Hillary Is 44

Friday, April 11th, 2008

Barack Obama’s Two Faces and People Powered OUT Movement

Superdelegate Governor Schweitzer of Montana gets it. The Big Blogs, the Palestinians, Israel supporters, gun control advocates, gun control opponents - don’t hold your breath.

* * *

Tears rolled down our eyes we were laughing so hard. They should have read Obama’s Astroturf from May of last year or the equally illuminating Fo Shizzle It’s Fizzle.

Only now are some Obama supporters realizing what we wrote about hundreds of days ago. Back then, no one questioned why an Obama official, who started social website Facebook, stomped out a grassroots supporter on social website MySpace.

Some websites, at the time, did write about the ugly takeover of Joe Anthony’s Obama supporting website. Most Obama supporters were not troubled by the stomping out of a grassroots supporter. Joe Anthony, to his credit, stopped drinking the Obama Kool-ade.

Yesterday, reminiscent of Joe Anthony, Obama’s Astroturf campaign revealed itself as the total fake it is. Obama supporters, the poor dears, were dismayed.

The hypocritical saga of Obama once again talking out of both sides of his mouth was documented by Hillary supporter Campskunk. Campskunk quotes an Obama supporter surprised by reality:

“By dusk on Wednesday, the California Obama campaign had purged almost all progressive anti-war activists from its delegate candidate lists. Names of candidates, people who had filed to run to represent Obama at the August Democratic Party National Convention, disappeared, not one by one, but hundreds at a time, from the Party web site listing the eligibles. The list of Obama delegate hopefuls in one northern California congressional district went from a robust 100 to an anemic 23, while in southern California, the list in Congressman Waxman’s district almost slipped out of sight, plunging from a high of 91 candidates to 17. Gone were strong women with independent political bases.”

Marcy went on to state that the remaining candidates appeared to be mostly “bundlers and their girlfriends“.

Welcome to the real world kiddies. You just took the red pill.

The Obama campaign is backtracking after dumping 900 or so delegate candidates and is now making more excuses and handing out blue pills. Be not deceived dear Obama incense burners - he’s just not that into you. You will be the first to go at every turn. It’s the “new politics”.

* * *

It looks like Montana Democratic Governor Brian Schweitzer too just spit up the Obama Kool-ade because of two-face Obama. Montana votes on the very last day of the primary season and Governor Schweitzer is much loved in his state and in the Big Blogs. Let the Big Blog hatefest against Governor Schweitzer begin.

Some background on Superdelegate Montana Governor Schweitzer:

He owes the win in large part to his “regular guy” image and conservative stance on guns.

Now, with only three years in office under his belt, Schweitzer, who is neutral in the current presidential race, is sometimes mentioned by pundits as a possible running mate for Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. Like the Democratic presidential front-runner, Schweitzer came out early against the Iraq War and has sworn off PAC money.

Despite a political profile that could help underscore the Democrats’ determination to win in traditionally Republican areas, it is easier to imagine the blunt-speaking Schweitzer making his own presidential run in 2012 than it is to see him playing second fiddle this year.

Governor Schweitzer, like Elizabeth and John Edwards, knows Hillary is exactly right on her healthcare proposal and that Obama will leave out millions of Americans from the weak Obama NOT universal health care scheme (Note: Don’t miss Paul Krugman today on Hillary and Health Care):

While Schweitzer has not proposed his own universal health care plan in Montana, he believes Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., is right to have endorsed a mandate on the national level.

By not requiring individuals to purchase insurance, Schweitzer believes Obama’s plan to forbid insurance companies to deny coverage because of pre-existing conditions will lead to healthy people opting out and sick people opting in.

“You’ve got to get everyone in the system,” said Schweitzer.

Oh, dear. The Big Blog boobs will clutch their pearls on this one:

He is dismayed that Obama cast a vote for President Bush’s 2005 energy bill while regularly criticizing the president on the issue.

“Sounds like Senate-speak,” said Schweitzer.

He also takes issue with Obama for his statement to environmental groups last year in which he pledged not to support the development of any coal-to-liquid fuels unless they emit at least 20 percent less life-cycle carbon than conventional fuels.

Schweitzer, who has focused on the development of clean coal as governor, believes the 20 percent benchmark might be achievable. But even if coal-to-liquid fuels cannot be made any cleaner than conventional fuels, Schweitzer believes Obama should embrace coal as a way to reduce U.S. dependence on imported petroleum.

