Hillary Votes NO On FISA

We’ll have a lot more on Obama’s YES to FISA vote tomorrow.

This is what Obama said during the primaries about how he would vote on FISA:

It’s official: Obama will back a filibuster of any Senate FISA legislation containing telecom immunity, his campaign has just told Election Central. The Obama campaign has just sent over the following statement from spokesman Bill Burton:

To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.”

At the time there was a lot of pressure for Obama to clarify his position.

Now we have Obama’s answer: He’ll support a filibuster of any such bill.

Today, Obama proved once again he cannot be trusted. Obama voted FOR FISA.

Hillary Clinton voted AGAINST FISA.

Obama supporters do not care about the issues. If Obama supporters cared about the issues they would vote for Hillary.

Hillary is our nominee, it is time for superdelegates to make Hillary the Democratic Party nominee.

CNN said it well, “Obama voted with Bush.”

We say it better:

Obama simply cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his enemies. Obama cannot be trusted.

Share

193 thoughts on “Hillary Votes NO On FISA

  1. I personally don’t care about this FISA fight. But bambi is just such a fraud. He puts Kerry’s flip flop into shame.

    Dangerous, dangerous creature.

  2. (From last thread, repeated here)

    The my.barackobama.com group has their own web site:

    getfisaright.com

    and this response to Obama:

    getfisaright.com/response_to_barack_obama_fisa_statement

    For your convenience:

    Response to Senator Obama’s July 3rd Statement
    Published at 6PM EDT on July 6.

    Dear Senator Obama,

    Thank you for taking the time to respond to us with your post “My Position On FISA” dated July 3rd, 2008. In your response, you pledged to “listen to [our] concerns, take them seriously, and seek to earn [our] ongoing support,” and in that spirit, we would like to continue this conversation. We ask that you help transfer our passion and political activism into getting the FISA bill right — now.

    Senator, as a legal scholar who has done extensive study of our country’s constitution, you know that the FISA re-authorization bill currently before the Senate (HR 6304) threatens the rights guaranteed to American citizens in the Constitution, especially the Fourth Amendment.

    One of the most troubling parts of this bill is its provision to provide retroactive immunity from civil lawsuits for telecommunications companies that may have assisted the Bush administration in violating the civil rights of Americans. You wrote in your statement that you “support striking Title II,” which provides this immunity, “from the bill, and will work with Chris Dodd, Jeff Bingaman and others in an effort to remove this provision in the Senate.”

    We ask that you back up your words with action by addressing your constituents on the floor of the Senate with the same oratorical power you used in Philadelphia to lay out your vision of a ‘More Perfect Union.’ The American people have just as much right to know of the dangerous precedent this Congress would be setting by granting retroactive immunity to those who “may have violated the law” and allowing spying on law-abiding citizens as we did to relearn of segregation and Jim Crow. The arm of government oppression reaches far and wide, Senator, and we must beat it back on whatever front we find it.

    We ask you to reconsider your current position on the bill as a whole and strongly oppose a bill about which you said, “I know that the FISA bill that passed the House is far from perfect. I wouldn’t have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush’s abuse of executive power.” In your statement you also wrote, “In a dangerous world, government must have the authority to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people. But in a free society, that authority cannot be unlimited.” We agree. Our nation just spent the holiday weekend in celebration of our independence from unlimited government authority. America in 1776 wished to be strong and free. Much has changed in 232 years but Americans will never consciously abandon freedom.

    Senator, while you wrote that not passing this bill would result in the government “losing important surveillance tools,” these important surveillance tools are in fact blanket surveillance programs already underway solely due to the passage of the Protect America Act, which you rightly opposed and voted against. This is only one example of how, even without the provisions for retroactive immunity, this bill is still dangerous to the civil liberties of American citizens.

    As we understand it Senator, your oath to uphold the Constitution requires you and others in the Congress to vote against HR 6304.

    We appreciate your willingness to continue the discussion. We represent a large and vocal part of the movement you have nurtured and that has nurtured you during this campaign season, and include many of your most active and ardent supporters. As you have said time and again Senator, “we are the ones we have been waiting for,” and we are here, working to bring about real change in Washington. We have grown to over 20,000 strong in the space of just a few days. We are lobbying our representatives, and working to get our friends, relatives and neighbors to do the same. We are organizing support for removing the immunity provisions for telecommunications companies and building opposition to this dangerous bill in its entirety.

    Working together, we have a better chance to assist Senators Dodd and Bingaman, and can achieve what your commitment to us, your supporters, has been before your recent change in position. Together, we can protect our civil rights and continue to keep America safe. Please join us and let’s work together to Get FISA Right.

  3. Messiah barak Obama’s web traffic is plunging like mad in July. I’m wondering whether his constant flip flip has to do with it. Here’s the link to the traffic.

  4. kostner, I actually care about this.

    I was so mad at the Bush administration as they dragged us back to 1930’s Germany, and was extremely disappointed in the tepid response from Dems, especially after they won the House in 2006.

    Obama is willing to co-opt Bush’s positions so he can try to sway red state voters who won’t vote for him anyhow.

    At least (should Obama succeed in stealing the nomination) he has his November concession speech excuses ready: “There are certain ethnicities that won’t vote for other ethnicities”.

  5. rgb44hrc,

    I think Obama’s flip flop on this FISA vote has much more sinister motive than simply trying to sway red state voters.

    He might want to use this power authroized by FISA bill to spy on his political opponents after grabbing the white house.

  6. Does anybody know what’s this drudge breaking news ia all about???

    REV. JESSE JACKSON APOLOGIZES TO SEN. BARACK OBAMA FOR ‘CRUDE AND HURTFUL COMMENTS’ CAUGHT BY OPEN MIC… DEVELOPING…

  7. REV. JESSE JACKSON APOLOGIZES TO SEN. BARACK OBAMA FOR ‘CRUDE AND HURTFUL COMMENTS’ CAUGHT BY OPEN MIC… CNN DESCRIBES AS ‘UGLY WORDS,’ ‘VERY, VERY DISPARAGING’; JACKSON IN ‘DEEP DISTRESS’… DEVELOPING…

  8. birdgal,

    “Hmmm….. Wonder, if Schuster will accuse BHO of pimping out his daughters?”

    👿

    What really burns me are the comments where His Snottiness said the family got ‘carried away” coz it was his daughter’s birthday.
    Seems like he’s got a habit of getting ‘carried away;” the presidential seal rip-off, Mile-High Stadium, the Berlin Wall, proclaiming himself the nominee months before the end of the primaries, moving the DNC to Chicago.

  9. kennedy has returned to teh senate today to vote for the medicare bill. hillary is there. even freakin obama. mccain has for the 2nd time skipped on this critical medicare vote to prevent a 11 pct cut in what drs get thus causing medicare to be further weakened as drs leave it. im on medicare and very much support the dems move on this. but mccain he has foolishly skipped out again on this bill that will impact millions of folks who depend on medicare. the dems are going to run ads targeting thse who voted agaisnt this very good bill. they will also target mccain for skipping 2 times this vote, which cannot pass unless it get one more yea. shame on john mccain. see thehill.com for more on this…

  10. basil9,

    I posted the link but it caught by our stupid ‘pink site’ filter again, I guess. I hate to post link because of the delay.

  11. Final roll call on the FISA vote.

    firedoglake.com/2008/07/09/fisa-final-votes-on-the-fisa-amendments-act/

  12. Kostner,

    delete h t t p : / / and it should go through. If it still doesn’t it might have h t m l at the end and that has to be deleted, too.

  13. According to Jackson, a Fox News microphone picked up comments he meant to deliver privately that seemed to disparage the presumptive Democratic nominee for appearing to lecture the black community on morality.

    “For any harm or hurt that this hot mic private conversation may have caused, I apologize,” Jackson said in a statement issued to CNN. “My support for Senator Obama’s campaign is wide, deep and unequivocal. I cherish this redemptive and historical moment.”

    Wolf Blitzer just said they cannot even replay what he said on the air.

  14. JJ must be telling the truth. It always amuses me bambi has been successful in masquerading as somebody with deep tie to black community, the civil rights movement. The truth is this guy is a fraud. He was born and raised as a privileged elite. His life had zero connection with black community except skin color before moving to Chicago for his political adventure.

  15. *Here it is…..

    http://www.bucksright.com/hannity-jesse-jackson-slams-obama-on-tape-80

    Hannity: Jesse Jackson Slams Obama on Tape
    Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 4:17 pm

    Radio host Sean Hannity just revealed that FOX News is in possession of an exclusive tape of Reverend Jesse Jackson, recorded after an interview when he thought the microphone was off, slamming Barack Hussein Obama for “talking down black people on matters of faith” among other issues.

    Hannity also intimated that Jackson says he wants to “rip Obama’s nuts off” on the tape. Hannity would not say “nuts,” but based on his description (portion of the male anatomy beginning with an “n”) I believe that’s the word he was going for.

    Hannity says the tape will be played in its entirety on tonight’s Hannity and Colmes.

  16. *Rev. Jackson had expressed his doubts about Obama’s relationship with the black community earlier on, so this isn’t that big of a surprise…..

    http://www.bucksright.com/hannity-jesse-jackson-slams-obama-on-tape-80

    Hannity: Jesse Jackson Slams Obama on Tape
    Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 4:17 pm

    Radio host Sean Hannity just revealed that FOX News is in possession of an exclusive tape of Reverend Jesse Jackson, recorded after an interview when he thought the microphone was off, slamming Barack Hussein Obama for “talking down black people on matters of faith” among other issues.

    Hannity also intimated that Jackson says he wants to “rip Obama’s nuts off” on the tape. Hannity would not say “nuts,” but based on his description (portion of the male anatomy beginning with an “n”) I believe that’s the word he was going for.

    Hannity says the tape will be played in its entirety on tonight’s Hannity and Colmes.

  17. Kingsgrove,

    That’s a huge letdown. I mean ‘rip Obama’s nuts off’ is nothing.

    I’m wondering whether bambi will capitalize on this to show he’s a ‘centralist’..

  18. Drudge Report says O’Reilly will air in its entirety Rev. Jesse Jackson’s comments snagged on tape.

  19. Conspiracy theory time:

    Did Obama ask Rev JJ to create a fuss today, so that his FISA vote will tip-toe quietly into the night??

    Hey, just havin’ a little fun.

  20. Jesse Jackson’s comments epitomize the nature of the Obama campaign: all dissent will be silenced, or else. There are so many Democrats, such as Jackson, who can’t stand Obama but are half-heartedly supporting him publicly, for the so-called “good” of the party. Inch-deep support like that is never a good sign.

  21. Hillary’s statement on FISA:

    “One of the great challenges before us as a nation is remaining steadfast in our fight against terrorism while preserving our commitment to the rule of law and individual liberty. As a senator from New York on September 11, I understand the importance of taking any and all necessary steps to protect our nation from those who would do us harm. I believe strongly that we must modernize our surveillance laws in order to provide intelligence professionals the tools needed to fight terrorism and make our country more secure. However, any surveillance program must contain safeguards to protect the rights of Americans against abuse, and to preserve clear lines of oversight and accountability over this administration. I applaud the efforts of my colleagues who negotiated this legislation, and I respect my colleagues who reached a different conclusion on today’s vote. I do so because this is a difficult issue. Nonetheless, I could not vote for the legislation in its current form.

    “The legislation would overhaul the law that governs the administration’s surveillance activities. Some of the legislation’s provisions place guidelines and restrictions on the operational details of the surveillance activities, others increase judicial and legislative oversight of those activities, and still others relate to immunity for telecommunications companies that participated in the administration’s surveillance activities.

    “While this legislation does strengthen oversight of the administration’s surveillance activities over previous drafts, in many respects, the oversight in the bill continues to come up short. For instance, while the bill nominally calls for increased oversight by the FISA Court, its ability to serve as a meaningful check on the President’s power is debatable. The clearest example of this is the limited power given to the FISA Court to review the government’s targeting and minimization procedures.

    “But the legislation has other significant shortcomings. The legislation also makes no meaningful change to the immunity provisions. There is little disagreement that the legislation effectively grants retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies. In my judgment, immunity under these circumstances has the practical effect of shutting down a critical avenue for holding the administration accountable for its conduct. It is precisely why I have supported efforts in the Senate to strip the bill of these provisions, both today and during previous debates on this subject. Unfortunately, these efforts have been unsuccessful.

    “What is more, even as we considered this legislation, the administration refused to allow the overwhelming majority of Senators to examine the warrantless wiretapping program. This made it exceedingly difficult for those Senators who are not on the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees to assess the need for the operational details of the legislation, and whether greater protections are necessary. The same can be said for an assessment of the telecom immunity provisions. On an issue of such tremendous importance to our citizens – and in particular to New Yorkers – all Senators should have been entitled to receive briefings that would have enabled them to make an informed decision about the merits of this legislation. I cannot support this legislation when we know neither the nature of the surveillance activities authorized nor the role played by telecommunications companies granted immunity.

    “Congress must vigorously check and balance the president even in the face of dangerous enemies and at a time of war. That is what sets us apart. And that is what is vital to ensuring that any tool designed to protect us is used – and used within the law – for that purpose and that purpose alone. I believe my responsibility requires that I vote against this compromise, and I will continue to pursue reforms that will improve our ability to collect intelligence in our efforts to combat terror and to oversee that authority in Congress.”

  22. Hillary’s “web dude” has been diary-ing at dkos, mainly about FISA lately:

    peter-daou.dailykos.com/

    Hillary’s statement on FISA
    by Peter Daou
    Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 01:52:49 PM PDT

    NOTE: I am an Internet Adviser to Hillary

    I wanted to share a statement Hillary just put out on her FISA ‘no’ vote:

    “One of the great challenges before us as a nation is remaining steadfast in our fight against terrorism while preserving our commitment to the rule of law and individual liberty. As a senator from New York on September 11, I understand the importance of taking any and all necessary steps to protect our nation from those who would do us harm. I believe strongly that we must modernize our surveillance laws in order to provide intelligence professionals the tools needed to fight terrorism and make our country more secure. However, any surveillance program must contain safeguards to protect the rights of Americans against abuse, and to preserve clear lines of oversight and accountability over this administration. I applaud the efforts of my colleagues who negotiated this legislation, and I respect my colleagues who reached a different conclusion on today’s vote. I do so because this is a difficult issue. Nonetheless, I could not vote for the legislation in its current form.

    Even more:
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/9/164845/8072/235/548955

    (continues what’s above)

    “The legislation would overhaul the law that governs the administration’s surveillance activities. Some of the legislation’s provisions place guidelines and restrictions on the operational details of the surveillance activities, others increase judicial and legislative oversight of those activities, and still others relate to immunity for telecommunications companies that participated in the administration’s surveillance activities.

    “While this legislation does strengthen oversight of the administration’s surveillance activities over previous drafts, in many respects, the oversight in the bill continues to come up short. For instance, while the bill nominally calls for increased oversight by the FISA Court, its ability to serve as a meaningful check on the President’s power is debatable. The clearest example of this is the limited power given to the FISA Court to review the government’s targeting and minimization procedures.

    “But the legislation has other significant shortcomings. The legislation also makes no meaningful change to the immunity provisions. There is little disagreement that the legislation effectively grants retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies. In my judgment, immunity under these circumstances has the practical effect of shutting down a critical avenue for holding the administration accountable for its conduct. It is precisely why I have supported efforts in the Senate to strip the bill of these provisions, both today and during previous debates on this subject. Unfortunately, these efforts have been unsuccessful.
    “What is more, even as we considered this legislation, the administration refused to allow the overwhelming majority of Senators to examine the warrantless wiretapping program. This made it exceedingly difficult for those Senators who are not on the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees to assess the need for the operational details of the legislation, and whether greater protections are necessary. The same can be said for an assessment of the telecom immunity provisions. On an issue of such tremendous importance to our citizens – and in particular to New Yorkers – all Senators should have been entitled to receive briefings that would have enabled them to make an informed decision about the merits of this legislation. I cannot support this legislation when we know neither the nature of the surveillance activities authorized nor the role played by telecommunications companies granted immunity.

    “Congress must vigorously check and balance the president even in the face of dangerous enemies and at a time of war. That is what sets us apart. And that is what is vital to ensuring that any tool designed to protect us is used – and used within the law – for that purpose and that purpose alone. I believe my responsibility requires that I vote against this compromise, and I will continue to pursue reforms that will improve our ability to collect intelligence in our efforts to combat terror and to oversee that authority in Congress.”

  23. texan: Isn’t there a fund raiser thurs. a.m: Women for Obama (barf) ? Maybe, it is for the fund raiser.

  24. I don’t know why JJ is upset about O lecturing the AAs on morality, he just said American’s were Embarassing because we did not speak more languages (as I remember he only speaks 2 and one badly).

    He sure is critical of this country he wants to lead. Do you think that has anything to do with God Dam America?

    Sure sounds like he does not like his country.

  25. HRC’s statement.

    Why I Voted No on FISA

    huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/09/clinton-fisa-compromise-a_n_111742.html

  26. kostner, I think those JJ comments are super embarrassing for him as a “diehard” Waffles supporter.

    Also, I wonder how many Dems realize that if Hillary’s the nominee there’s no flip-flopping and moving to the center because SHE’S ALREADY THERE TO BEGIN WITH.

  27. rgb,

    The same thought crossed my mind. 😉

    Did Obama ask Rev JJ to create a fuss today, so that his FISA vote will tip-toe quietly into the night??

  28. ‘Hannity also intimated that Jackson says he wants to “rip Obama’s nuts off” on the tape. Hannity would not say “nuts,” but based on his description (portion of the male anatomy beginning with an “n”) I believe that’s the word he was going for.’

    Hmmmmmm. . . . . this ripping off/out thing is popular among the Bo set.

    MO wants to “rip BC’s eyes out.”

  29. BTW, my Waffles-supporting co-worker thinks this is a Sister Souljah moment for Waffles, allowing him to distance himself from the loony left. Any thoughts?

  30. Berkeley Vox,

    Maybe JJ will just pull the trigger for McCain in that secret booth?

    We can only hope! haha.

  31. fucking unbelievable. If i were the king, many, if not most of the so-called MSM journalists would be put in jail for falsely reporting ‘news’.
    ———————————–

    This from Major General (ret) Buckman.

