poll says Hillary won all core groups of Obama in Kentucky!

  98. fantastic, it is so damn busy in the er and it is like that on every freaking election night. These people just don’t get the importance of this election. I would not be saying this if the people were actually sick, there not, they are whinning!

  99. Dana Milbank of the Washington Post STILL doesn’t get it. Today, he wrote:

    “At this point, doubt may be creeping back into your head. Doesn’t Obama’s money lead reflect his broader support?”

    Dana, in a word: NO. VOTES win elections, not DONATION$. This is America, where the White House isn’t for sale. Sure, Obama’s throngs of rich voters can out-raise Hillary (who still has raised quite a bit of money — 2nd most ever), but she LEADS where it really matters: VOTES. VOTES are what indicate broad support. Milbank, once again, has proved Bill Clinton’s point: that biased media coverage and poor journalism has put Hillary at a big disadvantage.

  100. CLINTON BLASTS DISENFRANCHISEMENT OF FLORIDA DEMS

    (from WaPo:)

    By Perry Bacon Jr.
    BOCA RATON, Fla. — Invoking the controversial dispute over electoral results in Florida in 2000, Hillary Clinton is campaigning in areas where Democrats felt their votes were not counted fairly then and demanding that this year’s results of primaries both in the Sunshine State and Michigan be counted, even though they violated Democratic party rules.

    “We believe the popular vote is the truest expression of your will. We believe it today just as we believed it back in 2000 when, right here in Florida, you learned the hard way what happens when your votes aren’t counted and a candidate with fewer votes is declared the winner,” Clinton told a crowd at retirement home in Boca Raton. “The lesson of 2000 here in Florida is crystal clear: if any votes aren’t counted, the will of the people isn’t realized and our democracy is diminished.”

    While counting the votes in Florida and Michigan, both states where Clinton won the popular vote, would help her candidacy, Clinton cast her cause in historical and moral terms in a speech that quoted the Declaration of Independence, described the struggle of blacks and women to earn voting rights and invoked the legacies of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman. And her staging was even more clear, starting off talking to a group of seniors in Palm Beach County, the place known for the so-called dimpled chads and a confusing ballot that resulted in some Democrats voting for Pat Buchanan rather than Al Gore.

    “I believe the Democratic Party must count these votes…. count them exactly as they were cast,” she said. “I am here today because I believe the decision our party faces is not just about the fate of these votes and outcome of these primaries, it’s about about whether we will uphold our most fundamental values as Democrats and Americans…. I believe that both Senator Obama and myself have an obligation as potential Democratic nominees, in fact we all have an obligation as Democrats to carry on this legacy to ensure in our nominating process every voice is heard and every vote is counted. This is a core mission of the modern Democratic Party.”

    Her tone was a departure from the fiery populist rhetoric of recent days, in which she has cast herself as an underdog. Instead, in a soft, almost pleading voice, she said she believed that “whether you voted for me or Senator Obama or Senator Edwards, each vote is a prayer for our nation.”

    The crowd of several hundred loudly applauded, as her supporters do all over the country when she takes up the issue of counting the Michigan and Florida delegations, which has become a central plank in her longshot campaign to overtake Barack Obama. Clinton wants to count votes in Michigan and Florida, which could allow here to overtake Obama in the popular. If she won the popular vote, her aides said, along with maintaining her strong poll numbers in states like Florida against Sen. John McCain, it would strengthen her argument to Democratic superdelegates to chose her over Obama, who has won the battle over delegates selected through Democratic primaries and caucuses.

Comments are closed.