If Schweitzer were running for president, he says he would spend $100 billion on research and development into carbon sequestration technology.

“It sounds like a lot until you consider that we’re spending $1 billion a day in Iraq,” said Schweitzer.

Oh, double dear. Governor Schweitzer is not even happy with Obama on Iraq policy:

Schweitzer supports Obama’s call for an end to U.S. fighting in Iraq. But the Montana governor disagrees with Obama on the wisdom of long-term bases.

While Obama opposes leaving U.S. troops in Iraq to blunt the influence of neighboring countries, Schweitzer sees long-term U.S. bases in Iraq functioning as a “tripwire” against a broader regional war.

As to Obama’s pie-in-the-sky hope to win the west, Schweitzer knows Obama can’t win Montana:

But don’t look for an endorsement until after June 3: Schweitzer plans to back the winner of Montana’s last-in-the-nation primary.

While he thinks either Obama or Clinton running on his or her own has a 50-50 shot of winning the White House against presumptive Republican nominee John McCain, Schweitzer doesn’t think either Democrat can take Montana.

Asked why not, he had a one word answer: “Guns.”

Obama has been multi-faced on Guns too. Obama might have trouble winning a primary, not just in Pennsylvania, but in Montana too. Governor Schweitzer is is a Big Sky Democrat, not a pie-in-the-sky Democrat.

* * *

Palestinians and Jews have enough problems so we won’t mock or make light of their foolishness in trusting anything Obama says - too much. Obama can’t be trusted guys. As a president his foolishness and pie-in-the-sky lack of experience skullduggery and back stabbing would only bring you more grief. Haven’t you suffered enough?

Politico sums it up:

Peter Wallsten has a really well-reported piece this morning on Obama’s relationship with Palestinian activists in Chicago, and in particular his friendship with Columbia professor Rashid Khalidi.

The story doesn’t provide any evidence that Obama ever expressed anti-Israel views, and in more recent years he’s been very publicly pro-Israel, as his campaign reasserted in response to the piece. But it does place him at events at which Israel is accused of “apartheid” and details his friendly relationship with Palestinian activist, and Columbia University professor, Rashid Khalidi.

At this point, I’d say the damage to Obama with a segment of the Jewish community is probably going to be very hard to reverse. This isn’t a huge percentage of the vote of a community that doesn’t exist in big numbers in most swing states anyway. But for pro-Israel Jews who, say, know of Khalidi and consider him a hostile figure, and for the people in their communities who listen to them, the damage that comes with Obama’s Hyde Park milieu is going to be very, very hard to repair.

“There is a segment of the pro-Israel community in which skepticism of Barack Obama is only rising,” said the unaligned Democratic consultant Ken Baer, who follows Jewish politics closely, and whom I called this morning to talk about the story. [snip]

The Jewish vote matters a lot in Florida (which some think is now safely Republican anyway); it matters less, but a bit, in Ohio, where several thousand votes can make a big difference. [snip]

And, while we’re doing the electoral math, the perception that he’s friendly to Palestine may help Obama with Arab voters in Michigan and elsewhere, if they were inclined to vote Republican.

Um, Florida and Michigan. Little wonder Obama does not want a revote in those states.

Excerpts from the Los Angeles Times article about two face Obama and why he can’t be trusted:

A special tribute came from Khalidi’s friend and frequent dinner companion, the young state Sen. Barack Obama. Speaking to the crowd, Obama reminisced about meals prepared by Khalidi’s wife, Mona, and conversations that had challenged his thinking.

His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been “consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. . . . It’s for that reason that I’m hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation - a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid’s dinner table,” but around “this entire world.”

Today, five years later, Obama is a U.S. senator from Illinois who expresses a firmly pro-Israel view of Middle East politics, pleasing many of the Jewish leaders and advocates for Israel whom he is courting in his presidential campaign. The dinner conversations he had envisioned with his Palestinian American friend have ended. He and Khalidi have seen each other only fleetingly in recent years.

And yet the warm embrace Obama gave to Khalidi, and words like those at the professor’s going-away party, have left some Palestinian American leaders believing that Obama is more receptive to their viewpoint than he is willing to say.