    My niece, Katelyn, stationed at Baluud , Iraq was assigned, with others of her detachment, to be escort/guard/watcher for Martha Raddatz of ABC News as she covered John McCain’s recent trip to Iraq.

    Katelyn and her Captain stood directly behind Raddatz as she queried GI’s walking past. They kept count of the GI’s and you should remember these numbers. She asked 60 GI’s who they planned to vote for in November. 54 said John McCain, 4 for Obama, and 2 for Hillary.

    Katelyn called home and told her Mom and Dad to watch ABC news the next night because she was standing directly behind Raddatz and maybe they’d see her on TV. Mom and Dad of course, called and emailed all the kinfolk to watch the newscast and maybe see Katelyn.

    Well, of course, we all watched and what we saw wasn’t a glimpse of Katelyn, but got a hell’uva view of skewed news. After a dissertation on McCain’s trip and speech, ABC showed 5 GI’s being asked by Raddatz how they were going to vote in November; 3 for Obama and 2 for Clinton .. No mention of the 54 for McCain.

  32. I found these comments especially poignant.

    As a senator from New York on September 11, I understand the importance of taking any and all necessary steps to protect our nation from those who would do us harm.
    *snip*

    What is more, even as we considered this legislation, the administration refused to allow the overwhelming majority of Senators to examine the warrantless wiretapping program. This made it exceedingly difficult for those Senators who are not on the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees to assess the need for the operational details of the legislation, and whether greater protections are necessary. The same can be said for an assessment of the telecom immunity provisions.

    On an issue of such tremendous importance to our citizens – and in particular to New Yorkers – all Senators should have been entitled to receive briefings that would have enabled them to make an informed decision about the merits of this legislation. I cannot support this legislation when we know neither the nature of the surveillance activities authorized nor the role played by telecommunications companies granted immunity.

  33. HillPAC Is Back; Marshall Named Executive Director

    09 Jul 2008 01:14 pm
    marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/07/hillpac_is_back_marshall_named.php

    Hillary Clinton has reconstituted her political action committee — another sign that she plans to remain a political force for years to come.

    Clinton has asked Capricia Marshall, a long-time Clinton friend and former White House social secretary, to be HillPAC’s executive director. In that role, Marshall will coordinate Clinton’s extracurricular political activities, including her fundraising for other candidates and non-Senate-business political travel.

    In its time, HillPAC was one of the most active PACs on the planet; it went dormant during Clinton’s primary campaign and today, its website features a only an e-mail sign-up and a contribution solicitation. When Clinton closes out her campaign account, several staffers and advisers will transfer over to the HillPAC operation. They won’t have to move: part of the campaign’s Arlington headquarters will become HillPAC central.

    Barack Obama’s vice presidential team chief of staff, Patti Solis Doyle, moved from HillPAC to take the helm of Clinton’s campaign until February, when Clinton replaced her with Maggie Williams.

    Fundraising begins soon; the PAC has only about $5,000 cash on hand, according to OpenSecrets.org.

    A Clinton spokesman did not immediately respond to an e-mail seeking comment, but two other Clinton insiders confirmed Marshall’s role and the PAC’s impending re-opening. Clinton fundraisers have circulated an e-mail asking donors if they wanted to transfer their donations to Sen. Clinton’s general election account to the PAC.

  34. July 9th, 2008 at 1:53 am and July 9th, 2008 at 5:02 pm,
    wbboei Says:
    MY TAKE ON THE 2008 PRIMARY
    * * * *
    Wonderful work, wbboei! I agree completely.
    * * * *
    I haven’t been around much lately since my heart has been too broken, my wallet too depleted, and my work too intense. As someone around here once said, “it wouldn’t do to lose my job in this Bush economy.” Anyway, I’m still for Hillary, PUMA all the way and still hoping, working, and acting on the action items suggested here as much as time will allow. Thanks to everyone here for your faith and action! Stay well!

  35. Obama, Clinton fly to NY with veep vetter

    By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer 20 minutes ago

    Democrat Barack Obama and his former rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton, flew to New York on Wednesday along with his vice presidential searcher Caroline Kennedy.

    Clinton, mentioned as a possible running mate, and Obama were to appear together at two fundraisers there Wednesday night.

    The flight came on a day in which Obama touched off new speculation about his choice of a running mate by making an unannounced morning stop at the downtown building where another member of his vice presidential search team, Eric Holder, works.

    Afterward, Obama wouldn’t say why he visited the building or whom he saw there.

    Aides were tight lipped about why Obama, Clinton and Kennedy traveled together other than to cite the fundraisers. Kennedy is to introduce Obama at the first; Clinton will introduce him at the second.

    Obama was already onboard his campaign plane when Clinton arrived. They greeted each other, stood in the aisle chatting for several minutes. Clinton then took her seat in the first row on the right side of the plane while Obama sat in the second row on the left. Neither spoke with reporters also aboard the campaign plane.

    Earlier Wednesday, Clinton deflected a reporter’s inquiry about whether she has turned over documents for her former rival’s campaign to review as part of the vice presidential search.

    Obama also turned aside reporters curious about his morning stop.

    “I’m not going to tell you,” the smiling likely Democratic nominee told reporters when asked who he met and what they discussed as he exited the office building that houses Holder’s law firm some two hours and 20 minutes after entering. He had two top aides — campaign manager David Plouffe and chief strategist David Axelrod — at his side.

    The stop was not on his public schedule, and aides would say only that Obama had private meetings planned while in Washington.

    They wouldn’t provide additional details, including whether Obama had met with Holder, a partner at Covington and Burling. The firm is located just blocks from the White House that Obama hopes to occupy come January.

    In a city that revels in the intrigue surrounding a vice presidential pick, Obama’s midmorning stop was certain to fuel speculation about who he would choose for the No. 2 spot on the Democratic ticket — and whether he met with any of them at Holder’s office or, perhaps, elsewhere at another time.

    Over the past few weeks, several officials thought to be on Obama’s list have indicated they lack interest in the job. The latest was Virginia Sen. Jim Webb, who issued a statement this week that said he had told Obama that he intended to remain in the Senate and “under no circumstances will I be a candidate for vice president.”

    Both Obama and GOP rival John McCain are trying to keep a tight lid on their searches, including only a small handful of top aides in the discussions to make sure the vetting process is as discrete as possible.

    Nonetheless, each candidate is believed to be deep into process of picking a vice presidential candidate. They may even be to the point of asking potentials for records, such as tax returns, financial holdings, medical documents and military files, or secretly interviewing candidates face-to-face.

    So-called “short lists” of prospects probably exist, given how long both campaigns have been weighing their options. Obama’s search committee, made up of Holder and Kennedy, has been working since early June, while McCain’s helper, attorney Arthur B. Culvahouse Jr., has been involved in the Republican’s efforts for a couple months.

    Time is a consideration for both candidates as they narrow their choices, announce their selections — and hope their choices produce an uptick in polls.

    Typically, careful planning goes into the elaborate staged “roll out” of a vice presidential pick to get maximum media coverage of what is perhaps the most eagerly anticipated decision a presidential hopeful makes between clinching the party’s nomination and formally accepting it at the party’s national convention.

  36. Blowback on His Snottiness’s “Que los Americanos no parlez vous francais?”
    (me, i speak Sprench and Spanglish)

    “Please, someone explain to me how a person running for POTUS can say he is embarrassed by the very people he is trying to be the leader of? And that embarrassment is due to the fact that said people cannot speak the native language of a country they are visiting, presumably on vacation? And that said candidate cannot either?”

    Yup. Just as i thought. Perception now is His Snottiness has thrown ALL Americans under the bus. We are an EMBARRASSMENT to him, just like that crazy old uncle of his living in the attic. “twisted:

  37. Blue Democrat,

    This stupid V.P. hunt is for MSM talking heads. Nobody cares about it. I sure hope Clinton will not sign onto waffles’ sinking ship. She can do better than this.

  38. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in Missouri shows John McCain attracting 47% of the vote while Barack Obama earns 42%. A month ago, the candidates were essentially even. That survey was conducted the night that Obama clinched the Democratic Presidential nomination. McCain had the advantage in earlier surveys.

    When leaners are included in the current survey, McCain leads Obama 50% to 45%. Leaners are survey participants who initially indicate no preference for either major candidate but indicate that they are leaning towards either McCain or Obama.

    Including leaners, McCain is supported by 93% of Missouri Republicans and enjoys a sixteen percentage point lead among unaffiliated voters. Last month, Obama had a slight advantage among the unaffiliateds and this month he is supported by 80% of Democrats.

  39. The gap between the two major presidential contenders has narrowed to 5% in New Jersey, as some of Barack Obama’s support appears to have slipped off into the undecided column over the past month.

    The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of New Jersey voters, taken Monday night, shows Obama ahead of Republican candidate John McCain 44% to 39%.

    (Excerpt) Read more at rasmussenreports.com …

  40. Heheh, agreed, Kostner – I bet Jackson ends up pulling the lever for McCain!

    Here’s the NYT take on the Jackson-Obama controversy:
    ——

    July 9, 2008, 5:48 pm
    Jackson Apologizes for Obama Remarks

    -By Brian Stelter

    The Rev. Jesse Jackson apologized Wednesday for critical comments he made about Senator Barack Obama that were picked up by a Fox News Channel microphone.

    According to various reports, Mr. Jackson made disparaging remarks, apparently including a crude reference, about how Mr. Obama was talking to black people.

    In a statement Wednesday afternoon, Mr. Jackson, a former Democratic candidate for president, said: “For any harm or hurt that this hot mic private conversation may have caused, I apologize. My support for Senator Obama’s campaign is wide, deep and unequivocal. I cherish this redemptive and historical moment.”

    Mr. Jackson apologized after Fox News said it would would be broadcasting the remarks on “The O’Reilly Factor” Wednesday night.

    According to a Fox spokeswoman, Mr. Jackson was recorded speaking to Reid Tuckson, an executive vice president at United Health Group, when both men were about to be interviewed on “Fox & Friends” Sunday morning.

    Bill O’Reilly, the host of “The O’Reilly Factor,” plans to play the exchange. At least one of the words will be bleeped, the spokeswoman confirmed.

    Mr. Jackson’s comments were apparently in reaction to a recent speech Mr. Obama gave on Father’s Day in which the candidate assailed the prevalence of single-parent black families because of absent fathers.

    In his statement, Mr. Jackson said:

    “My appeal was for the moral content of his message to not only deal with the personal and moral responsibility of black males, but to deal with the collective moral responsibility of government and the public policy which would be a corrective action for the lack of good choices that often led to their irresponsibility.”

    Presumably trying to get ahead of the controversy, Mr. Jackson also appeared by telephone on CNN Wednesday afternoon. He said the remark was “very private, and very much a sound bite,” and added that he had called Mr. Obama’s campaign to “send my statement of apology.”

    Mr. Obama’s campaign had not commented.

  41. BTW, my Waffles-supporting co-worker thinks this is a Sister Souljah moment for Waffles, allowing him to distance himself from the loony left. Any thoughts?

    I don’t believe that.

    Like I said, Rev. Jackson and other civil rights elders expressed skepticism about Obama in relation to the AA community, even before Iowa. And let’s not forget Obama dismissing the “old battles of the 60’s” earlier on…..

    I just think Jesse Jackson was caught speaking his mind! LOL! Besides, Rev. Jackson’s ego would prevent him from sacrificing himself for a guy he probably doesn’t like much in the first place.

  42. Kostner,

    I thought she was driving?

    Time for all AA’s to report for duty under the bus with other bitter, typical-white, bible-toting, gun-slinging, arugala-phobic, French-challenged Americans.

  43. conspiracy break:

    Whenever HRC does or says anything noteworthy which even BM has to report BO’s crew drops some distracting personal bomb. It’s usually more positive but on days of slim pickings even anti-BO tidbits will do.

    JJ lays an egg on Sunday which is coincidentally reported today. Why the delay?

    Is this a strategy for BO to let non-AA Americans know that his support among AA’s isn’t as overwhelming as reported and is it, in fact, a way for BO to distance himself from AA’s?mager personalcould be praised

  44. Please write editor letter to German paper on Obama’s speech

    www1.spiegel.de/active/kontakt/fcgi/lesermail.fcgi?artikelid=564502

  45. This is not a surprise at all. Obama – “Barack tracks” and Hillary keeps her word.

    //tim4hillary.blogspot.com/

  46. This is not a shock at all. Obama “Barack tracks” and Hillary keeps her word. No surprises!

    tim4hillary.blogspot.com/

  47. Obama “Barack tracks” and Hillary keeps her word. No surprises!

    Nope…none at all. I will say though, that although I’m not a bit surprised, I’m still proud as punch of our girl!

    YOU GO ON WITH YO BAD SELF, HILL!! 🙂

  48. Quote of the day from Obama’s website:

    By David 29 minutes ago
    So the bottom line is “Thanks for disagreeing, but I have the nomination and your money. I don’t need to listen to you any longer.”

    This is not “Change you can believe in.”

    Rejecting Public Funding
    Limp-wristed Opposition to Telecom Immunity
    Support of faith-based funding
    “Refinement” of Iraq Policy

    This is all just more of the same. Can I take my vote and money back and support Hilary?

  49. Lots of coverage today about Obama’s backstabbing of his political base, re: FISA bill… from NYT:

    ———-
    July 9, 2008, 5:54 pm
    Blogtalk: Obama’s F.I.S.A. Vote

    By Michael Falcone

    It should come as no surprise to Senator Barack Obama that his vote today in favor of expanding the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is drawing cries of outrage from many corners of the liberal blogosphere. After all, the senator’s own campaign Web site had become a focal point for his supporters to express their displeasure with Mr. Obama’s stance on the bill.

    That was the case again today. Carl from Ft. Worth, Texas, posted a message on Mr. Obama’s Web site this afternoon. The subject line read: “Obama just lost my vote.” He continued:

    “I am disgusted. Obama will NOT receive my vote in November, regardless of whether it means McCain wins (at least HE’S being honest with us). Once again, Dems picked the wrong guy in the primaries. Time to leave the party I guess.”

    Other comments struck much the same theme. Patrick in Chicago wrote “Can I get my money back this candidate appears to be defective” and Christopher from San Francisco put it simply “Senator Obama, you fail.”

    Ouch.

    (Recall that Mr. Obama tried to calm his critics last week with a statement on his site emphasizing that his position on the surveillance plan, “…was not an easy call.”)

    Armando Llorens, who blogs under the name Big Tent Democrat, at TalkLeft.com took issue with the comments Mr. Obama made yesterday saying that his support for the bill was not politically motivated, but rather represents a genuine policy disagreement with more liberal elements of the Democratic Party:

    “I do not believe Barack Obama. I will go further. I do not want to believe him. Because the alternative is worse. Because if Obama believes the BS he said about the FISA Capitulation bill, then he is not fit to be President. If Barack Obama really believes this about the FISA Capitulation bill, then he is as dangerous as George W. Bush.”

    Mr. Obama’s vote for the bill, which provides legal immunity for phone companies that participated in the government’s wiretapping program, represents a reversal for the presumptive Democratic nominee. He previously opposed that provision. Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, was not present for the vote.

    The F.I.S.A. bill passed 69 to 28 in the Senate today, and a number of prominent Democratic senators, including Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, Chuck Schumer of New York, Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Mr. Obama’s former rival, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, voted against it.

  50. So what happens to Spurrned O voters? They are not the hard core Democratic organizers that fold in, or even the faithful Democratic voters, that fold in.

    They are the emotional idealistic people that really beleived what you said, and that you were honest about it. When they find out that is not true, they might put this same exuburance and emotion someplace else. But it will not longer be in support of your candidacy.

    I will be interesting to see how these people react.

  51. ROTF!

    Just saw the ‘edited’ JJ clip on Bill-o. JJ whispers to the other AA guy, “I don’t like how Obama is talking down to black people.” Then he grunts softly and with clenched fists does a double football-style arm-pull,
    hissing, “I’d like to cut his n*** off.”

    😀

  52. ohhhhhh jeez!!!!

    Bill-o running with the Access Hollywood interview and says he wouldn’t do it again, it was a ‘spur-of-the-moment thing and he didn’t react quickly enough to stop it.

    oh yeah.

    We really need a slow-on-the-uptake a$$wipe in the WH. I think it was another deliberate ploy to get maximum exposure for BO and try to portray him as non-elitist. 👿

  53. Anyone else hear this???

    From an NQ blogger;

    “Terry McCuliffe just (assuming it was on BM) said he doesn’t want to embarrass the front runner so they won’t fight for a role call vote in August.”

    Is this TRUE????????

  54. Where is everyone?

    McCain’s response to the FISA vote.

    A few short months ago, Barack Obama outwardly opposed terrorist surveillance legislation, saying that he would filibuster any bill that includes immunity for American telecommunications companies,” spokesman Tucker Bounds said. “Today, the U.S. Senate will approve legislation providing the immunity Barack Obama supposedly opposed, and despite his promise, he will not support a filibuster.

    “What Barack Obama will do is show that he’s willing to change positions, break campaign commitments and undermine his own words in his quest for higher office.”

  55. Posted at 8:26pm on Jul. 9, 2008
    Complaint Filed Over Obama’s Sweetheart Mortgage Deal
    Obama’s mortgage may have violated the law and Senate ethics rules
    By California Yankee

    The Hill reports complaints were filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and the Senate Ethics Committee against the Democrats’ presidential candidate over Obama’s Countrywide-like sweetheart mortgage deal he received from Northern Trust:

    Judicial Watch, a conservative legal watchdog group, filed the the complaints after The Washington Post reported that Obama received a discount on a mortgage for a Chicago home valued at $1.65 million:

    The complaints said the Illinois senator received a loan at the interest rate of 5.625 percent, which Judicial Watch says is lower than the standard rate of between 5.93 and 6 percent indicated by surveys.

    The complaint asks the Senate Ethics Committee to investigate whether the favorable rates constitute a prohibited “gift” under Senate rules.

    “It appears that due to his position as a U.S. senator, Barack Obama received improper special treatment from Northern Trust resulting in an illicit ‘gift’ which has a value of almost $125,000 in interest savings,” wrote Judicial Watch President Thomas Fitton in a letter to the Ethics Committee.

    The complaint also notes that Northern Trust employees have given $71,000 in donations to Obama’s campaigns.