Yes guys, keep listening to what he is not saying, that’s a real smart posture. Obama can’t be trusted. Part of the flim flam is to have people listen to what you don’t even say, to deceive them with winks and nods, to assure all sides you are on their side. But Obama is only on one side - his. Obama can’t be trusted.

Their belief is not drawn from Obama’s speeches or campaign literature, but from comments that some say Obama made in private and from his association with the Palestinian American community in his hometown of Chicago, including his presence at events where anger at Israeli and U.S. Middle East policy was freely expressed.

At Khalidi’s 2003 farewell party, for example, a young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel. If Palestinians cannot secure their own land, she said, “then you will never see a day of peace.”

One speaker likened “Zionist settlers on the West Bank” to Osama bin Laden, saying both had been “blinded by ideology.”

Obama will say anything to anyone at any time. He can’t be trusted guys. He says one thing in public then another thing in public and then another thing in private and then another thing in private. He can’t be trusted.

“I am confident that Barack Obama is more sympathetic to the position of ending the occupation than either of the other candidates,” said Hussein Ibish, a senior fellow for the American Task Force on Palestine, referring to the Israeli presence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip that began after the 1967 war. More than his rivals for the White House, Ibish said, Obama sees a “moral imperative” in resolving the conflict and is most likely to apply pressure to both sides to make concessions.

“That’s my personal opinion,” Ibish said, “and I think it for a very large number of circumstantial reasons, and what he’s said.”

Obama talks out of both sides of his mouth. Ask blogger Joe Anthony, asked the purged delegates, ask gun control advocates and opponents:

Last year, for example, Obama was quoted saying that “nobody’s suffering more than the Palestinian people.” The candidate later said the remark had been taken out of context, and that he meant that the Palestinians were suffering “from the failure of the Palestinian leadership [in Gaza] to recognize Israel” and to renounce violence.

Jewish leaders were satisfied with Obama’s explanation, but some Palestinian leaders, including Ibish, took the original quotation as a sign of the candidate’s empathy for their plight. [snip]

Among other community events, Obama in 1998 attended a speech by Edward Said, the late Columbia University professor and a leading intellectual in the Palestinian movement. According to a news account of the speech, Said called that day for a nonviolent campaign “against settlements, against Israeli apartheid.”

The use of such language to describe Israel’s policies has drawn vehement objection from Israel’s defenders in the United States. A photo on the pro-Palestinian website the Electronic Intifada shows Obama and his wife, Michelle, engaged in conversation at the dinner table with Said, and later listening to Said’s keynote address. Obama had taken an English class from Said as an undergraduate at Columbia University.

Ali Abunimah, a Palestinian rights activist in Chicago who helps run Electronic Intifada, said that he met Obama several times at Palestinian and Arab American community events. At one, a 2000 fundraiser at a private home, Obama called for the U.S. to take an “even-handed” approach toward Israel, Abunimah wrote in an article on the website last year. He did not cite Obama’s specific criticisms.

Abunimah, in a Times interview and on his website, said Obama seemed sympathetic to the Palestinian cause but more circumspect as he ran for the U.S. Senate in 2004. At a dinner gathering that year, Abunimah said, Obama greeted him warmly and said privately that he needed to speak cautiously about the Middle East.

Abunimah quoted Obama as saying that he was sorry he wasn’t talking more about the Palestinian cause, but that his primary campaign had constrained what he could say.

Poor Jews, Poor Palestinians, so tired, so desperate for hope, they listen to the flim flam man.

Poor Americans, so sick and tired of Bush, so desperate for hope, they listen to the flim flam man.

Obama, the flim flam man keeps talking out of both sides of his mouth:

Even as he won support in Chicago’s Palestinian community, Obama tried to forge ties with advocates for Israel.

In 2000, he submitted a policy paper to CityPAC, a pro-Israel political action committee, that among other things supported a unified Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, a position far out of step from that of his Palestinian friends. The PAC concluded that Obama’s position paper “suggests he is strongly pro-Israel on all of the major issues.”

Obama can’t be trusted, by anyone.

Nationally, Obama continues to face skepticism from some Jewish leaders who are wary of his long association with his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., who had made racially incendiary comments during several sermons that recently became widely known. Questions have persisted about Wright in part because of the recent revelation that his church bulletin reprinted a Times op-ed written by a leader of Hamas.

One Jewish leader said he viewed Obama’s outreach to Palestinian activists, such as Said, in the light of his relationship to Wright.