    As noted in the complaints, Northern Trust has supported Barack Obama’s political campaigns for elected office since 1990. In addition to the $71,000 Northern Trust employees have donated to Obama, the Northern Trust political action committee gave $1,250 to Senator Obama’s 2004 campaign for the United States Senate.

  56. Basil, I hope, that is not true. Hillary deserves a roll call vote. Every other presidential candidate has received one, why not her? This election is such a farce. It is sickening.

  57. ugh – yes, had seen that comment about Terry Mc dismissing the roll call too.

    very sad if that becomes the case. they are doing everything possible to avoid a “scene” of disunity instead of real healing – unity would mean respecting Clinton and her supporters.

    maybe the Super Delegates can vote Uncommittted instead (half joking)

  58. birdgal, count,

    I don’t know where he allegedly said that. Anyone know?

    If he did say it I’m hoping it was a tongue-in-cheek dig at Cruella’s remarks:
    “There’s nothing symbolically wrong to putting her name in,” followed by a scripted withdrawal,” said Ms. Brazile.
    But the spectacle of a rapturous welcome for Sen. Clinton would be irresistible to television and could embarrass Sen. Obama.
    Sen. Clinton’s campaign office didn’t answer emails seeking comment. Under party rules, Sen. Clinton’s huge delegate count gives her the right to put her name into nomination.
    “But do you do it?” asked Ms. Brazile. ”Politically, does it heighten tensions?”

  59. Terry was on Hardball.

    Here’s a blogged version of the remarks.

    chris: do you want roll call?

    terry: want to follow the rules of DNC and not embarrass the nominee

    chris: why are not the supporters following her request?

    terry: over $1million raised for Obama by Hillary donors

    chris:biden as vp you said out west a good choice?

    terry: sen biden iraq stances and his experience and he was great , the best on this issue and would be a great vp.

  60. yes, birdgal, you’re right. the party is split, and the DNC leadership just wants to sweep it under the rug in their efforts to strong-arm this fraud into the WH. And they don’t want to acknowledge their complicity.

  61. One other blog from Hillary Clinton Forum.
    It was apparently on Hardball today and I NEVER watch that anymore.

    ‘Terry even snuck in a quick – “No, she doesn’t need a roll call”, when Chris pressed him. My jaw dropped.

    Sadly, Terry is a democrat before he is a Hillary supporter. He used to be Chairman of the DNC before Dean.

    He can’t appear to be in her camp now, he has to be impartial.

    But this is a wake up call that her roll call is in SERIOUS jeopardy if Terry is backing away from it publicly.’

  62. Here;s the interview link

    /www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/25611897#25611897

    It’s called the Clinton-Obama friction. Terry makes his remark
    s at around the 3 minute mark.

  63. Madison, WI — Republican presidential candidate John McCain is going after the female vote by hosting a women-only town hall meeting Friday in Wisconsin.

    The first-of-its-kind event for the McCain campaign is the latest and most overt attempt to woo women turned off by Democrat Barack Obama’s rivalry with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton during the primaries.

    Obama also has been courting female voters. He and Clinton have campaigned together to help smooth over hard feelings. His wife, Michelle Obama, is holding round-table meetings with women this week, and Clinton’s former director of women’s outreach is now working for Obama.

    McCain’s town hall, to include his wife, Cindy McCain, will focus on the economic challenges faced by women in business. It is at J&L Steel Erectors in Hudson, just across the St. Croix River from Minneapolis-St. Paul.

    That part of Wisconsin is divided politically, with St. Croix County and two adjacent counties voting for President Bush in 2004 while two others nearby went for Democrat John Kerry.

    Winning that part of the state is part of McCain’s strategy to carry Wisconsin and capture its 10 electoral votes.

    Women are the most important block of swing voters in the nation and have more political power in this election than ever before, McCain spokeswoman Leah Yoon said. Women support McCain because of his economic plan, which will provide immediate relief to families with lower gas and food prices, she said.

    Women can especially relate to that because they frequently are the ones managing budgets for the home and businesses, Yoon said.

    McCain’s plan calls for a gas tax holiday, a move that Obama has called a gimmick that won’t lower prices at the pump. Obama favors tax cuts for middle-class workers and tax increases for top earners. He calls for substantial government subsidies for health care, college, retirement and alternative energies.

    McCain argues that government should be smaller, and he pledges to cut taxes for all. His plan includes doubling the tax deduction for children and providing refundable tax credits of up to $5,000 for those who buy health insurance.

    McCain backers say having a town hall meeting just for women will give them a chance to hear him talk about issues they care about.

    “The No. 1 issue I think universally is the economy,” said Wisconsin state Rep. Kitty Rhoades, a Republican who helped organize the event.

    McCain is the right candidate for women not only because of his economic plan but also his stance on the Iraq war and fighting terrorism, said Mary Buestrin, a Republican National Committee member from Wisconsin.

    “Quite frankly, all my women friends are supporting him and want to work actively for him,” she said.

    But Margaret Gilkison, a University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire political science professor who teaches a class on women and politics, predicted the meeting won’t help McCain much with female voters.

    Women traditionally tend to be more liberal, anti-military and concerned with health care and economic issues that affect their families, such as higher grocery prices, Gilkison said.

    “Women are really stuck in the middle of all this,” she said. “I don’t see McCain being on the right side of a lot of these issues.”

    Wisconsin Lt. Gov. Barbara Lawton, a Democrat who had supported Clinton but now backs Obama, said she hoped McCain would be asked why he didn’t support a Senate bill that sought equal pay for women. McCain, who was not present for the vote, has said he opposed the bill because it would open the door to more lawsuits.

  64. Frankly, I think it is more of an embarrassment, not to have a roll call vote. They are trying to astroturf her candidacy, and win of 18 million votes. If the situation, happened to be reverse, do you think Clinton would prevent a roll call vote? What are they so afraid of? I wouldn’t vote for this guy, for dog catchter, much less, leader of the U.S. The whole debacle sickens me, and the way everyone is adhering to the party stance. Brazile is one of the worst. Since when, has a roll call vote been scripted?

  65. And the Academy Award goes to…..

    chicagoagainstobama.wordpress.com/2008/07/09/and-the-academy-award-goes-to/

  66. McCain is trying, Waffles is too arrogant to care, and other people are trying to woo women to BHO. Frankly, the way he has thrown so many people under the bus, I don’t trust him to do the right thing for women. He has not demonstrated one iota of leadership in this area, and seems to believe, that women will vote for him, because there is no where else to go. Well, there are other choices.

  67. Linfar

    I could not think of another place to talk to you where what I said would be, or could, be as accepted as it will be here.

    For some (many reasons) I have not followed TM as much as I had done in the past…mostly technological; I use library time sparingly, as I cannot even upload and take home. Everything must be done there.

    Anyway, I saw your posting from the last week in June about dishonoring our girl, and cannot add to the thread- day late and more than a a dollar short, I guess. You and I both know that I have read your stuff, supported your stuff, and fought for your stuff when you got dissed and or booted, more than once, from another place.

    Enough about my bona fides.

    I am writing you here, where you used to hang out, hoping you check back once in awhile. And I am writing to ask you to not diss those of us who STILL think that Hillary is STILL the best leader for the next 8 years; that letting BO on even the front steps of the WH, much less in the Rose Garden, or god forbid, in the Oval Offfice, is ONE OF THE BIGGEST MISTAKES WE, AS CITIZENS, COULD POSSIBLY MAKE.

    As a boots on the ground HRC caller, door knocker, organizer precinct captain in a Rep rural county, then county HRC co-chair, (with no “co” in sight), elected to small county and district and state positions, always opting for the alternate delegate position so we could move younger voters and formerly ignored voters like food stamp/other assistance recipients into the REAL process, and finally getting elected to the state platform committee…

    I resent quite a bit of what you said in that post at TM.

    I have been w/ you from last November clear thru Mother’s Day and a bit beyond…as have some of your loyal MyDD readers as well. I do not think anyone who refuses to “fall in line” deserves any of your vitriol (didn’t spell that right, but have no way to check-sorry)

    Many of us have put up w/ being called vile names, pursued over the internet, by mail, phone and other wiki-ways. And you were not immune to that either, if I remember correctly.

    So for those of us who are trying to find a third way, pardon the expression… or hold on, or take a breather, waiting to see what is going on, how Precious handles the power, $, adulation, etc., or are taking a non-supportive position towards Him, and thinking about our country-over-Pseudo*Party, our future, and the REAL Democratic principles-positions-history–

    And are giving our dollars to un-beholden our girl from the PRESUMTIVE Democratic Candidate and the cabal that surruonds him…

    Please Lynn, give us the space, and the respect, to do what we think is right, too…including running a popular blogging place if we have the energy and talent and connections so to do.

    You have managed to touch me many times…this time I just didn’t like the feel of that touch -at all.

    Still admire your writing skills though.

    Going home to watch “Carrier.”

  68. meiyingsu Says:

    July 9th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
    Posted at 8:26pm on Jul. 9, 2008
    Complaint Filed Over Obama’s Sweetheart Mortgage Deal
    Obama’s mortgage may have violated the law and Senate ethics rules
    By California Yankee

    The Hill reports complaints were filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and the Senate Ethics Committee against the Democrats’ presidential candidate over Obama’s Countrywide-like sweetheart mortgage deal he received from Northern Trust:

    Judicial Watch, a conservative legal watchdog group, filed the the complaints after The Washington Post reported that Obama received a discount on a mortgage for a Chicago home valued at $1.65 million:

    Anyone think, that this may have legs?

  69. birdgal, I don’t know, but I can’t stand Judicial Watch. They harassed the Clintons with bogus lawsuits throughout Bill’s presidency.

  70. BTW, my Waffles-supporting co-worker doesn’t mind the FISA flop because he knew Waffles was going to move to the center. Why wasn’t he in the “center” in the first place?

  71. UNCENSORSHIP!!!

    Why can I only see an uncut version of Animal House on my own video? Any time it’s on the tube, they only show 65% of the film.

    And why are none of the video clips of Jesse Jackson’s “Obama’s Nuts” open mike night session uncut? I’ve seen the O’Reilly “we don’t have the gall to air the whole video” version.

    Anyone know where the youtube is of the whole uncut deal? I mean, it’s no big deal, but by censoring it, they are making a bigger deal of it.

  72. DOUBLE STANDARD:

    # Paula Says:
    July 9th, 2008 at 11:18 pm

    BTW, my Waffles-supporting co-worker doesn’t mind the FISA flop because he knew Waffles was going to move to the center. Why wasn’t he in the “center” in the first place?

    &&&&&

    Your co-worker would label the same moves by Hillary as triangulating, soul-less, evil.

    Obama, hey, he’s just trying to win.

    Everyone wakes up to the rotting smell that is Obama. Some of us sooner….others take more time.

  73. Emjay Says:

    I don’t believe it’s appropriate to bring up that stupid woman ‘Linfar’. I actually don’t recall anything she said on this board in the past. From your description, she sounds to me like another Obamawomanbot who needs a MAN ASAP. Stupid and weak.

  74. Just in case you still thought Obama really gave a flying fig about Clinton’s debt, guess again:

    news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080710/ap_on_el_pr/obama_clinton_fundraising

    Obama Briefly Forgets to Urge Help for Clinton

    Wednesday, July 9, 2008 11:00 PM

    Article Font Size

    NEW YORK — It was all part of a careful arrangement: Democrat Barack Obama would get fundraising help from his erstwhile rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton, in exchange for his help retiring about $10 million of her campaign debt.

    But Obama momentarily forgot his part of the deal at a major New York fundraiser Wednesday night, forcing him to retake the stage after he had concluded the event and said goodnight to the audience.

    The Illinois senator spoke to about 1,000 donors in a Manhattan ballroom, all of whom had paid at least $1,000 to attend. Many were Clinton supporters until she dropped out of the race last month.

    Obama praised the former first lady as tough and smart. “She wore me out,” he said to laughs.

    The Democratic nominee-in-waiting then wrapped up his speech and thanked the audience, moving to shake hands along a rope line.

    After a minute or so, the music was cut short and Obama returned to the stage.

    “This is not the speech part, but it is important,” he said sheepishly, urging the group to reassemble.

    “Senator Clinton still has some debt, and I could have had some debt if I hadn’t won. So I know the drill,” Obama said, encouraging donors to use the forms under their seats to make a contribution to help her.

    “It’s very important to us, and obviously Senator Clinton will be grateful as well,” Obama said.

    Things went a bit more smoothly a few blocks down Park Avenue, where Clinton introduced Obama at a smaller fundraiser that netted about $4.1 million for the joint Obama/Democratic National Committee Victory Fund.

    “Whatever brings us here tonight I hope is understood to be not only unifying but transcendent,” Clinton told the 125 major donors.

    Obama, in turn, echoed Clinton’s call for unity.

    “With just half a wing this bird can’t fly,” he said.

    The two flew together to New York from Washingtonfor the fundraising swing and were to appear together at a breakfast Thursday morning. An event to help Clinton with her campaign debt was canceled because of Senate votes in Washington
    —————————————————–

  75. Retiring Senator Clinton’s debt and what the DNC is up to
    by Heidi Li Feldman, J.D., Ph.D

    Many questions have arrived about what sort of “deadlines” the DNC is putting on Senator Clinton to retire her debt…or else? Before I make any comments about when to donate to what, let’s first review the “or else”. The reason the DNC is pressuring Senator Clinton on this matter at all is because DNC leaders actually believe that once Senator Clinton stops fundraising, everybody who has given to her will magically switch over and donate directly to the DNC. Unless the DNC issues an announcement but quick that they are going to hold a genuinely democratic convention (Senator Clinton’s name in nomination, roll call vote, no pressuring the superdelegates from on high, no insisting that Senator Clinton agree to refuse the nomination if she should be elected the nominee), I strongly doubt that too many of Senator Clinton’s supporters will fulfill this DNC fantasy. But the DNC needs to hang on to that fantasy – the one where they drive the winner of the popular vote in the primaries out of the convention and treat Clinton supporters like dirt, but still everybody just ups and gives them money regardless – because guess who has a tremendous debt problem: why, the DNC itself. The DNC is millions and millions of dollars in the hole, and is busily canceling all sorts of events in Denver and replacing them with fundraisers for itself (thereby causing severe economic hardship to the small business owners of Denver who were counting on income from the long scheduled but now canceled events, as well as to the beneficiaries of the canceled events such as down ticket Democrats).

    I have no solid information about which particular “deadline” the DNC is now trying to foist on Senator Clinton in exchange for something that her campaign should never have had to negotiate in the first place. My best information remains that which I received from the Clinton campaign a while back, when they informed major fundraisers that they were making a big push to raise as much as possible to retire the primary debt by July 15.

    If your main objective is to aid Senator Clinton the sooner you donate to retire her debt the better. But of course all this talk of deadlines is also a way of preventing people on budgets from making to other organizations, such as The Denver Group among others, who are working hard to try to save the Democratic Party from itself. Feel like you are in a double bind? That’s because you are, thanks to the ever delightful Dr. Dean who has failed miserably in his job as national party chair.

    So now we all know how Senator Clinton probably felt so often when she dealt with the Democratic National Party this season: coerced, manipulated, and treated with contempt.

    Under present circumstances everybody has to decide for herself or himself what s/he can and wants to give to whom when. I cannot and would not presume to tell autonomous adults what they should do. Analyze your finances. Maybe you can give something toward retiring Senator Clinton’s debt and toward one one other cause related to keeping the Democratic Party democratic. Certainly, do not put yourself in financial jeopardy whatever you do.

    Troubled times, troubled waters.

  76. from a poster at The Confluence:

    “Concludes Rep. Jackson, Jr.: “Revered Jackson is my dad and I’ll always love him. He should know how hard that I’ve worked for the last year and a half as a national co-chair of Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. So, I thoroughly reject and repudiate his ugly rhetoric. He should keep hope alive and any personal attacks and insults to himself.”

    riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/07/09/things-that-make-you-go-wtf/#comments

    Jesse Jackson gets thrown under the bus, by his own son. Ah, yes, hope, change, and unity abound.

  77. meiyingsu Says:
    July 9th, 2008 at 11:57 pm

    Retiring Senator Clinton’s debt and what the DNC is up to
    by Heidi Li Feldman, J.D., Ph.D
    …. If your main objective is to aid Senator Clinton the sooner you donate to retire her debt the better. But of course all this talk of deadlines is also a way of preventing people on budgets from making to other organizations, such as The Denver Group among others, who are working hard to try to save the Democratic Party from itself.

    Just off hand… wouldn’t the best defense be a good offense — like donating to The Denver Group, Pumapac, etc. If we give in and do what the DNC wants (ie pay the debt) then they’ll just make some other demand or threat. Giving in is showing weakness. Giving to TDG or Pumapafc etc etc, is giving Hillary a weapon to keep the DNC from pushing her further.

    As MacAuliffe said, eventually the debt will get paid. Hillary has plenty of rich friends, and she and Bill could always make some more income any time (speeches and another book). This is the only time and we are the only people for TDG and PUmapac etc, because they need to buy their ads NOW.

  78. It’s mindboggling to watch Clinton helps this fraud to raise as much as $5 million in one night. Stupid indeed. She got absolutely ZERO credit for such selfishless behaviour, but got hammered by bots for trying to retire her debt.

    How much have those bots contributed to help her retire debt?

    Senator Clinton, it’s time to stop supporting that human trash.

  79. Obama is TOAST!!! He will NOT win CA, TX, FL, NM, CO, VA, WV, PA, OH, AZ, AR, GA, NC, SC, NY, MA, MO, KY, SD, NJ.

    Because once you lose TRUST you will not you will not win…period.

    Hillary Clinton kept her word and I admire her for that…BUT, I still must vote my conviction and I think Obama would be the worst president EVER!!!

    SO it’s NObama THIS NOvember. I don’t think the Democrats can even keep the SENATE this election cycle and I do think the Dems will lose seats in the house.

    This year I do believe McCain will be our next President. I like McCain and I can live with him…I’m starting to hate the Democrats so IT’s TIME TO CLEAN HOUSE AND PURGE THOSE WEAK IDIOTS.

    For too long the true democratic base has suffered under WEAK PATRONIZING LEADERSHIP from the Democratic? Taliban Party but the Revolution has started and it is NOT being televised because of the elites are “eating” cake but how can you lead if no one wants to follow.