“In the context of spending 20 years in a church where now it is clear the anti-Israel rhetoric was there, was repeated, . . . that’s what makes his presence at an Arab American event with a Said a greater concern,” said Abraham H. Foxman, national director for the Anti-Defamation League.

Spare yourselves grief. Reject both, or rather all, of Obama’s many faces. Don’t listen to words that come from any side of Obama’s mouth.

Obama’s words can’t be taken at face values - any of his faces.

Obama can’t be trusted.

696 Comments » - Posted in Obama by Staff

---

Thursday, April 10th, 2008

Real Men Love Hillary Clinton

* * *

Speaking of misogynists,

(New Yorkers - don’t forget the protest outside NBC this Friday morning at 8:00 a.m., West 48th Street and Rockefeller Plaza)

the Sunday, April 13, 2008 New York Times Magazine has a profile of festering weed Chris Matthews. Not much is learned from watching Matthews or the networks he is on. There is only frustration and deception to be retrieved from NBC/MSNBC’s fetid waters

Excerpts which help to explain why Matthews is so at home with Obama’s circus of the ridiculous:

He is, in a sense, the carnival barker at the center of it, spewing tiny pellets of chewed nuts across the table while comparing Obama to Mozart and Clinton to Salieri. At one point, Matthews suddenly became hypnotized by a TV over the bar set to a rebroadcast of “Hardball.” “Hey, there I am — it’s me,” he said, staring at himself on the screen. “It’s me.” [snip]

He gets in trouble sometimes and has to apologize — as he did after suggesting that Hillary Clinton owed her election to the Senate to the fact that her husband “messed around.” He is also something of a YouTube sensation: see Chris getting challenged to a duel by the former Georgia governor, Zell Miller; describing the “thrill going up my leg” after an Obama speech; dancing with (and accidentally groping) Ellen DeGeneres on her show; shouting down the conservative commentator Michelle Malkin; ogling CNBC’s Erin Burnett. And he has provided a running bounty of material for Media Matters for America, a liberal media watchdog, which has devoted an entire section of its Web site (“The Matthews Monitor”) to cataloging Matthews’s alleged offenses, especially against Hillary Clinton and women generally.

Matthews the dinosaur:

Yet for as basic as he has become to the political and media furniture, Matthews is anything but secure. He is of the moment, but, at 62, also something of a throwback — to an era of politics set in the ethnic Democratic wards of the ’60s and the O’Neill-Reagan battles of the ’80s. And he is a product of an aging era of cable news, the late-’90s, when “Hardball” started and Matthews made his name as a battering critic of Bill Clinton during the Monica saga.

Cable political coverage has changed, however, and so has the sensibility that viewers — particularly young ones — expect from it. Matthews’s bombast is radically at odds with the wry, antipolitical style fashioned by Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert or the cutting and finely tuned cynicism of Matthews’s MSNBC co-worker Keith Olbermann. These hosts betray none of the reverence for politics or the rituals of Washington that Matthews does. On the contrary, they appeal to the eye-rolling tendencies of a cooler, highly educated urban cohort of the electorate that mostly dismisses an exuberant political animal like Matthews as annoyingly antiquated, like the ranting uncle at the Thanksgiving table whom the kids have learned to tune out.

Nothing illustrated Matthews’s discordance with the new cable ethos better than an eviscerating interview he suffered through last fall at the hands of Stewart himself. Matthews went on the “The Daily Show” to promote his book “Life’s a Campaign: What Politics Has Taught Me About Friendship, Rivalry, Reputation and Success.” The book essentially advertises itself as a guidebook for readers wishing to apply the lessons of winning politicians to succeeding in life. “People don’t mind being used; they mind being discarded” is the title of one chapter. “A self-hurt book” and “a recipe for sadness” Stewart called it, and the interview was all squirms from there. “This strikes me as artifice,” Stewart said. “If you live by this book, your life will be strategy, and if your life is strategy, you will be unhappy.”

Clean the house, wash the windows, gas up the car, shop for groceries, just don’t watch NBC/MSNBC:

Part of this can be viewed purely through a bottom-line lens. Matthews’s contract expires next year, and NBC officials clearly would like to renew it for considerably less than the $5 million a year he is making now. Whether it’s a formal talking point or not, NBC officials seem bent on conveying the message that they could get the same ratings, or better ones, for considerably less money.