    The DEMOCRATIC? Taliban Party LEADERSHIP has SHOWN it’s TRUE FACE on what it thinks about WOMEN RIGHTS and combatting SEXISM AND MYSOGINY was only WORDS without ACTIONS supported by those women TRATORS who have sold us out for personal ambitions.

  80. link to Project T-Shirt. you have to donate 50.00, but it goes to pay down Hillary’s primary debt.

    contribute.hillarycampaign2008.com/tsland.html?sc=1983&utm_source=1983&utm_medium=e

  81. Bob Novak:

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — “I would say he was pretty underwhelming,” said Lawyer Gus several days after he and some 200 other big-money supporters of Hillary Clinton’s failed presidential campaign met with the victor, Barack Obama, in Washington on June 26. Lawyer Gus is a longtime Democratic activist, who will support and contribute to Obama as the party’s nominee, but will not be enthusiastic about it.

    He is not alone. After the closed-door session in the Mayflower Hotel’s ballroom, Gus was among 20 participants who gathered for drinks to talk it over. They agreed it was not an “exciting performance” by the candidate who has entranced monster rallies across the country. Obama was “low-key” in a perfunctory appeal to them.

    The Clintonites do not feel alienated, as supporters of Edward M. Kennedy did in 1980, when they never resigned themselves to Jimmy Carter’s renomination. None of these loyal Democrats talked about sitting out the 2008 presidential election against John McCain or locking up their bank accounts. Since a donation does not indicate the benefactor’s degree of enthusiasm, what difference does it make? Only that it signals a lack of confidence by important Democrats for a candidate whose charisma is supposed to cancel out his inexperience.

    Only one person of the Mayflower group whom I contacted (the one least critical of Obama) was willing to let his name be used. Gus is a multimillionaire trial lawyer whose name would be widely recognized as a Democratic money man. He is no “Friend of Bill” who automatically signed on with the former president’s wife. With his support sought by several presidential candidates, Gus at one point considered backing Obama but ended up with Clinton because she seemed the best-qualified, most electable Democrat. Contrary to the media consensus, Gus found the Clinton campaign one of the best managed in his wide experience.

    Just what Gus and his friends were seeking in the encounter is unclear, but they left dissatisfied. As has been reported, Obama said he and his wife Michelle each were writing the maximum $2,300 check to help erase Clinton’s massive campaign debt. Obama added he would ask his supporters to do the same.

    But, in the opinion of the Clintonites, he did not open the door to his campaign because he asked nothing of them. Big-money Democrats who would have expected to be named a U.S. ambassador by President Hillary Clinton realized they would get nothing from President Obama. The train had left the station, and they were not aboard.

    Terry McAuliffe, long the Clintons’ faithful political servitor and Hillary’s presidential campaign chairman, played the cheerleader after the meeting. “This is unity!” he declared to reporters assembled in the Mayflower’s long lobby. Vernon Jordan, another longtime Clintonite, was similarly upbeat.

    But the tone of what really happened inside the locked ballroom was quite different once Obama and Hillary Clinton had their cordial say and the floor was open for questions. The first “questioner,” an angry woman from New York, demanded a roll call of presidential preference at the Denver convention. Next came another distraught woman, declaring that Clinton’s candidacy was the victim of “misogyny.” One participant told me, “This is as tough a crowd as Obama is going to face the whole campaign.”

    It was so tough that Lanny Davis, the one participant to whom I talked who permitted his name to be used, tried to change the mood. Davis, who had been a Clinton White House aide and remains a fervent supporter of both Clintons, rose to say the presidential contest had been painful in dividing Democratic families — alienating him from his Obama-supporting son, Seth Davis, the prominent college basketball reporter. Now, he said, they are together again.

    But Davis admitted to me there is “a lot that needs to be done” for all wounds to be healed. “It’s going to take a long time,” Lawyer Gus said of achieving unity. The minds of the Clintonites are with Obama, but not their hearts. That helps explain why the presidential race appears close in what otherwise shapes up as a horrible year for Republicans, and that is why the nominee’s “underwhelming” performance at the Mayflower is important.

  82. birdgal & basil:
    Could be a way of handling it in private. If H gets enough SDs to switch because it becomes so obvious he will lose, they may tell him: “step down or we will have a roll call. If we have to have a nasty roll call, your future in this party is not very bright. Otherwise you will have a very nice future.”
    He can’t stand to run when losing, anyway. It’s not like H is signing papers on this anyway.

  83. kostner Says:

    July 10th, 2008 at 12:30 am
    It’s mindboggling to watch Clinton helps this fraud to raise as much as $5 million in one night. Stupid indeed. She got absolutely ZERO credit for such selfishless behaviour, but got hammered by bots for trying to retire her debt.

    How much have those bots contributed to help her retire debt?

    Senator Clinton, it’s time to stop supporting that human trash.
    *****************************************************
    Kostner,

    Hillary took herself out of the way and kept her word. I admire her strength and personal honor. Since I know she was pretty much FORCED out by those she thought had he back but instead were the ones sticking the knifes in her back, it was time for her to clean house and truly know who are her true friends.

    If we want to see Hillary in the White House, then we must ORGANIZEhope he will change for the better once he is elected.

    That is too much of a stretch for me because I place my FAITH in GOD and not in MAN and my gut is telling me: NObama in NOvember.

  84. Kostner

    What in the WORLD do you base your opinion on? When has *61 EVER done “better” for ANYONE, BUT HIMSELF…Put down the koolaid.

  85. Rep. Jesse L. Jackson, Jr., you are DISGRACE!

    blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/07/hot-mike-catche.html

    Rep. Jesse L. Jackson, Jr., D-Ill. just released the following statement as a reaction to the crude and disparaging remarks his father — the Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr.

    Says Jackson JUNIOR in a statement: “I’m deeply outraged and disappointed in Reverend Jackson’s reckless statements about Senator Barack Obama. His divisive and demeaning comments about the presumptive Democratic nominee — and I believe the next president of the United States — contradict his inspiring and courageous career. Instead of tearing others down, Barack Obama wants to build the country up and bring people together so that we can move forward, together — as one nation. The remarks like those uttered on Fox by Revered Jackson do not advance the campaign’s cause of building a more perfect Union.”

    “Revered Jackson is my dad and I’ll always love him. He should know how hard that I’ve worked for the last year and a half as a national co-chair of Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. So, I thoroughly reject and repudiate his ugly rhetoric. He should keep hope alive and any personal attacks and insults to himself.”

  86. Flash: Today President Barack Obama suspended the Constitution, declared smiling marshall law in all 57 states and substituted the Yes We Can motto for In God We Trust on all coinage this in a brilliant move emblematic of his commitment to change and a new world order. This follows a similar set of bold moves yesterday when he pardoned Tony Rezko from a sentence of 997 years, sent a sixty pound bag of kibbels and bits to Claire McCaskill, and appointed Bill Ayers Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Upon hearing this Chris Matthewes was heard to say I love a guy who never forgets his friends, and that tingle down my leg just became a four alarm fire, and Marie Shriver leads a contingent of deranged bots in a rousing chorus of he is the one we have been waiting for and fuck teh Brandenburg Gate.

  87. wbboei – I just read your 25 point summary of what happened to us, and it is fantastic. I hope that all the pro-Hillary blogs consider posting this. We can never forget what happened to us and to the Democratic party due to its corrupt leadership. I’ll suggest it to a couple of the blog administrators.

    thank you for that summary.
    .

  88. basil9 Says:

    One other blog from Hillary Clinton Forum.
    It was apparently on Hardball today and I NEVER watch that anymore.

    ‘Terry even snuck in a quick – “No, she doesn’t need a roll call”, when Chris pressed him. My jaw dropped.

    Sadly, Terry is a democrat before he is a Hillary supporter. He used to be Chairman of the DNC before Dean.

    He can’t appear to be in her camp now, he has to be impartial.

    But this is a wake up call that her roll call is in SERIOUS jeopardy if Terry is backing away from it publicly.’

    I wonder if it has anything to di with the DNC threatening to take Hillary’s name off the rollcall on Friday if her debt is not paid.

    DNC changing the goalposts for Hillary again? How, When and Why does she have to retire her debt all of a sudden?

  89. *****URGENT*******
    From Alegre’s Corner: If HRC doesn’t retire her debt by July 15 the DNC plans to use that as a reason to keep her name off the ballot.

    Someone just confirmed that there is a DNC deadline of this Friday for wiping out Hillary’s campaign debt you guys.

    If we don’t get this taken care of by then they’ll use this to pressure Hillary re keeping her name off the ballot in Denver. That means no real Roll Call vote!

    NO WONDER BHO’s donors dragged their feet in helping to wipe out this debt. DAMMIT all they had to do is sit on their hands and the DNC would finish this off by ending all hope of an open and honest vote in Denver. It’s just like the revote in Michigan.

    So here’s the deal – we need to GIVE UNTIL IT HURTS on Thursday and Friday. Take care of the last of that debt and tell Howard, Nancy and Donna (ESPECIALLY Donna!) go get stuffed.

    D O N A T E H E R E!

    Spread the word – tell your friends and family what’s at stake and ask them to help erase this debt now. Once we get this taken care of we can focus on other things. If you do one thing on Thursday to help Hillary it has GOT to be this.

    I’ll update as I get more information but please – do what you can and do it now.

    T H A N K S !

  90. So the DNC trying to stick it to Hillary again by coming up with this new requirement about the debt being paid off by Friday.

  91. Again, another goal and challenge for HRC.

    SDs where are the goals, deadlines to perform and close the deal for Obama.

    HRC has achieve her goals, time and time again. Obama has not met a goal in a number of months. In fact all he managed to do was fake the Iowa Caucus.

    He can orchastrate a Stadium full of Rock Fans, and the Brandenburg Gate. But his appeal to the Voters is just not there and fading fast. His hope and change have become Hollow, as he Folds In.

  92. Where does Jackson Jr find the gall to criticize his father for being “divisive and demeaning”? Why doesn’t someone rerun his appalling remarks about Hillary when she won NH?

    He is the poster child for “divisive and demeaning”!!

  93. On what grounds, what precedent, what rule(s), does the DNC have for keeping her name off the ballot due to debt? When did this “rule” get made up?

    If they pull yet another fast one, the outrage will grow even further.

  94. Hmmm, the DNC are going to use some specious argument against Clinton, to “pressure her” into caving in???

    What if she just says, “NO!”. ???

  95. Barack Obama crossed the pop culture/politics divide today by praising Lil’ Wayne’s rhyming ability at a campaign event in Powder Springs, Georgia.

    Take the lyrics of Lollipop, the aforementioned song which, if you have not yet heard on the radio, then your children certainly have. As is the habit of most modern Hip Hop, it is a song of sexual conquest, with Lil’ Wayne boasting of his ability to attract women and enjoy their company. Not so interesting, you think? Check out this set of lyrical couplets:

    I get her on top / She drop it like it’s hot
    And when I’m at the bottom / She Hillary Rodham

    http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/7/10/05915/6199

  96. Silenced By DailyKos
    by nrafter530, Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:45:39 AM EST

    I left DailyKos a while back because I thought (and after today have never been more convinced) they are hurting Obama’s candidacy more than they are helping.

    I went back only to find out I can’t post diaries nor can I post comments. I still have an account, but I’m silenced. I’m not allowed to be a part of the conversation.

    Believe me, I’m not complaining all that much. I’m better off, but there is a part of me that refuses to let kos derail our chances of winning this year.

    I’m on record as saying that i thought the fanatics at DailyKos damaged my candidate during the primaries, probably nearly cost him the nomination, and very likely has helped created whatever divide still exists in the party.

    http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/7/10/04539/4128

  97. **Democrats should reconsider Hillary Clinton as Presidential Candidate
    by architek, Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:30:42 AM EST

    Many Democrats, now disgusted with the long-predicted rightward swing of Sen. Obama, his dishonesty, and depressed that neither he nor Sen. McCain are the kind of person they wish to see in the White House after our long national nightmare, are calling for the Democratic Party to change its mind and select Hillary Clinton, an almost guaranteed winner among the PEOPLE, WHILE THERE IS STILL TIME.
    http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/7/10/93042/4062

  98. A Sad Conclusion
    by sloopydrew
    Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 04:43:25 AM PDT

    After 15 hours straight of thinking about this without sleep, rest or pause of any sort I have decided that I cannot, in good conscience, vote for Senator Barack Obama for President of the United States of America. I believed him when he said he was a “Constitutional Scholar” and “Lawyer” and would “Filibuster” any and “all” legislation that granted retroactive immunity to the telecommunication giants. I believed him to the tune of nearly $200 worth of contributions to his campaign during the primary.
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/10/7383/23073/943/549272

  99. IMHO, Clinton got a very RAW deal trying to retire her debt.

    Bambi needs Clinton badly in terms of raising money. His smaller donors have been tapped out, his rich friends can’t donate more than $2,300 in primary, the only major source left is Clinton’s wealthy donors. Hillary helped this guy raise almost $5 million from her wealthy donors overnight in NYC.

    But what did she get for return?? I mean, even for the mutual interest of raising money, there’s no report on how much Obama asked his top donors to help Clinton retire debt in return. This guy is really really bad even as a strict business partner. He has NO credibility whatsoever. If Clinton can help him raise $5 million on one night, why can’t he help Clinton to raise a few millions as a good gesture? He also has lots of wealthy donors who have no problem parcelling out $2,300 to Clinton.

  100. # jbstonesfan Says:
    July 10th, 2008 at 9:59 am

    Any word on whether she will be offered VP?
    &&&&&&&&

    Nothing “official” of me to pass along.

    But in my opinion, and widely shared here by many others, is that:

    a) no way in hell Obama offers it to her, even if it means losing. He’s too proud, too arrogant. He considers that he “beat her”, and she should have quit back in March, and that to have continued campaigning through June, and to go to convention and ask for a roll call, are an affront to him.

    b) no way in hell she’d take that demeaning position. Normally, it would be an honor, and for a Senator, quite likely the launching pad to a future run as presiident. But I think there is real fear among the Democratic politicians that Obama will tank. Yes, they (Rendell, McAuliff, etc.) bravely go up in front of cameras and say “he’ll win”, “we’re united”, blah blah blah, but they are lying because it’s too risky to tell the truth.

    If veep was such a great choice, why has there been a steady stream of the best of the veep pool running away from Obama?? “I have my job to do”, “I can be more valuable as ___”. Webb, Warner, the list is long and growing.

    In that private meeting between Hillary and Obama, here’s what I think went down:

    Hill: I know you don’t want me on the ticket, even though it probably would do the trick, and unify the party. And believe you me, I doubt it would work out.

    O-man: I completely agree with you. Hey, I remember saying that in the debates. A lot.

    Hill: So we’ll make me look good, and make you look good. My official story is, “I’m campaiging for Obama, we need a Democrat in the White House, that’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

    O-man: I’m so glad we had a chance to air it out. So this meeting lasted only 2 minutes. We’re going to have to be in this same room for at least another hour to make it seem like we talked about stuff.

    Hill: Well, if you want to go out for a cigarette, I’ll see what’s on Fox News. They were the only ones who were fair and balanced.

  101. Kostner: A few days ago, I had read somewhere, that his donors had contributed around 100,000 dollars or so, to retire Hillary’s debt. What a jerk. At a fundraiser yesterday, he had left the stage, and had to go back on, because he had “forgotton” to ask his contributors to make a donation to Hillary’s retire the debt campaign.

    Why should she have quit campaigning in March? She was winning. She didn’t know, that the fix was in.

  102. birdgal,

    I read that figure as well. Gosh, she helped him get $5 million, all he gave her was a Howard Dean’s T-shirt.

    This guy is a fraud through and through.

  103. Obama’s own web site’s most popular group, “Get FISA Right”, aka The Deserters, is now up to 23,126. About a week ago, it already had like 12,000 members after being created just on June 25th. That’s double.

    If you really want to enjoy watching a campaign self-destruct, go to:

    my.barackobama.com/page/group/SenatorObama-PleaseVoteAgainstFISA

    Break out the pop corn, put up yer feet. It’s like being Gomez Addams, with the two model trains speeding toward each other, and when they get to the bridge, KABOOM!!!

    A beau-yoooootiful site indeed.

  104. Thursday, July 10, 2008
    heidilipotpourri.blogspot.com/2008/07/breaking-news-straight-from-senator.html

    Breaking news straight from Senator Clinton’s director of finance regarding retiring the debt

    To clarify where the Clinton campaign stands on the issue of “deadlines” and retiring Senator Clinton’s debt, I emailed Jonathan Mantz, Senator Clinton’s incredibly hardworking and successful director of finance (head of fundraising) first thing this morning. See the exchange below. There is no more reliable source of information.

    HL Feldman Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 7:54 AM
    To: jmantz.com,
    I have been working extremely hard in response to [your] last communication to “top” fundraisers, in which [you] said the campaign is making a big push for donations to retire debt, and that this push was to run through the 15th.

    Has the closing date for this “push” changed? I could really use an answer.
    Jonathan Mantz Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 9:12 AM
    To: heidi

    No real closing date, we are trying to put a dent into this as quickly as possible. Although the response has been good so far, we have ways to go

    Pls keep up all you are doing

    ———————————————————————————–
    Contributions to Hillary Clinton for President
    are not deductible for federal income tax purposes.
    ———————————-
    Paid for by Hillary Clinton for
    President
    ———————————-

    HL Feldman

  105. I spoke in person to Mantz in Boca and he was a nice enough guy….however, like most of us, he believed Hillary would win TX, Ohio, PA and get the nomination…..somehow everything went horribly wrong.

  106. Also, the reason I say maybe take the VP is b/c imho, Obama probably and sadly wins big over the tired and worn out Mccain. Then OB’s VP will have a heads up on Hillary and bambi backing him/her ……strategically while humbling, it might make sense.

  107. Do you know what pelosi is up to these days? The Congress with 9% approval rating?

    —————————————
    Pelosi says House Judiciary may hold hearings on Kucinich impeachment resolution

    Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said this morning that the House Judiciary Committee may hold hearings on an impeachment resolution offered by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio).

    Kucinich is expected to offer a “privileged resolution” this afternoon calling on the House to look at whether President Bush should be removed from office for lying to Congress and the American public when he sought congressional approval back in 2002 for taking military action to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein.

    —————————
    Wacky!

  108. This is what Senator Clinton gets in return. Stop it already, Hillary. No matter how hard you work for that jerk, you will not be able to appeal to those bots. It’s absolutely crazy to put any faith into those bots.
    ———————————————-

    Obama fundraiser host emphasizes: No Money For Hillary

    Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama may have presented a unified image last night in New York, but tensions between supporters of the two candidates continue to simmer.

    For many Obama backers, it’s a tough pill to swallow to help retire the debt Clinton incurred largely to stay in the race and pound away at the eventual nominee after it became clear he would win.

    For true-blue Obama loyalists, therefore, any request for money these days is being closely examined.

    To this end, when Ed Chandler, a Chicago venture capitalist and Obama donor, sent out an e-mail last week promoting an intimate dinner with the nominee for high-dollar donors he made clear to specify where the dollars were going.

    “NONE OF THE MONEY RAISED WILL GO TO PAY OFF HILLARY CLINTON’S DEBTS,” Chandler wrote to potential givers in an e-mail obtained by Politico. “While you may have heard that Sen. Obama has asked people to make a separate donation to the Clinton campaign for that purpose, neither the law, nor the ethic of this campaign, will allow for any transfer of funds from Obama For America to Clinton.”

    Money raised beyond the individual limits, Chandler notes, will instead go to the DNC.

  109. Good Day all!

    ADMIN! Once again…so much information, so few words required to explain Hillary!

    On the other hand….Obama CANNOT BE TRUSTED! Once again, HE PROVES IT!
    +++++++++

    I am sure some of you have received this, but thought I would post here for MAXIMUM EXPOSURE!

    Will Bower sent a message to the members of PUMA / Just Say NO DEAL.

    ——————–
    Subject: PUMA/Just Say NO DEAL to be on FOX News, Today at 4:10pm

    Good afternoon, fellow PUMAs!

    PUMA/Just Say NO DEAL will be the guest on FOX News today (on “Your World”) at approximately 4:10pm.

    We’ll be discussing the success of the “$20.08” drive for July 4th, the DNC tactics to strong arm Hillary out of her Convention role, and our final drive to pay off the remainder of the debt by the end of tomorrow.

    So please tune in! …and let’s keep working! We’re making a difference!

    Thank you,

    Will Bower
    PUMA / Just Say NO DEAL

  110. kostner

    I have appreciated many of your posts however, there are times your descriptions of others makes me cringe..(i.e., limp wristed, sounds to me like another Obamawomanbot who needs a MAN ASAP. Stupid and weak)

    While I can understand they are attacks at the opposition, the implications are offensive to me as a woman and lesbian.

    I hope we can all find meaningful ways to communicate our absolute disgust at the opposition and seperate ourselves from the language that we despised in the primary toward women and minorities.

  111. EVERYONE

    EVERYONE

    EVERYONE

    PLS
    PLS
    PLS
    PLS

    MAKE SURE TO BLOG AT EVERY BLOG POSSIBLE AND BLOG ABOUT HELPING HILLARY RETIRE HER DEBT ,AND ALSO ABOUT THE T-SHIRT —BLOG AT NYT–HUFFPO–WAPO–CNN-FOX-MSNBC-LATIMES-AND ALL BIG NEWSPAPERS BLOGS OF ALL BIG CITIES

    COME ON HILL SUPP–COME ON PUMAS –LETS DO IT –

    sorry about the typos ,just wanna make sure ,everyone reads it and i be posting it this message on major blogs -thx

  112. jbstonesfan Says:
    July 10th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
    Also, the reason I say maybe take the VP is b/c imho, Obama probably and sadly wins big over the tired and worn out Mccain. Then OB’s VP will have a heads up on Hillary and bambi backing him/her ……strategically while humbling, it might make sense.

    I’m probably going to disagree with this when I find out what you mean. 🙂 Typo?

  113. # jbstonesfan Says:
    July 10th, 2008 at 12:29 pm

    Also, the reason I say maybe take the VP is b/c imho, Obama probably and sadly wins big over the tired and worn out Mccain. Then OB’s VP will have a heads up on Hillary and bambi backing him/her ……strategically while humbling, it might make sense.
    &&&

    McCain is pretty feisty. Obama is the one who got worn out. He even was quoted at a fundraiser with Hillary, saying that as a candidate, “she wore me out”. So much for the “energy” issue.

    Obama is an elitist, and it is becoming more and more apparent each day. Now, even Obama’s own die hard supporters are turning on him for his FISA stance. And he’s rapidly lurching right, on Iraq withdrawl timelines, etc., so much so that Bob Herbert of the NY Times, who’s been tooting Obama’s horn for months now, turned on him too, wondering “where did his candidate go?”.

    The Repubs have deliberately held back from sic-ing the attack dogs on Obama, out of fear that he’ll be forced out by the convention by SDs who flip to Hillary.

    So go ahead and be pessismistic.

    I’m not. I going to fight Obama every step of the way.

    And…loving it.

  114. For those of you with Tennessee connections….and all others who care. Yet ANOTHER Delegate tosses the will of the voters under the bus for Precious

    ++++

    Endorsing AGAINST The Will and The Votes and The Voices of HIS CONSTITUENTS!!!!!!!!!

    Tenn. Vote Totals- Bart Gordon Clinton 49,015 Obama 20,492

    Bart Gordon has endorsed Barack Obama caving and cowering to the will of the DNC elitist

    DON’T THE VOTERS OF TENN. DESERVE A REPRESENTATIVE THAT HAS THE COURAGE TO STAND UP FOR THE VOTES AND VOICES OF THE PEOPLE OF TENN.!

    TELL HIM WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT HIS ENDORSEMENT

    Washington Office
    2310 Rayburn House Office Building
    Washington, DC 20515
    Phone: (202) 225-4231
    Fax: (202) 225-6887

    Murfreesboro District Office
    305 West Main Street
    Murfreesboro, TN 37130
    Phone: (615) 896-1986

    Cookeville District Office
    15 South Jefferson Street
    Cookeville, TN 38501
    Phone: (931) 528-5907

    Gallatin District Office
    100 Public Square
    Room B-100
    Gallatin, TN 37066
    Phone: (615) 451-5174

  115. and besides, Obama can’t stand Hillary. He’ll choose the mayor of Sardineville before choosing Hillary, just to spite her.

    And she can’t stand him. All the air kisses in the world between those two can’t hide the festering distrust and dislike (okay, hate) between them.

    Any “talk” of a veep consideration of Hillary by Obama is just meant to attempt to suck money out of Clinton donors.

    He’ll have a million and one ways to say that he’s arrived at decisions, with someone else as his veep.

  116. kostner Says:
    July 10th, 2008 at 11:00 am

    IMHO, Clinton got a very RAW deal trying to retire her debt.

    Bambi needs Clinton badly in terms of raising money. His smaller donors have been tapped out, his rich friends can’t donate more than $2,300 in primary, the only major source left is Clinton’s wealthy donors. Hillary helped this guy raise almost $5 million from her wealthy donors overnight in NYC.

    But what did she get for return?? I mean, even for the mutual interest of raising money, there’s no report on how much Obama asked his top donors to help Clinton retire debt in return. This guy is really really bad even as a strict business partner. He has NO credibility whatsoever. If Clinton can help him raise $5 million on one night, why can’t he help Clinton to raise a few millions as a good gesture? He also has lots of wealthy donors who have no problem parcelling out $2,300 to Clinton.

    I hope Clinton’s all stop payment on their checks. 🙂

    Another angle on this for conspiracy theorists … didn’t someone say that Hillary said that so sorry, she can’t concentrate on campaigning for BO till she has paid off her debts? Till then she’s busy raising money for the debts? — So, not getting them paid might be a good excuse for not campaigning.

  117. McCain takes lead over Bambi in critical swing-state of Missouri…

    ——-

    Election 2008: Missouri Presidential Election
    Missouri: McCain Leads By Five in Classic Swing State
    Wednesday, July 09, 2008

    The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in Missouri shows John McCain attracting 47% of the vote while Barack Obama earns 42%. A month ago, the candidates were essentially even. That survey was conducted the night that Obama clinched the Democratic Presidential nomination. McCain had the advantage in earlier surveys.

    When leaners are included in the current survey, McCain leads Obama 50% to 45%. Leaners are survey participants who initially indicate no preference for either major candidate but indicate that they are leaning towards either McCain or Obama.

    Including leaners, McCain is supported by 93% of Missouri Republicans and enjoys a sixteen percentage point lead among unaffiliated voters. Last month, Obama had a slight advantage among the unaffiliateds and this month he is supported by 80% of Democrats.

    Individual polls can sometimes overstate volatility in a race, especially when the results carry a four-and-a-half percentage point margin of sampling error. One way of addressing this is to look at a rolling-average of three consecutive polls. Using this approach, McCain leads Obama 45% to 42%. Last month’s three-poll average showed McCain up by six.

    McCain is currently viewed favorably by 58% of Missouri voters, Obama by 50%. Those figures reflect a modest improvement for both candidates over the past month.

  118. Another Item in the inbox: Sorry if this is a repost, but just stresste MSM’s evil intentions. WHAT THE HELL HAS HAPPENED IN THIIS COUNRTY?!?!?!

    Dear Clinton Dem,
    Recently the Wall Street Journal featured an article ”Clinton’s Convention Role Being Negotiated” that misleads readers. The article says:

    “Minor” candidates typically get a few votes at the conventions. But no party has had a roll call with two candidates since the 1976 Republican convention, when then President Gerald Ford beat Ronald Reagan by 57 votes.”

    Mo Udall, Jerry Brown, Hubert Humphrey, weren’t what you would call “minor candidates,” and certainly not Ted Kennedy when at the 1980 convention, he received 1,150 votes against incumbent president Jimmy Carter.

    In 1984 Gary Hart received 1,201 and Jesse Jackson 466 votes on the rollcall.

    In 1988 Jesse Jackson’s nomination was celebrated by a 1,219 vote rollcall.

    In 1992 Jerry Brown received 596 and Paul Tsongas 289 votes.

    There have been 10 Democratic National Conventions from 1968 through 2004:

    The 1996 re-election of President Clinton was uncontested. But of the remaining 9 conventions, seven held rollcalls of all the candidates involved.

    There is no way that Hillary should be denied a rollcall vote. If she is not allowed the rollcall, we can only infer that the party is now corrupt at the highest levels.

    There is overwhelming precedent for Hillary to be placed in nomination and receive a rollcall vote.
    Please help Hillary retain her delegates for this vote by calling delegates and affirming their support for Hillary Clinton, and reminding them why Hillary is the best candidate to beat McCain in November.

    If you can dedicate a little time to calling undecided and Hillary delegates, you can make a decisive difference in the outcome of a rollcall vote should it be allowed!

    To make calls, go to the Clinton Dems Action Center and click on the “CALL” button. Just a few calls can convince a delegate to support Hillary over Obama. Please call today!

    Pam

  119. # jbstonesfan Says:
    imho, Obama probably and sadly wins big over the tired and worn out Mccain.
    &&&

    rgb44hrc Says:
    July 10th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
    McCain is pretty feisty. Obama is the one who got worn out. He even was quoted at a fundraiser with Hillary, saying that as a candidate, “she wore me out”. So much for the “energy” issue.

    I’d like to see a poll on what voter groups are worried about McCain being ‘tired and worn out’ and in what sense.

    Reagan was ramblng with Altzheimers and got re-elected anyway. His voters trusted his team. (I think age was a factor in his first election also: Reagan famously said that he would not use his opponent’s youth and inexperience against him.)

    I’m not sure whether JB means McCain’s personal health, or McCain’s image or ‘brand’. He’s been well-known in politics many years, has tried for Pres nomination at least once before and was counted out, so his image/brand may appear shopworn. And he’s not putting a lot of money-energy into campaigning right now (awaiting final coronation of BO and official start date of the GE public funding period).

    So his campaign may appear weak at the moment (remember a lot of GOP dislike him).

    So I’d like to see a poll or something distinguishing those factors: ‘weak’ campaign vs ‘weak’ physically.

    In any case, McCain has a history of starting low and slow and surprisingly winning: as he did the nomination this year.

  120. SONIA4HILLARY Says:
    July 10th, 2008 at 10:13 am

    A Sad Conclusion
    by sloopydrew
    Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 04:43:25 AM PDT

    After 15 hours straight of thinking about this without sleep, rest or pause of any sort I have decided that I cannot, in good conscience, vote for Senator Barack Obama for President of the United States of America. I believed him when he said he was a “Constitutional Scholar” and “Lawyer” and would “Filibuster” any and “all” legislation that granted retroactive immunity to the telecommunication giants. I believed him to the tune of nearly $200 worth of contributions to his campaign during the primary.
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/10/7383/23073/943/549272

    ————————

    Thanks for posting this great stuff! If you can get on at those blogs, post that they might be able to get refunds of their donations. Many people have been getting refunds of donations to the DNC. It might be the same for Obama’s campaign.

  121. rgb44hrc Says:
    July 10th, 2008 at 9:52 am
    Hmmm, the DNC are going to use some specious argument against Clinton, to “pressure her” into caving in???
    What if she just says, “NO!”. ???

    ============================

    Ooooh, I would love it if Hillary refused something they want with some very gentle phrasing like, “Well, you know, with all best wishes, I’m afraid I will have to just say no deal to that.”

  122. They must be very afraid of her, if they do not want a roll call. What other explanation can there be? Pampers doesn’t want any of the limelight taken away from him.

  123. fromhillbuzz just now-
    Just got another update….donations are picking up again today…it’s incredible….whatever people are doing, it’s working….if we keep this pace up for a full week….one week…we can beat her all time best week, EVER.

    Do you have any idea how HUGE that is….for a candidate not even actively running — who suspended — to outraise the presumptive nominee?

    If we can get everyone working to a fever pitch on this from now until next Friday…8 days…we can set a new political record:

    The most a political candidate has ever raised, in the shortest period of time, AFTER suspending…it’s never been done, but the stats we are getting says it is happening…and it will Shock. The. World.

    But, only if each of us on this board can motivate 10 people to help…and those 10 each do the same…together, PUMAs united in this can make history.

    Can’t very well keep the person with the most votes off the ballot when she CLOBBERED BHO in July fundraising, can you?

    This is so important…this is such big news…because Dean/Brazile/Pelosi/Reid bullied most of the superdelegates into endorsing Obama with promises of big financial windfalls for everyone. If HRC beats Obama in July in fundraising, and actually beats the DNC and Obama COMBINED in fundraising this month, which is very, very possible, then there is a serious chance we can convince 175 superdelegates to vote Clinton instead of Obama at the Convention….

    and….

    wait for it….

    wait for it….

    read between these lines…

    if that happens….the HRC becomes the nominee.

    But, we have to hold bake sales and car washes and get everyone you know who hasn’t maxed out to give, give, give what they can in this last big push. It is so important….it is a shot to truly humiliate BHO in the one area he has always been laureled in…if he doesn’t have his fundraising prowess to brag about…and he’s lost his “change/hope” Messiah aura…and he, on a daily basis, embarasses himself….then we have enough to shake superdelegates loose and snag the nomination for our champ.

    But, only if we work HARD for the next 8 days.

    I’m using the last week of my vacation to do this….I am going to work nonstop hitting every blog, calling everyone I know who has ever given a dollar politically to HRC, to get as much more as I can to BEAT OBAMA WHEN HRC IS NOT EVEN ACTIVELY IN THE RACE.

    Do you see why this is such good news?

    It is our chance to make a miracle happen, working together, all across the country, as Hillary’s Army….let’s mobilize, people, let’s BEAT OBAMA AT HIS OWN FUNDRAISING GAME.

    Whoo….need to sit down and rest a bit….worked myself up there.

  124. Something that really irritates me, is calling sites like NOQuarter, The Confluence, Puma, and other Hillary sites, Republican. Just because, people do not agree with Waffles Pampers, do not make them Republicans. Just read a comment, that NOQuarter is a Republican site, because of the ant-Pampers viewpoints. Unbelievable. This site has also been accused of being a Republican front. People who call Hillary sites, Republican, may not have visted John McCain’s site or Redstate.

  125. 1950…rest honey! LOL!
    I did a 25.44 donation last night and one for 10.44 last week. I am currently UNEMPLOYED and working HARD to change that, but my cash is limited. THAT BEING SAID, i did ANOTHER 5.44 today per JSND Page http://www.justsaynodeal.com….they have a FUN campaign going right on the home page.

    One reason i LOVE this stuff at the REAL grassroots is because unlike the blogs, the bots cannot all scurry over there and post stuff that tries to demoralize us, OR DO ANYTHING ABOUT US GIVING MONEY TO HILLARY!

    While their candidate stabs THEM in the back, gives the finger to all THEIR efforts, doesn’t KEEP HIS WORD TO THEM OR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE (like we have seen Hillary doing over and over, even down to campaigning for that SNAKE OF A FLIP-FLOP-FLIM-FLAM ARTIST WHO WAS PROBABLY WANTING TO BE STANDING NEXT TO BUSH AS HE SIGNED THE FISA LEGISLATION THAT CLINTON VOTED AGAINST) WE THE PEOPLE are helping get the REAL WINNER out of debt.

    C’mon all you dis-affected Obama supporters who are out there reading this…go to Clinton’s website and put your money someplace where the candidate KEEPS THEIR WORD and actually CARES about the people. YOU have been bamboozled, and it will ONLY GET WORSE.

    You know what they say…when you are in a hole, stop digging!

  126. For all the Obama Supporters reading this: Here is what the ACLU has to say about what your boy did:

    Senate Passes Unconstitutional Spying Bill and Grants Sweeping Immunity to Phone Companies
    ACLU Announces Legal Challenge to Follow President’s Signature

    WASHINGTON – July 9 – Today, in a blatant assault upon civil liberties and the right to privacy, the Senate passed an unconstitutional domestic spying bill that violates the Fourth Amendment and eliminates any meaningful role for judicial oversight of government surveillance. The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 was approved by a vote of 69-28 and is expected to be signed into law by President Bush shortly. This bill essentially legalizes the president’s unlawful warrantless wiretapping program revealed in December 2005 by the New York Times.

    “Once again, Congress blinked and succumbed to the president’s fear-mongering. With today’s vote, the government has been given a green light to expand its power to spy on Americans and run roughshod over the Constitution,” said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union. “This legislation will give the government unfettered and unchecked access to innocent Americans’ international communications without a warrant. This is not only unconstitutional, but absolutely un-American.”