But the broader issue involves whether Matthews is a man trapped in a tired caricature. And it touches on the future of his archetype in general — in other words, whither the cable blowhard? The “What happens to Chris” question — a hot topic at NBC these days — infuses the Matthews story with a kind of “lion in winter” urgency, if not poignancy. It also goes to the core of how Matthews sees himself, how cable news is changing and how Americans perceive of and consume their politics.

Who knew? Buffoons have standards:

A number of people I spoke with at NBC said that Russert can be disdainful of Matthews, whose act he often sees as clownish. They also told me that Russert believes Matthews is something of a loose cannon who brings him undue headaches in his capacity as NBC’s Washington bureau chief. This friction was immortalized in notes revealed during the trial of Scooter Libby. Mary Matalin, an adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney, was quoted as having suggested that Libby call Russert to complain about Matthews’s rants against the White House’s Iraq policy. “Call Tim — he hates Chris,” Matalin supposedly told Libby. [snip]

Friends say Matthews is wary of another up-and-comer, David Gregory, who last month was given a show at 6 o’clock, between airings of “Hardball.” It is a common view around NBC that Gregory is trying out as a possible replacement for Matthews. [snip]

Matthews seems less than thrilled with “co-anchoring” MSNBC’s election coverage with him, as he has done on many nights during this campaign. When Olbermann is on the same set, Matthews appears different — restrained, even shrinking at times. According to people at NBC, Matthews has not been shy in voicing his resentment of Olbermann. Nor, according to network sources, has Olbermann bothered to hide his low regard for Matthews, although when I spoke to him, Olbermann denied any personal animosity toward Matthews and told me that he appreciates his “John Madden-like enthusiasm for politics.”

Bullseye:

“Hardball” had its debut in 1997, on CNBC, and was catapulted by the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal. Matthews built an instant following, and loathing. In his book about the media’s conduct during the Monica saga, Bill Kovach, the founding chairman of the Committee of Concerned Journalists, anointed Matthews as part of a “new class of chatterers who emerged in this scandal . . . a group of loosely credentialed, self-interested performers whose primary job is remaining on TV.” [snip]

If Matthews has an overriding professional insecurity, it is being confined to the pigeonhole of cable blowhard. The insecurity is well founded, since this is how many people view him. “The shorthand for Chris in the gossip columns is always ‘blabbermouth’ or ‘cable yakker’ or something,” said Nancy Nathan, the executive producer of “The Chris Matthews Show.” [snip]

As I began researching this article, Jeremy Gaines, an MSNBC spokesman, gave me the names of about a dozen people that Matthews recommended I speak to, all famous — everyone from Nancy Pelosi to Marvin Hamlisch. But gatekeepers for more than one of these people expressed confusion as to why Matthews would refer me to them. “Please keep us out of this,” pleaded a spokesperson for one prominent politician whom Matthews had recommended via Gaines.

Matthews loves Obama but says he does not:

He has been attacked, repeatedly, for his perceived pro-Obama/anti-Clinton perspective — a bias he disputes. He notes that he and the former first lady like to “kid around” when they see each other and that he did a memorably tough interview with an Obama surrogate, State Senator Kirk Watson of Texas, who failed — despite Matthews’s grilling — to identify a single legislative accomplishment by Obama. “That was an iconic moment,” Matthews said of the Watson interview.

Still, it’s hard to watch Matthews and conclude that he has been anything less than enthralled by Obama and, at the very least, is sick of Clinton. The antipathy dates back some time. Just before the start of Clinton’s first campaign for the Senate in 2000, Matthews said: “Hillary Clinton bugs a lot of guys, I mean, really bugs people — like maybe me on occasion. . . . She drives some of us absolutely nuts.” During this campaign he has repeatedly referred to her sense of entitlement and arrogance. Meanwhile, David Shuster, a correspondent for MSNBC who appears frequently on “Hardball,” was suspended for two weeks earlier this year for asking whether the Clinton campaign had “pimped out” Chelsea Clinton by enlisting her to court celebrities and superdelegates.

By contrast, Matthews has called Obama “bigger than Kennedy” and compared the success of his campaign to “the New Testament.” His reviews of Obama’s speeches have been comically effusive at times, as when he described “this thrill going up my leg” after an Obama victory speech. (“Steady,” Olbermann cautioned him on the air.)