    The FISA Amendments Act nearly eviscerates oversight of government surveillance by allowing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to review only general procedures for spying rather than individual warrants. The FISC will not be told any specifics about who will actually be wiretapped, thereby undercutting any meaningful role for the court and violating the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

    The bill further trivializes court review by authorizing the government to continue a surveillance program even after the government’s general spying procedures are found insufficient or unconstitutional by the FISC. The government has the authority to wiretap through the entire appeals process, and then keep and use whatever information was gathered in the meantime. A provision touted as a major “concession” by proponents of the bill calls for investigations by the inspectors general of four agencies overseeing spying activities. But members of Congress who do not sit on the Judiciary or Intelligence committees will not be guaranteed access to the agencies’ reports.

    The bill essentially grants absolute retroactive immunity to telecommunication companies that facilitated the president’s warrantless wiretapping program over the last seven years by ensuring the dismissal of court cases pending against those companies. The test for the companies’ right to immunity is not whether the government certifications they acted on were actually legal – only whether they were issued. Because it is public knowledge that certifications were issued, all of the pending cases will be summarily dismissed. This means Americans may never learn the truth about what the companies and the government did with our private communications.

    “With one vote, Congress has strengthened the executive branch, weakened the judiciary and rendered itself irrelevant,” said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “This bill – soon to be law – is a constitutional nightmare. Americans should know that if this legislation is enacted and upheld, what they say on international phone calls or emails is no longer private. The government can listen in without having a specific reason to do so. Our rights as Americans have been curtailed and our privacy can no longer be assumed.”

    In advance of the president’s signature, the ACLU announced its plan to challenge the new law in court.

    “This fight is not over. We intend to challenge this bill as soon as President Bush signs it into law,” said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU National Security Project. “The bill allows the warrantless and dragnet surveillance of Americans’ international telephone and email communications. It plainly violates the Fourth Amendment.”

    For more information, go to: http://www.aclu.org/fisa

  127. A really cool story here! Can anyone find a link to comment on it?
    Good background about Chicago politics and Obama, and cool jokes.

    h t t p : / /
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-kass-10jul10,0,725595.column
    “Jackson’s cutting remark may be helpful to Obama”
    John Kass July 10, 2008

    ….
    The national media was stunned, as if they’d just found out Obama is a Chicago politician rather than a mythic hero of Kennedyesque proportions, who drew the great sword Axelrod from the cornerstone of Chicago’s City Hall.
    ….
    Our Machine Democrats who back Obama are constantly preoccupied with nuts of all kinds. …. Our own Machine-backed governor, Rod “The Unreformer” Blagojevich, once made news by bragging he had “testicular virility” to make tough decisions, although now everyone’s patiently waiting for him to get indicted without making a mess.
    ….
    Obama/Daley strategist Axelrod wouldn’t pay Jackson for such nonsense when he could get it for free. Jackson’s rhetorical castration—and the grunting—helps Obama with white voters. Even those Hillary Clinton voters who, in Obama’s mind, cling to their guns and religion can see it.

    “Jesse’s got an ego. He can’t stand it. He couldn’t stand it when Harold ran things. He can’t stand it now, watching Barack climb up the Daleys into the White House,” said my friend.

    He was talking about Chicago’s first black mayor, the late Harold Washington. I covered Washington’s opening announcement of his historic campaign. …. Once Washington was elected, Jackson was politically invited to leave Chicago for Washington, where he ultimately ran for the presidency.

    That’s what Chicago does with politicians who could threaten the mayor. We get them to run for the White House.

    Of course he’s got to be green-eyed, when Jackson sees white liberals in the news media all but hug Barack’s trouser leg, seeking affirmation and expiation of guilt. Barack knows the game. He’s already suffered worse insults by other aging black leaders of the civil rights generation, as when Sharpton and others publicly entertained whether Obama was “black enough.”

    His ascendancy threatens their positions as exclusive brokers of white guilt. .

    The site has links to these other stories by Kass
    Jackson say remarks ‘hurtful and wrong’ Jackson say remarks ‘hurtful and wrong’
    *
    Jesse Jackson: ‘Deeply apologetic’ Video
    *
    Jackson: ‘I find no joy in it’ Video
    *
    Jesse Jackson apologizes to Obama
    *
    SNL on Jackson and Obama: TV Funhouse

  128. Breaking: McCain campaign reports 22 million raised, 94.5 million combined cash on hand. [UPDATED]
    Plus 8 million more in State Victory Parties.
    By Moe Lane Posted in 2008 — Comments (8) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
    That’s about 10 million more than last month, and after large amounts of spending from advertising. 26.7 million cash on hand for McCain, 67.8 million cash on hand for the RNC: it looks like a net negative 5 million for McCain (the aforementioned advertising buys) and a net plus 15 million for the RNC (I’ve got a call out for their raw numbers).

    Obama’s turn. 22 million sounds really easy to beat, Barry…

    More later.

    (Later after the fold…)

    The actual total cash-on-hand is somewhere around $102 million (there’s another 8 million available thanks to the State Victory Party system). The McCain is aiming for an additional 95 million available by the end of the summer, which does not include public financing. They generally have a 400 million dollar budget for the general election all told, which is… not actually unreasonable, is it? The RNC is a powerful ally in this juncture, as it’s not affected by the public finance restrictions – as opposed to the DNC, which is pretty much an albatross around Obama’s neck right now.

    Speaking of Obama, there have been a number of sites that have been starting to say what I was saying last month: he didn’t raise 100 million dollars in June. He didn’t raise close to 100 million dollars in June. But if the Obama campaign is worried that they took in less money than McCain did (odd as that is for even me to write) – something which would be an absolute PR nightmare for the junior Senator from Illinois – well, now we have a number for them to match. So release that number, Barack. And the DNC’s, too: you’re running them these days anyway, not to mention their state groups.
    ————————————-

    Senator Clinton, take my advice, DO NOT HELP BAMBI with fundraising. You simply can’t trust this guy to help you out with the campaign debt.

    If Bambi has another horrible month in fundraising, he will have a PR disaster and may opt back in to public financing.

  129. July 10, 2008
    Categories: Obama

    Obama fundraiser host emphasizes: No Money For Hillary

    Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama may have presented a unified image last night in New York, but tensions between supporters of the two candidates continue to simmer.

    For many Obama backers, it’s a tough pill to swallow to help retire the debt Clinton incurred largely to stay in the race and pound away at the eventual nominee after it became clear he would win.

    For true-blue Obama loyalists, therefore, any request for money these days is being closely examined.

    To this end, when Ed Chandler, a Chicago venture capitalist and Obama donor, sent out an e-mail last week promoting an intimate dinner with the nominee for high-dollar donors he made clear to specify where the dollars were going.

    “NONE OF THE MONEY RAISED WILL GO TO PAY OFF HILLARY CLINTON’S DEBTS,” Chandler wrote to potential givers in an e-mail obtained by Politico. “While you may have heard that Sen. Obama has asked people to make a separate donation to the Clinton campaign for that purpose, neither the law, nor the ethic of this campaign, will allow for any transfer of funds from Obama For America to Clinton.”

    Money raised beyond the individual limits, Chandler notes, will instead go to the DNC.

    By Jonathan Martin 09:24 AM politico

  130. texan4hillary Says:
    July 10th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
    mcain raises 22 mil in june. rnc and mcain have 100 mil together.-thepage
    ============================

    Heh. I wonder how much of that was from Hillaristas.

  131. McCain gets $22 million in Juneposted at 2:52 pm on July 10, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
    Send to a Friend | printer-friendly John McCain increased his fundraising in June, raising one million dollars more than in May in hitting $22 million. Given the normally slower summer cycle and the supposed disorganization in his campaign, this comes as welcome news:
    Republican presidential candidate John McCain raised $22 million for his White House bid in June and had nearly $27 million in the bank at the end of the month, campaign manager Rick Davis said on Thursday.
    That fund-raising figure is a slight increase from May, when McCain raised $21 million and reported nearly $36 million in the bank.
    Along with the success that the RNC has had, the McCain campaign looks to have solid financial footing for the rest of the general election campaign. They can work together to build GOTV efforts and do summer advertising in key battleground states while the DNC struggles to pay for its convention.
    Barack Obama has yet to announce his June numbers. Since peaking in February, his numbers have declined 20% or more each successive month, and in May trailed McCain slightly in fundraising. If he drops below his May numbers in June, he may have seriously miscalculated the decision to eschew public financing.

  132. I truly start to dislike these democrats. Can we put Pelosi into a concentration camp for some reeducation. Please.
    ————————————————-
    Pelosi: Drilling in protected areas ‘a hoax’ By Jared Allen Posted: 07/10/08 01:28 PM [ET] House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday shut the door on expanding oil and gas drilling beyond areas that have already been approved for energy exploration, drawing a clear distinction from her counterparts in charge of the Senate.

    “This call for drilling in areas that are protected is a hoax, it’s an absolute hoax on the part of the Republicans and this administration” Pelosi said at her weekly press conference. “It’s a decoy to punt your attention away from the fact that their policies have produced $4-a-gallon gasoline.”

  133. Current ArticleRove: Obama is the Democrats’ Nixon
    By SusanUnPCcloseAuthor: SusanUnPC Name:
    Email: susanunpc@gmail.com
    Site: http://noquarterusa.net/
    About: See Authors Posts (1124) on July 10, 2008 at 1:00 PM in Barack Obama, Campaign Financing, Economy, Electability, FISA, NAFTA, death penalty, welfare reform

    “Instead of consistency, Mr. Obama has followed Richard Nixon’s advice, to cater to his party’s extreme in the primaries and then move aggressively to the middle for the fall.

    “In the primary, Mr. Obama:

    supported pulling out of Iraq within 16 months,
    called the D.C. gun ban constitutional,
    backed the subjection of telecom companies to expensive lawsuits for cooperating in the terror surveillance program,
    opposed welfare reform,
    pledged to renegotiate Nafta,
    disavowed free trade and
    was strongly against the death penalty in all cases.
    “But in the past few weeks, Mr. Obama has reversed course on all of these, discarding fringe liberal views for relentlessly centrist positions. He also flip-flopped on accepting public financing and condemning negative ads from third party groups, like unions.

    “By taking Nixon’s advice, Mr. Obama is assuming such dramatic reversals will somehow avoid voter scrutiny. But people are watching closely, and by setting a world indoor record for jettisoning past positions, Mr. Obama may be risking his reputation for truthfulness. A candidate’s credibility, once lost, is very hard to restore, regardless of how fine an organization he has built.”

    The above excerpt is from today’s Wall Street Journal.

    The bullet points were added to emphasize the number of 180-degree reversals.

    Moving towards the center is one thing. Displaying no adherence to principles is another.

    As Medusa notes, this is very unsettling to Obama’s most passionate supporters, many of whom are protesting on his own Web site.

    Speaking of Obama’s campaign Web site:

    Change & Experience blog linked to a story here the other day, and displayed an astonishing trend graph that shows that Obama’s popularity indeed is on the wane:

    NoQuarter is reporting that Daily Kos and Barack Obama’s base is fracturing. He couldn’t be more right. Right now BarackObama.com is tanking in website hits. He is currently at pre-Iowa caucus levels (currently at around Jan. 2nd). John McCain’s site and Bob Barr’s site have remain constant. Barack Obama’s polling numbers have remained unchanged since May 18th. For a “popular” presumptive candidate, you would think you would see his numbers increasing.

  134. OPINION

    Obama’s Week Spots:

    Rove anaylzes what Obama’s done well so far, and pretty much Rove pats himself on the back for his 2000 / 2004 strategy, calling it the “Bush effort”, but we know he means Rove. Then he goes on to show how Obama’s ground game (sending the same rabid bunch of organizers from state) doesn’t scale well for the general elections. The primaries were spread out over five months, but these same people will have to GOTV for all 51 states at the same time (including DC).

    Let me guess; all those long time Dems who showed up year after year, who supported Hillary, are going to come rescue the day??? Or as Donna Brazile put it, we have our own new direction, so y’all can go shove your Hilllary-lovin’ asses away from our new Obamacratic Party.

    Finally, he shows how Obama’s wholesale makeover from principled idealist to Sellout Politician might just be his undoing.

    Now to our main program:

    online.wsj.com/article/SB121564804985640977.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

    Barack’s Brilliant Ground Game
    By KARL ROVE
    July 10, 2008; Page A13

    For a campaign that says it wants to end the politics of the Bush-Cheney years, the Obama for President effort has cribbed an awful lot from the Bush-Cheney playbooks of 2000 and 2004.

    For starters, Barack Obama’s manager admitted to the New York Times that he wanted an “army of persuasion” modeled explicitly on the massive Bush neighbor-to-neighbor “Victory Committee” of ’00 and ’04. Those efforts deployed millions of volunteers to register, persuade and get-out-the-vote.
    Sen. Obama’s organizational emphasis wisely avoids the Democratic mistake of 2000, when Donna Brazille’s plea for a stronger grassroots focus was ignored by the Gore high command. It also avoids the mistake of 2004, when Democrats outsourced their ground game to George Soros’s 527 organizations. The latter effort paid at least $76 million to more than 45,000 canvassers – many hired from temp agencies – to register and turn out voters. It was the wrong model: Undecideds are more likely to be influenced by those in their social network than an anonymous, low-wage campaign worker.

    Like Mr. Bush, Mr. Obama has harnessed the Internet for persuasion, communication and self-directed organization. A Bush campaign secret weapon in 2004 was nearly 7.5 million email addresses of supporters, 1.5 million of them volunteers. Some volunteers ran “virtual precincts,” using the Web to register, persuade and organize family and friends around the country. Technology has opened even more possibilities for Mr. Obama today.

    The Obama campaign is trying to catch up with the GOP’s “microtargeting” program, which uses powerful analytical tools and extensive household consumer information to focus on prospects for conversion and extra turnout help. Another Obama adaptation of a 2004 Bush campaign technique is a stepped-up, rapid response effort. Charges do not go unanswered, the campaign stays relentlessly on the offense, using every channel of communication.

    The Obama campaign has also copied the Bush strategy of broadening the general election map. In 2000, the Bush effort targeted not just the traditional battlegrounds, but also West Virginia (last won by the GOP in an open race for the presidency in 1928), Tennessee (Al Gore’s home), Arkansas (Bill Clinton’s home), Washington and Oregon.

    Hoping for a breakthrough somewhere, Mr. Obama also wants to force John McCain to play defense. So in addition to traditional battleground states, he’s running TV ads and organizing in Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, South Carolina, Indiana, Nebraska, Montana, Alaska and North Dakota. And where Mr. Bush targeted Latinos, African-Americans, Jews, Catholics and education voters to narrow Democratic margins, Mr. Obama is going after evangelicals, veterans and values voters with ads and outreach to trim the GOP’s margin.

    There are problems, however. Mr. Obama’s people admit they want to sucker Mr. McCain into spending money. To be successful, a bluff must be credible. In places like Nebraska and North Dakota, Mr. Obama can’t rely on local issues – like Mr. Bush did with coal in West Virginia in 2000 – to unexpectedly win a critical state. Organization alone won’t suffice. And putting Obama dollars into Texas, for example, to help win five state House seats may simply cause Texan Republicans – not Mr. McCain – to raise money and work harder to counter.

    Democrats don’t have the same large volunteer pool the GOP does with its Federated GOP Women, College and Young Republicans, and local party committees. In the primaries, Mr. Obama instead moved hordes of volunteers from state to state. It was a brilliant tactic, but Nov. 4 is different. The volunteers adequate for primaries held over five months will simply not be enough to compete in 51 separate elections (all 50 states plus the District of Columbia) all on one day.

    Mr. Obama’s biggest problem is that when it comes to substance, he’s following the playbook of a Republican other than George W. Bush. In 2000, Mr. Bush won the general election on the same themes and positions as in the primaries, including compassionate conservatism, the faith-based initiative, tax cuts and Social Security reform. There was no repudiation of past positions, no chameleon-like shifts in positions.

    Instead of consistency, Mr. Obama has followed Richard Nixon’s advice, to cater to his party’s extreme in the primaries and then move aggressively to the middle for the fall.

    In the primary, Mr. Obama supported pulling out of Iraq within 16 months, called the D.C. gun ban constitutional, backed the subjection of telecom companies to expensive lawsuits for cooperating in the terror surveillance program, opposed welfare reform, pledged to renegotiate Nafta, disavowed free trade and was strongly against the death penalty in all cases. But in the past few weeks, Mr. Obama has reversed course on all of these, discarding fringe liberal views for relentlessly centrist positions. He also flip-flopped on accepting public financing and condemning negative ads from third party groups, like unions.

    By taking Nixon’s advice, Mr. Obama is assuming such dramatic reversals will somehow avoid voter scrutiny. But people are watching closely, and by setting a world indoor record for jettisoning past positions, Mr. Obama may be risking his reputation for truthfulness. A candidate’s credibility, once lost, is very hard to restore, regardless of how fine an organization he has built.

    Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.

  135. More on the Slitherthy Creature from the Chicago Sewers:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25616583?referer=sphere_related_content&referer=sphere_related_content

    Obama’s ideology proving difficult to pinpoint
    Democrats decry a move toward middle, but Republicans still see a liberalWASHINGTON – Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama put himself on the opposite side of his party’s leadership in the Senate yesterday by reversing course to support a compromise intelligence surveillance bill. His vote was the most dramatic in a series of moves toward the middle that have focused new attention on where he stands and where he would take the country.

    Obama’s vote was not unexpected, as he had signaled earlier that he would back the compromise legislation. But the senator from Illinois found himself at odds with Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) and Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), as well as three of his opponents for the Democratic nomination, including Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.).

    Just the day before, Obama had denied suggestions that “I am flip-flopping.” But in recent weeks, he has softened his once-harsh rhetoric about the North American Free Trade Agreement, embraced the Supreme Court decision overturning a District of Columbia ban on handguns and criticized the high court for rejecting the death penalty for child rape.

    After telling reporters last week that he will probably “refine” his position on the Iraq war after he meets with military commanders there this summer, he gathered reporters again to say that he remains committed to ending the conflict and to withdrawing combat troops, conditions permitting, within 16 months, should he assume the presidency.

    Confounding both left and right
    One factor in Obama’s success has been his ability to confound both left and right. But while that may be a measure of a skillful politician determined to win a general election, it has left unanswered important questions about his core principles and his presidential priorities. How well he answers them over the coming months will determine the outcome of his race against Republican Sen. John McCain.