“I love Chris, but he definitely drank the Obama Kool-Aid,” Ed Rendell, the Pennsylvania governor and a Clinton supporter, told me.

In a recent interview on “Morning Joe” with Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, who had just endorsed Obama, Matthews described the “stunning picture” of a Latino governor (Richardson) standing with an African-American candidate and how inspiring it was for so many voters. “That is where we should be putting our focus, not on the feelings of the Clintons, about what people owe them and their sense of entitlement,” Matthews said.

Richardson tried to say something, but Matthews just kept going. “We’ve got to stop talking about this as if this were a sitcom,” Matthews continued. “We had eight years of the sitcom. . . . It’s a sitcom, and it’s gotta end.” He lamented that 4,000 people are dead in Iraq “because of decisions made by politicians like the Clintons.”

Mika Brzezinski, a co-host of “Morning Joe,” then asked Matthews whether he was endorsing Obama.

“Why would you say that?” Matthews said, looking dumbfounded.

Wife and daughter love Obama too:

So Kathleen made lattes in the kitchen while Caroline — home on a break from Penn — sat at an island-table spread with Sunday newspapers. She is finishing her freshman year and active in the Obama campaign. Kathleen, meanwhile, contributed $2,200 to the Clinton campaign. [snip]

“We all talk about the Clintons,” Matthews said at the conclusion of a diatribe about the national obsession with Bill and Hillary. “I have never been at a party where it doesn’t become a topic. Who are we gonna talk about? Bob Dole? John Kerry? Al Gore?”

Kathleen added, “Also, we’ve had so much time with them. We’ve watched them in this fishbowl.”

Chris: “I find it very hard to do.”

Kathleen: “With the Obamas, we can’t even speculate.”

The “sexist thing”:

The conversation moved to what Matthews calls “the sexist thing,” or what Media Matters calls Matthews’s “history of degrading comments about women, in which he focuses on the physical appearances of his female guests and of other women discussed on his program.” This would include Matthews loudly admiring the conservative radio host Laura Ingraham (“You’re great looking, obviously — one of God’s gifts to men in this country”), Elizabeth Edwards (“You’ve got a great face”), Jane Fonda (“You also dazzle us with your beauty and all the good things”), CNBC’s Margaret Brennan (“You’re gorgeous”) and Erin Burnett (“You’re beautiful. . . . You’re a knockout”), among others. The Burnett episode was especially remarked upon. In the video Matthews instructed Burnett to “get a little closer to the camera.” As Burnett became confused, Matthews persisted: “Come on in closer. No, come in — come in further — come in closer. Really close.” It was, at the minimum, uncomfortable to watch.

Matthews says the notion that he is sexist has been pushed unfairly by blogs, women’s groups and, to some degree, the Clinton campaign. His remark that Clinton benefitted because her husband “messed around” triggered much outrage from the Clinton team. Matthews eventually apologized in a rambling on-air explanation, but he hardly sounds contrite now. “I was tonally inaccurate but factually true,” he told me. I had asked him earlier if he was forced into the apology. “Oh, yeah, of course I was forced into that,” he said, laughing. “No, no, no . . . Phil [Griffin] asked me to do that.”

Matthews vigorously denies the broader charge that he demeans women on the air. “I don’t think there’s any evidence of that at all,” he said at brunch. “I’ve gone back and looked. Give me the evidence. No one can give it to me. I went through all my stuff. I can’t find it.” I mentioned Erin Burnett, and the name landed like a brick on the dining-room table.

* * *

The rest of Your Song. Thank you Elton John:

410 Comments » - Posted in Hillary, Scum by Staff

---

Wednesday, April 9th, 2008

Hillary Clinton - Rise

[Elizabeth Edwards on Good Morning America today. Elizabeth Edwards says she backs Hillary Clinton’s health care plan. “You need that universality in order to get the cost savings … I just have more confidence in Sen. Clinton’s policy than Sen. Obama’s on this particular issue,” she said.”]

[Taylor Marsh, under attack, could use some words of encouragement and support. Keep on fighting Taylor.]

* * *

For the past few weeks Hillary Clinton has been campaigning in several states not just Pennsylvania. During that time Barack Obama has been touring Pennsylvania by bus as well as boring the citizens of Pennsylvania with many advertisements - the same torment citizens of Ohio and Texas were subjected to without much success for Obama.