    Statements he has made over the past month have ignited a debate about who Obama is ideologically. His current policy positions have convinced some progressives that he is not one of them. Matt Stoller, editor of

    OpenLeft.com, said that an Obama win in November would be a victory for “centrist government,” adding: “Progressives are going to have to organize for progressive values.”

    Republicans see a different Obama. The National Journal rated him the most liberal member of the Senate last year. His advisers say the rating system is faulty, but McCain and other Republicans say it is an accurate reflection of Obama’s political philosophy.

    Peter Wehner, a former Bush administration official who is now at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, considers Obama someone who can move his party to new places on race and religion. But on policy, he sees him as conventionally liberal. “The Democratic Party today is quite liberal, and Obama, if anything, will deepen the roots of its liberalism,” he said.

    The reality is that Obama is some of all those things. His strong opposition to the Iraq war helped draw support from the left in the primary elections. But he insisted Tuesday that he long has held many positions that are moderate rather than liberal.

    If Obama becomes president, his views on the Iraq war will be tested by changing conditions on the ground as a result of President Bush’s troop increase, which McCain supported and Obama opposed. Domestically, Obama would face some of the same difficult choices that Bill Clinton confronted after running on a populist “putting people first” platform in 1992 and then inheriting a major fiscal overhang. If that is what Obama were to inherit, would he call for major domestic investments — expanding health care or putting sizable amounts of money into alternative energy development — or would he place a higher priority on putting the country’s fiscal house in order?

    Dems seeking clarification
    Democrats outside the campaign say Obama must clarify those priorities now to avoid potentially debilitating debates within his administration, should he be elected.

    “If he doesn’t make that new path clear during the campaign, he’ll have to sort out the party’s ideological direction after the election, even if he wins,” said one think-tank official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss Obama’s challenges. “He’s far better off defining it on his terms now than working it out in a caucus meeting down the road. This is his point of maximum leverage.”

    William A. Galston, a Clinton White House domestic policy adviser, calls Obama’s candidacy “the first act of what’s likely to be a multi-act drama” that needs a larger narrative thread. “Successful campaigns tell stories that provide the framework of meaning and significance for particular policy proposals,” said Galston, who is now at the Brookings Institution. “That’s what the Obama campaign, specifically the candidate, needs to do in the next few months.”

    The general-election campaign affords Obama the opportunity do that, as others have done before him, whether it be Ronald Reagan in 1980 with his pledges to tame big government and restore U.S. prestige abroad, Clinton in 1992 with his challenge to party orthodoxy as a different kind of Democrat, or George W. Bush in 2000 with priorities that he talked about continually during his campaign.

  136. A HISTORICAL ANAYLYSIS

    Obama as William Jennings Bryan, another orator with a thin resume goes down against a respected war hero with lots of experience.

    online.wsj.com/public/article/SB121564769240040939.html

    2008: A Watershed Election?
    By JOHN STEELE GORDON
    July 10, 2008; Page A15

    Exciting as presidential elections can be, they don’t often change things fundamentally. Now and then, however, they can remake the American political landscape for years to come, and the country enters into a new era. Will 2008 be one of those watershed elections? Perhaps, but not in the way that many people think.
    Let’s look at a little history.

    By 1932, the Republicans had been the dominant party in American politics for more than a generation. Only in 1912, when Theodore Roosevelt split the Republicans, did Democrat Woodrow Wilson capture the White House (with only 41.8% of the popular vote). Four years later, despite a successful first term, the advantages of incumbency, and a world war raging in Europe, Wilson barely won re-election. In 1920, the Republicans won a huge victory and were back in the saddle.

    Twelve years later, however, the country was sliding ever deeper into the Great Depression and the Republican president, Herbert Hoover, was perceived as having failed. Dour and beaten down by unprecedented events, he was no match for the ebullient Franklin Roosevelt. Roosevelt had run on a fairly conservative platform (he hammered Hoover for failing to balance the budget, for instance). But once in office, he embarked on what was at the time a radically new program, the New Deal. It didn’t end the Depression, but it transformed the country’s politics, thanks to Roosevelt’s personality and formidable political talents.

    For the first time, the federal government came to be regarded as having stewardship of the economy and being responsible for maintaining a social safety net. The Republicans, deeply resentful of finding themselves out of power, were also out of alternative ideas. They offered little but a return to the political past – of a less-regulated economy and the ethic of personal self-responsibility – that the American people wanted no part of. The Democrats became the majority party, a position they would hold for nearly 50 years.

    Only when Dwight Eisenhower, a war hero who was not perceived as a threat to the liberal agenda, ran on the Republican ticket in 1952 – and when the Democrats self-destructed in 1968 – was it possible for the Republicans to recapture the White House.

    But by the late 1970s, it was the liberals who were out of ideas. The American economy was in a shambles, with high inflation, high unemployment and gas lines. The Democratic president, Jimmy Carter, like Hoover before him, was perceived as being unable to handle the situation. Ronald Reagan, running on an explicit platform of tax cuts and smaller government, beat him handily in the 1980 election.

    Like Roosevelt, the optimistic, politically and media-adept Reagan remade the political landscape. The Democrats, now just as resentful as the Republicans in the New Deal era, offered only warmed-over liberalism as an alternative. Walter Mondale, Reagan’s opponent in 1984, famously said, “Mr. Reagan will raise taxes, and so will I. He won’t tell you. I just did.” Mondale lost 49 states. Reagan went on to cut marginal tax rates yet again.

    Only when Ross Perot split the Republican vote in 1992 could a Democrat win the White House (with just 43% of the popular vote). Reaganesque lower taxes and deregulation sparked an enormous economic boom that has now lasted, with two brief and shallow recessions, for more than 25 years.

    Is the 2008 election likely to be a repeat of 1932 and 1980, remaking the political landscape in the process? That’s unlikely. For one thing, while the incumbent is unpopular, he is not running. And the economy, while certainly dicey right now, is a long way from the desperate problems of 1932 or the very serious ones of 1980.

    Instead, the election this year is between two very different political personalities. John McCain is a moderate conservative and war hero with a solid political record but limited media skills (he still has trouble using a teleprompter) and no excess of charisma. Barack Obama is a young, very charismatic newcomer with virtually no political record but great oratorical talent who promises profound change.

    This is very reminiscent of the election of 1896, when William McKinley ran against William Jennings Bryan. McKinley too was a genuine war hero (distinguished service in the Civil War) who then entered politics. He served several terms in the House and became chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. In 1891 he was elected governor of Ohio.

    His opponent’s political résumé was a lot thinner, with only two back-bencher terms in the House. But at the Democratic convention of 1896, Bryan electrified the crowd with his “Cross of Gold” speech. It instantly became an American classic and propelled him to the nomination at just 36 years old, by far the youngest man ever nominated by a major party. Like Mr. Obama, Bryan promised a new politics aimed to benefit the common man, not the capitalists.

    He launched the country’s first whistle-stop campaign, giving more than 500 speeches around the country. And at first it worked. The Dow Jones Industrial Average, which had made its debut on May 26 of that year at 40.94, had lost 30% by August, when it stood at 28.48. But the Republicans fought back, utilizing new advertising techniques, and painted Bryan as someone whose populist ideas would wreck the American economy. The Dow began to recover as McKinley picked up support in northern industrial cities, and among ethnic workers who had been previously Democratic. In the end he won with 51% of the popular vote against 47%.

    So 1896 turned out to be a watershed election, alright. By rejecting the candidate who advocated change for the candidate who promised moderate conservatism, it made the Republicans the dominant party until 1932.

    &&
    Mr. Gordon is the author of “An Empire of Wealth: The Epic History of American Economic Power” (HarperCollins, 2004).

  137. Germany Mulls an Obama Speech at Brandenburg Gate

    The latest in the rumors that Barack Obama’s campaign wants the candidate to give a speech at Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, site of President Reagan’s legendary “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” speech…

    A spokesman for German Chancellor Angela Merkel says she is “skeptical” of the request.

    Steg said that “no German (chancellor) candidate would think of using (Washington’s) National Mall or Red Square in Moscow for rallies, because it would be considered inappropriate.”

    He stressed that giving permission to use the venue is a matter not for Merkel’s government, but for Berlin city authorities. Berlin Mayor Klaus Wowereit said Tuesday that he would be “delighted” for Obama to appear at the Brandenburg Gate or elsewhere.

    A reader more up-to-speed on German politics than I am notes:

    The point that I find disturbing in all this is Obama’s ignorance of the local political implications of his outrageous request. Does he know that Merkel now has great poll ratings? Does he know that Foreign Minister Steinmeier is a likely candidate against Merkel in next year’s election. Does he know that Steinmeier’s SPD ratings are at a historic low point and that the Left Party is eating away SPD strength? Does he know that the foreign policy ideas of the Left Party are similar to those of Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore? And does he know that if the SPD ever ruled in coalition with the Left Party, we would be up a tree? I find no evidence that Obama is aware that every word he says could have local ramifications in other parts of the world, and his advisors seem equally clueless.

    At the very least, floating this idea has created an instant controversy in Germany and put Merkel and the city government in a tough spot. If the speech is approved, they potentially hurt a relationship with President McCain, as they’ve given the most famous spot in the country, site of not just one but two (yes, Kennedy’s was not quite at the gate, but nearby after visiting it) of the most famous addresses by American presidents on foreign soil, to a presidential candidate. Or, deny him use of the site, and appear to be favoring McCain, and potentially hurt a relationship with a President Obama…

  138. I tried to cut/paste the text from the WSJ, but it kept rejecting it. Excellent read, entitled

    2008: A Watershed Election?
    By JOHN STEELE GORDON
    July 10, 2008; Page A15

    Exciting as presidential elections can be, they don’t often change things fundamentally. Now and then, however, they can remake the American political landscape for years to come, and the country enters into a new era. Will 2008 be one of those watershed elections? Perhaps, but not in the way that many people think.

  139. and hopefully the rest of the cut/paste from the 4:07pm posting:

    Let’s look at a little history.

    By 1932, the Republicans had been the dominant party in American politics for more than a generation. Only in 1912, when Theodore Roosevelt split the Republicans, did Democrat Woodrow Wilson capture the White House (with only 41.8% of the popular vote). Four years later, despite a successful first term, the advantages of incumbency, and a world war raging in Europe, Wilson barely won re-election. In 1920, the Republicans won a huge victory and were back in the saddle.

    Twelve years later, however, the country was sliding ever deeper into the Great Depression and the Republican president, Herbert Hoover, was perceived as having failed. Dour and beaten down by unprecedented events, he was no match for the ebullient Franklin Roosevelt. Roosevelt had run on a fairly conservative platform (he hammered Hoover for failing to balance the budget, for instance). But once in office, he embarked on what was at the time a radically new program, the New Deal. It didn’t end the Depression, but it transformed the country’s politics, thanks to Roosevelt’s personality and formidable political talents.

    For the first time, the federal government came to be regarded as having stewardship of the economy and being responsible for maintaining a social safety net. The Republicans, deeply resentful of finding themselves out of power, were also out of alternative ideas. They offered little but a return to the political past – of a less-regulated economy and the ethic of personal self-responsibility – that the American people wanted no part of. The Democrats became the majority party, a position they would hold for nearly 50 years.

    Only when Dwight Eisenhower, a war hero who was not perceived as a threat to the liberal agenda, ran on the Republican ticket in 1952 – and when the Democrats self-destructed in 1968 – was it possible for the Republicans to recapture the White House.

    But by the late 1970s, it was the liberals who were out of ideas. The American economy was in a shambles, with high inflation, high unemployment and gas lines. The Democratic president, Jimmy Carter, like Hoover before him, was perceived as being unable to handle the situation. Ronald Reagan, running on an explicit platform of tax cuts and smaller government, beat him handily in the 1980 election.

    Like Roosevelt, the optimistic, politically and media-adept Reagan remade the political landscape. The Democrats, now just as resentful as the Republicans in the New Deal era, offered only warmed-over liberalism as an alternative. Walter Mondale, Reagan’s opponent in 1984, famously said, “Mr. Reagan will raise taxes, and so will I. He won’t tell you. I just did.” Mondale lost 49 states. Reagan went on to cut marginal tax rates yet again.

    Only when Ross Perot split the Republican vote in 1992 could a Democrat win the White House (with just 43% of the popular vote). Reaganesque lower taxes and deregulation sparked an enormous economic boom that has now lasted, with two brief and shallow recessions, for more than 25 years.

    Is the 2008 election likely to be a repeat of 1932 and 1980, remaking the political landscape in the process? That’s unlikely. For one thing, while the incumbent is unpopular, he is not running. And the economy, while certainly dicey right now, is a long way from the desperate problems of 1932 or the very serious ones of 1980.

    Instead, the election this year is between two very different political personalities. John McCain is a moderate conservative and war hero with a solid political record but limited media skills (he still has trouble using a teleprompter) and no excess of charisma. Barack Obama is a young, very charismatic newcomer with virtually no political record but great oratorical talent who promises profound change.

    This is very reminiscent of the election of 1896, when William McKinley ran against William Jennings Bryan. McKinley too was a genuine war hero (distinguished service in the Civil War) who then entered politics. He served several terms in the House and became chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. In 1891 he was elected governor of Ohio.

    His opponent’s political résumé was a lot thinner, with only two back-bencher terms in the House. But at the Democratic convention of 1896, Bryan electrified the crowd with his “Cross of Gold” speech. It instantly became an American classic and propelled him to the nomination at just 36 years old, by far the youngest man ever nominated by a major party. Like Mr. Obama, Bryan promised a new politics aimed to benefit the common man, not the capitalists.

    He launched the country’s first whistle-stop campaign, giving more than 500 speeches around the country. And at first it worked. The Dow Jones Industrial Average, which had made its debut on May 26 of that year at 40.94, had lost 30% by August, when it stood at 28.48. But the Republicans fought back, utilizing new advertising techniques, and painted Bryan as someone whose populist ideas would wreck the American economy. The Dow began to recover as McKinley picked up support in northern industrial cities, and among ethnic workers who had been previously Democratic. In the end he won with 51% of the popular vote against 47%.

    So 1896 turned out to be a watershed election, alright. By rejecting the candidate who advocated change for the candidate who promised moderate conservatism, it made the Republicans the dominant party until 1932.

    Mr. Gordon is the author of “An Empire of Wealth: The Epic History of American Economic Power” (HarperCollins, 2004).

  140. kostner,

    Some of us Hillaristas for McCain agree with Pelosi about the offshore drilling issue — and consider environmentalism a very important priority. If there’s a deal breaker that would send us back to a straight Dem ticket, that would be it.

    We need to consider specific McCain positions case by case. Offshore drilling is a minus — but the counter may be to say that it’s a lost cause anyway, and to talk about McCain’s sugar ethanol vs Obama’s corn ethanol, or other specific environmental issues where McCain’s position is better.

  141. re BRANDENBERG GATE

    At the very least, floating this idea has created an instant controversy in Germany and put Merkel and the city government in a tough spot. If the speech is approved, they potentially hurt a relationship with President McCain, as they’ve given the most famous spot in the country, site of not just one but two (yes, Kennedy’s was not quite at the gate, but nearby after visiting it) of the most famous addresses by American presidents on foreign soil, to a presidential candidate. Or, deny him use of the site, and appear to be favoring McCain, and potentially hurt a relationship with a President Obama…

    Heh. Well, she could do like the leprecaun with the yellow ribbons. Allow Obama — and invite McCain and a lot of other candidates from various countries to share the event. Alphabetially, maybe.

    Then Obama gets to twist a turndown — as he did with McCain’s debate invitations.

  142. jbstonesfan Says:

    July 10th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
    Also, the reason I say maybe take the VP is b/c imho, Obama probably and sadly wins big over the tired and worn out Mccain. Then OB’s VP will have a heads up on Hillary and bambi backing him/her ……strategically while humbling, it might make sense
    *****************************************************
    I wish Hillry Clintons’s supporters would stop dishonoring her with this V.P. push for her.

    Obama will not pick Hillary Clinton as his V.P. he’s too insecure for that but he will toss out that carrot to her supporters to get their money. It’s either Hillary Clinton for Democratic candidate or McCain.

    Those unable to vote for McCain, then vote for Cynthia McKinney or Ralph Nader but get off the pot and make a choice.

    Btw. Donate to Hillary’s debt and say F.U. to Team Obama.

    p.s. DO NOT GIVE A DIME TO THE DNC…Let Obama help retire their debt.

  143. WOOHOOOOOO!

    Bowers on Fox says HRC’s debt is down to under 5 million after only a week of fundraising and they expect to have it paid off by tomorrow night!

    I’m gonna order my tee-shirt!

    Way to go, PUMA!

    😀

    :-Dwithin

  144. Here’s the tee-shirt.

    For everyone who’s ever been counted out but refused to be knocked out and for everyone who works hard and never gives up, this one’s for you.

    Go here to order. It goes to her “reduce the debt”.

    Put h t t p : / /

    contribute.hillarycampaign2008.com/tsland.html?sc=1983&utm_source=1983&utm_medium=e

  145. Yahoo news (guffaw).

    McCain has best fundraising (month) in June

    22 Million cool ones.

    They also say, “Obama has not revealed his June fundraising”

    Hmmm, maybe because they don’t know how much they’re going to have to give back. Maybe the story will be, “Obama raised Negative $3.25 million in June”.

  146. I ordered a tee-shirt.

    That is so great for Hillary! She is a great fundraiser!

    I wonder, what Waffles/Pampers/Flip-Flopper-Flim-Flammer’s fundraising was for June? I don’t think, it has been released.

  147. here is a copy of the letter:

    Dear xxxx,

    I have so many wonderful memories from the millions of people I met on the campaign trail. Over the past year and a half, I have also collected a few cherished mementos. They are a reflection of the many ups and downs that we went through together and represent our many accomplishments.

    In May, Chelsea announced our “Project T-Shirt” contest, and I never imagined we would have such an outpouring of support and great designs. We received almost five thousand amazing entries, and more than 125,000 of you voted for your favorite design.

    While the primary race may be over, I think the winning t-shirt — and it won by a landslide — still makes a wonderful statement about everything you and I accomplished in this historic race and our determination to keep fighting for what we believe in.

    If you contribute $50 today you’ll get a t-shirt with the winning design and continue to help me pay down our campaign debt.

    Click here to make a contribution of $50 and receive one of our winning t-shirts.

    Denitza of Weehawken, New Jersey submitted the winning t-shirt. I’d like to thank Denitza and the thousands of others who put their time, talent, and efforts into all the great designs that were submitted.

    I know you’re as proud as I am of everything we achieved and I hope I can count on you to work with me on the issues that brought us together. By helping us pay down the debt from one of the hardest-fought races in Democratic primary history, you’re making a real difference today for all our future efforts.

    Plus, if you contribute $50, you’ll get one of our winning t-shirts. It’s a great statement about the spirit that drove our campaign, and I hope you’ll get one for yourself!

    Contribute $50 to help pay down our debt, and you’ll get a t-shirt with our winning design.

    Thank you for everything!

    Hillary Rodham Clinton

  148. and the article also mentions, “Obama has broken records in fundraising, having raised $287 million by the end of May, but only had $33 million cash on hand to spend between now and the end of August”.

    Oh yeah, and since he opted out of the public financing, he’s out I believe $75 million.

  149. contribute.hillarycampaign2008.com/tsland.html?sc=1983&utm_source=1983&utm_medium=e

    link to contribution site

  150. On my.barackobama.com, the biggest group is the still growing “Please vote NO on Telecomm immunity – Get FISA Right”.

    One of the posts is called:

    “Starve Obama of Cash”, complaining of email solicitations for dough, and they say, “The campaign will get might desperate as their funding dwindles”.

    Another post, “Obama lost my vote today”, by Walter_from_HamiltonMT, said they started a new group on that website by that same name, “Obama lost my vote today”. They said, “I am waiting to hear back from the site admins to see if they’ll allow it…anyone want to place bets?”

    I went to the Groups, find Newest, and of the ten or so groups created since yesterday, none by that name are available.

    A real nice ripper is “Hurray to the glassy eyed cheerleaders, FISA passed”, taunts the kool-aid drinkers as not being informed, etc.

  151. I check out Alegre’s corner. By the way, they have the vid up of Flipper forgetting to mention HRC’s campaign debt at the fundraiser last night.

    God, he’s such an asshole!!

  152. carbynew Says:
    jbstonesfan Says:
    Also, the reason I say maybe take the VP is b/c imho, Obama probably and sadly wins big over the tired and worn out Mccain. Then OB’s VP will have a heads up on Hillary and bambi backing him/her ……strategically while humbling, it might make sense
    *****************************************************

    I wish Hillry Clintons’s supporters would stop dishonoring her with this V.P. push for her.

    Obama will not pick Hillary Clinton as his V.P. he’s too insecure for that but he will toss out that carrot to her supporters to get their money.

    Amen, sister! I’d like to see some sort of real world poll on this — how many Hill supporters are pleased with the idea and how many like us in PUMA — are disgusted by it. I know someone brought it up at Camille424’s and got shouted down, same at pumapac? And here too, iirc?

    h t t p : / / http://www.ipetitions.com/hillarynovp

  153. rgb44hrc Says:
    They also say, “Obama has not revealed his June fundraising”

    Hmmm, maybe because they don’t know how much they’re going to have to give back. Maybe the story will be, “Obama raised Negative $3.25 million in June”.

    Give back to Rezko types? Or to bots who are mad about FISA? (Can the small donors demand refunds? Donors to the DNC have got refunds.)

  154. Two days ago I posted a document on the 2008 Primary History with the intention of updating it as additional information became available.

    I have refined the analsis, provided more specific details and come to a deeper understanding of the philosophical difference between Hillary and Obama which explains the vicious nature of the attacks against the Clintons. (See items 21-23)

    Therefore, I am reposting it again in case you are interested.
    ———————————————–
    HISTORY OF THE 2008 DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY

    1. The Democratic National Committee (DNC) has adopted an election strategy for 2008 based on a document known as the Dean Plan (2004). That plan requires that the nominee for President be selected eight (8) months prior to the general election, i.e. by early March to coordinate implementation efforts.

    2. This begs the question of what was occurring in the primary in March 2008. The answer is that Hillary Clinton won Super Tuesday but failed to deliver the knock-out blow anticipated. In addition, she was out of money. Barack Obama then won 12 caucuses in a row. At that point, many believed he had the momentum to win future contests and secure the nomination.

    3. Therefore the leaders of the Democratic National Committee (Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi and Donna Brazille) met with the Kennedy Cabal and secretly agreed that Obama would be the nominee. However, they needed to maintain the appearance of neutrality to avoid reprisals. So they let Hillary continue campaign, and solicit funds on the assumption that voters would select the party nominee, when in fact he had been chosen.

    4. They quietly informed the heads of the Big Media outlets that Obama would be the nominee. Big Media accepted that decision because they did not like the Clintons and were determined to prevent them from getting back in the Oval Office. Therefore, Big Media entered into an unholy alliance with the Obama campaign to actively promote his candidacy and to coordinate their attacks upon Hillary pursuant to the Dean Plan.

    5. Big Media trumpeted the Obama claim that he was a new kind of politician. They projected the hopes and dreams of millions of Americans weary of the Bush Presidency on him, and painted Hillary as a relic of the past. They promoted his claim that he was forming a new coalition of blacks, latte liberals and youth. And, they perpetuated the lie that his money comes from small donors. (Note: in fact, 60%of Obama’s money comes from 10% of his base; eleven of his twenty largest donors are international banks and international law firms who are tied directly to the financial industry; and George Soros, an speculator and unrepentant Nazi collaborator is one of his major backers). Clueless people swallowed the bait hook line and sinker, while cynical insiders jumped on the bandwagon for personal gain.

    6. Then, the FOX News broke the story about Reverend Wright. Other members of Big Media tried to downplay it but could not. Suddenly, many people became skeptical of Obama. Hillary staged a comeback with a 10% victory in Ohio, and a 4% victory in Texas (which she was not expected to win). Suddenly, the race was competitive and the DNC and was in a quandary. They had secretly selected Obama but now the voters were beginning to reject him based on Wright and demographics.

    7. Meanwhile, Hillary was on a roll. She went to Pennsylvania and campaigned with Governor Rendell. Rendell, former head of the DNC, promoted Hillary with great enthusiasm. Whereupon Obama phoned Rendell and warned him “go easy on me because you know I will be the nominee”. Rendell was unaware of the secret coronation, so he was taken aback by the statement and reported it on Larry King Live.

    8. Then Obama ventured off script and made his infamous bitters comment. Also he privately reneged on NAFTA reform to the Canadian Government. Thereafter, Hillary won Pennsylvania by a 10% margin. Whereupon the Kennedy Cabal, i.e. Dodd, Kerry, Leahe sprang into action. They demanded that Hillary exit the race for the sake of party unity. Big Media echoed the same message. But the real purpose was to prevent the voters from selecting her and thus undermining their clandestine coronation.
    9. Hillary rejected those demands and vowed to continue campaigning in the remaining states so that every democratic voter in the country would have an opportunity to cast his or her ballot in the primary. By the same logic she vowed to overturn the arbitrary edict which the DNC imposed on Florida and Michigan and ensure those votes were counted. Coincidentally, those states voted overwhelmingly in favor of Hillary. The DNC was now in full panic mode, and joined Obama to block a revote.

    10. For months the DNC had insisted that super delegates were bound by the votes of their constituents and threatened to quit if that did not happen. Then they came to the realization that Obama could not win enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination. Therefore, they reversed their position, conceded that super delegates could indeed vote their conscience. Then they proceeded to ply them with money, jobs or threats to field candidates to run against them in their primary elections to induce them to endorse Obama (e.g. John Lewis). Ed Koch warned us that money was being paid for that purpose.

    11. When Hillary went to Indiana Obama claimed he would win the state. A poll taken a week before backed him up. Then a day before the vote big media published a phony poll that showed her winning big. Thus, when she won by only 3% they treated it like a loss. Interestingly, there were more votes cast for Obama in Gary than registered voters. And when she lost North Carolina by a much lower 14% margin than predicted Big Media declared that the primary was over and he was the nominee. Again, she refused to quit and pressed forward.

    12. When Hillary won West Virginia by a 41% margin and Kentucky by a 37% margin Big Media attributed those results to racism and impugned the voters with no supporting evidence. When she won Puerto Rico by a blowout margin they dismissed it as a beauty contest. By then she was winning the popular vote and Obama was really tanking. Nevertheless Obama took a victory lap around Congress, and claimed he was on the verge of achieving the nomination. With baited breath, Big Media began a super delegate count down to mark his supposed path to victory.

    13. Next came the Rules and Bylaws Committee. The DNC instructed the committee to strip delegates earned by Clinton in Michigan and award them to Bambi whose name was not on the ballot. The night before the hearing Obama supporters knew the outcome and were laughing about how the Hillary supporters would look standing out in the rain when the bad news came down. (Note: they never anticipated Harriet Christian however.)

    14. Hillary went to South Dakota which she was not expected to win. All the party elites had supported Obama. She made an innocent remark about the assassination of RFK, Obama fed it to Big Media surrogates and Big Media went on a three day rant to drive her out of the race. They twisted her comment into a death wish against Obama. They portrayed her not as the tenacious and determined heroine she was, but as the deranged villain in Fatal Attraction. And on the day of the vote came Big Media published a false story that she would resign that evening in an effort to suppress voter turnout and deny her the popular vote. Then, to their surprise and dismay she won the primary by 16%.

    15. By the end of the primary season, Hillary had fulfilled her promise to enfranchise all voters, despite strong resistance from the DNC and the Kennedy cabal. She won more votes than any primary candidate in history. Moreover, she won the electoral map, the key congressional districts, the debates and the momentum. Thus, she was able to argue that she was the candidate most likely to win against the Republican candidate in the General Election. Indeed, that is the criterion that super delegates are supposed to apply in selecting the nominee.

    16. Instead, the DNC used phony math to declare Obama the presumptive nominee. Under the party rules, neither candidate had enough pledged delegates to win the nomination. The super delegates cannot vote until the convention. But, Obama and his surrogates stampeded them into supporting him through money and coercion. Then, the DNC added the unofficial votes of those super delegates to the official votes of the pledged delegates and declared him the winner. Big Media promoted that false narrative.

    17. Then the powers that be demanded that she terminate her campaign immediately. According to Rangel the votes for her were not there and if she held out her black supporters would be targeted in their upcoming elections. What further threats were made against her personally I do not know. What I do know is that forcing her to terminate her campaign and endorse her opponent was anti-democratic, wrongful and without precedent. Still, she managed to thwart the DNC to this extent. Instead of terminating her candidacy she suspended it and retained her pledged delegates for the ostensible purpose of negotiating universal health care into the party platform.

    18. After suspending her campaign Hillary has become a hostage of the party. Recently she appeared with him in Unity New Hampshire, reiterated her endorsement of him, and asked her supporters to do likewise. She offered her fundraisers to him. At the time of this writing, less than half of her eighteen million supporters have defected to him. During the campaign he tried to destroy the legacy of Bill Clinton through false charges of racism. Now he wants Bill to deliver the Democrat base which he spurned and refuses to reach out himself. Obama told Clinton supporters that he has no time for them. He admonished them to get over their disappointment and fall in line behind him.

    19. Meanwhile, Big Media and Bambi surrogates continued to attack Hillary because they fear that she will rise again at the convention. They now refer to her as the “defeated” or the “vanquished” candidate. If the truth mattered to Big Media (which it does not) then they would call her what she is namely “the candidate who won the popular vote, the electoral map, the key congressional swing districts, the debates and momentum at the end of the race, despite the fact that she was constantly attacked by a hostile press and outspent by her opponent 5 to 1”.

    20. These outrages have not gone unnoticed. In fact, more than forty (40) grass roots organizations sprung up across the country to support the nomination of Hillary Clinton, to decry the misogyny of Big Media, to monitor the convention, and to defeat Bambi in November. Approximately one quarter of Hillary’s supporters have defected to McCain. The remaining one quarter intend to not vote. These disenfranchised Hillary supporters have become the Just Say No Deal Coalition. The Most prominent is PUMA—which means party unity my ass.

    21. The Denver Convention will be fascinating to observe. In some respects, it harkens back to 1968 because then as now we are engaged in an unpopular war, the elites have chosen their own candidate over the one who prevailed in the popular vote, they are trying to cover up a corrupt process under the pretense of unity, and the Convention will be placed on lockdown with heavily armed police. The DNC is reluctant to put her name on the ballot for fear of a revolt, but they know if they fail to do so then Clinton supporters are unlikely to support him in the general election. Therefore they are between a rock and a hard place. Meanwhile, their financial supporters remain at arm’s length. In sum the coerced unity imposed by the DNC is not working well.

    21. Curiously, as Hillary moved off center stage Obama began to reveal who he really is. We found to our dismay that he was not the new kind of politician he claims to be who is committed to welfare of the American People. Instead, he is a traditional politician committed to free market theory (i.e. deregulation, privatization, commoditization, globalization and speculation) and the protection of big business. How else can you explain his flip flops on FISA, NAFTA, Excelon, and Campaign Finance Reform? In each case he initially took a position protective of the people and later changed that position to accommodate Big Business.

    The other thing we saw in Obama was a series of bad behaviors bordering on megalomania. How else can you explain his victory lap in Congress, his creation of a personal seal, the constant references to my party and my White House, his insistence on delivering his nomination in a football stadium, his creation of an international incident over his demand to engage in electioneering at a historic site in Germany? His advisors assured us this is nothing to worry about because he is simply preparing for the general election. However, his supporters felt betrayed, Big Media changed the subject and Republicans worried he will self destruct before the Convention and they would face Hillary—and lose.

    22. Hillary on the other hand is a true Roosevelt liberal. She believes in markets provided they are properly regulated and are not distorted by speculation. She believes government has a role to play in building infrastructure and extending favorable credit terms to certain sectors. She favors reindustrialization to restore balance to our economy, tariffs to prevent dumping, job growth. She believes in public service to restore a sense of citizenship and national purpose. She believes that government has an obligation to provide education, health care and safety nets. She believes in the nation-state and the protection of national borders. However, Roosevelt doctrine is anathema to free market advocates. This is the true reason they hate her and are determined to prevent her from securing the nomination. And because big business now owns Big Media they are using it to destroy her candidacy.

    23. In addition, Hillary is also a great leader. This can be seen in her professional career, in congress and on the campaign trail. She was listed as one of the 100 most important lawyers in America and was slated to become the first female president of the American Bar Association. In congress she passed more legislation than any freshman senator in the history which is remarkable for someone they claim is so polarizing. On the campaign trail her leadership was also on display. For example there was the time she stood on the chair in New Hampshire to rally her exhausted troops to victory. There is that wonderful photo of her speaking to supporters in a rainstorm with her hand raised high in the air against a midnight blue background. Hillary has the proven ability to lead in a crisis situation. Can the same be said of Obama? To the middle class she is a problem solver. To women who know she is the way. And to our great country which is struggling to fulfill its destiny and reestablish its preeminent place in the world she is the leader whose time has come.

    24. To Big Media who has so disgraced itself in this election, I would say this: “The Lady’s Not for Burning”. Sure as the earth turns, history will recount how you abdicated your institutional role under the First Amendment, subverted the truth, thwarted the electoral majority and did your level best to destroy a great political leader, her family and their legacy for your own self- aggrandizement. Your own audience told you to stop but you ignored them. Thus, it took the foreign press to call the game on you and now they have. It began with the British writers and now it has moved around the world to Asia. Here is the latest headline from the country that is the largest holder of our T-bills: “Hillary: A Heroine for Women, Taken Down By Male Dominated Media”. Congratulations MSNBC, CNN, AP, etc. Your contribution to civilization is starting to receive the recognition it deserves.

    25. Summary and Implications: i) the Democratic Party is no longer the party of the people, ii) the DNC has thrown its traditional base under the bus, iii) the DNC has substituted its judgment for that of the voters, iv) the DNC erred by declaring the winner prematurely, v) the DNC committed fraud when it allowed one hundred million dollars of campaign dollars to be solicited on the assumption that this was a competitive race when in fact it was not, vi) the Iron Triangle of Obama, Big Media and the DNC cannot be trusted and vii) Hillary should be the nominee. The super delegates in Denver will have one final opportunity to cure this problem. If they shrink the challenge then the damage to our country and our party will be irreversible.

  155. If Hillary can raise 5 million dollars for him but he can only raise 100,000 for her doesnt that make him look weak and ineffectual. I think it undermines his reputation as a great fundraiser. It puts another nail in his coffin as the man who can unite the party. That is an important like of argument. Think how insufferable he would be if it were the other wasy around. I think this works in Hillarys favor quite frankly. It is far better for her to retire the debt on her own.

    I had a three hour conversation today with a guy who is extremely knowlegable about the political landscape in this election and is a key player in an older organization targeting obama. In fact the insights in items 21-23 above reflect his thinking.

    He told me about a French Jewish Banker named Felix Rohatan (sp) who is executor of the Kennedy estate, founder of the DLC and the guy who led the party away from the Roosevelt ecomomic policy and to the free market policies they are pursuing now. He met with this Rohan recently, raised the possibilty of a return to Roosevelt policies as we teeter on the edge of a banking collapse involving Wachovia, BankAmrica,Citicorpse, Lehman Bros. and the guy went crazy the bottom line was no return to Roosevelt policies, stay the course with free market even if it destroys everything.

    These are the kind of nuts who are trying to destroy the Clintons. Soros who we have talked about her is one of them as well. As if we need anymore evidence of how bad he is I was told that he used MoveOn to attack war profiteer Halibuton, drove the stock way down so he could buy it cheap, then called over the untermenchen and let it rise back to original level, sold and made a $40 million profit. Again this is the unrepenant Nazi collaborator speculator friend of bambi.

  156. I am not sure I made it clear but the reason bambi donors will not donate to clinton is because many of them are invested in this free market stuff and fear a return to the economic policies of roosevelt which they try to dismiss as the artifacts of the industrial age, which is a very weak argument. In fact, as I noted in the lengthy piece 11 of his top 20 donors are international banks and international law firms who make a living off of free market principles.

    The problem with this free market stuff is in the end it produces a speculative bubble and then a collapse. Tulip bulb, etc. I think this is why Christ drove the money changers from the temple.

Comments are closed.