As we pointed out yesterday, the reliable SurveyUSA still has Hillary well ahead in Pennsylvania (of course the new SurveyUSA Pennsylvania poll has not been discussed in Big Media television outlets - they prefer to keep misinforming Americans that the race in Pennsylvania is “tight”. Fine by us - Hillary’s Pennsylvania victory will be that much sweeter when Big Media and Big Blogs have to once again eat crow and explain their misinformation to those few Americans who still pay attention to Big Media/Big Blogs).

The new Hillary ad campaign in Pennsylvania, and Obama’s diminishing returns on his cash investments, means that Hillary has probably passed her low point in Pennsylvania (which was not much of a low point) and will now - in Maya Angelou’s words - RISE .

From the Courier-Journal (published in Kentucky and Southern Indiana) discussing Hillary’s new ad campaign:

The ads come as Obama has been outspending Clinton in Pennsylvania, with the state’s April 22 primary only two weeks away. As of Sunday, Obama had spent $3.6 million in the state to Clinton’s $1.3 million, according to data compiled by TNS Media Intelligence/Campaign Media Analysis Group. [snip]

“They’re trying to end the race for the White House with an unyielding media blitz,” an e-mail to supporters says. “Don’t let a sea of Obama ads overwhelm our powerful message in Pennsylvania. Contribute now.”

Obama has tried everything to fool Pennsylvania citizens to vote for him. Obama has probably already hit his high water mark in Pennsylvania. Hillary is now airing ads in Pennsylvania addressing the citizens of Pennsylvania.

The Clinton campaign today announced five television ads that will air in different cities throughout the Keystone State beginning today. The five ads - “Get it Done,” “Spectacular,” “Scranton,” “Falling Through” and “Nuestra Amiga” - include testimonials from Governor Ed Rendell and Mayor Michael Nutter, as well as a biographical spot highlighting Hillary’s ties to Pennsylvania.

The ads highlight Hillary’s ability to get the job done as president - her commitment to jumpstarting our economy, standing up for the middle class, and bringing quality, universal health care to all Americans. “Nuestra Amiga,” a Spanish language ad, highlights Hillary’s understanding of the Latino community and the problems it faces.

Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter:

Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell:

Hillary’s History in Scranton:

Hillary Discusses the Trapdoor Economy:

Nuestra Amiga:

Hillary will also keynote the Allegheny County Democratic Committee’s Jefferson/Jackson Dinner in the Keystone State:

“We are both honored and excited that Senator Clinton has accepted our offer to speak at this year’s Jefferson Jackson Dinner,” said Jim Burn, Chairman of the Allegheny County Democratic Committee. “With so much National and International attention focused on this year’s Primary, and with Pennsylvania being a major player in a Presidential Primary for the first time in over 30 years, Senator Clinton’s presence at this Dinner will surely make it a huge success.”

The Jefferson Jackson Dinner is scheduled to start at 6:30 p.m. on April 10 at Heinz Field in the North Shore. Tickets are $125 for one or $1,000 for a table of 10. The party expects more than 1,000 people to attend, Burn said.

We have placed links on the right hand side column for those wishing to makes calls to Pennsylvania for Hillary as well as those wishing to sign the petition in defense of the voting rights of Florida and Michigan citizens.

Make calls, sign petitions and contribute to a Hillary victory in Pennsylvania.

381 Comments » - Posted in Hillary by Staff

---

Tuesday, April 8th, 2008

La Borinquena Hillary Clinton

It will be a glorious day in August when we walk with Hillary Clinton into the Democratic convention. We will walk into the Democratic convention with the full, (no backroom deals) elected Florida and Michigan delegations, and air out the smell of incense from the hall.

What a glorious day that will be. Today is a glorious day too.

After spending millions of dollars, demanding Hillary Clinton be thugged out of the race, trumpeted temporary endorsements, sad tours to bamboozle voters while pretending to dislike designer beers and arugula - Obama is still behind in reliable Pennsylvania polls. The most reliable poll this election season (SurveyUSA) today has Hillary ahead of Obama 56% to 38%.

Ordinarily, after voting season begins, we pay attention to polls the week before the election to gauge the latest state of play. Election day voting is what counts of course. But this SurveyUSA poll with Hillary Clinton in the dominant position in Pennsylvania, without much movement from their previous poll, is a delicious joy because it illustrates why Obama fears Hillary Clinton so much and why Obama incense burners are trying to thug Hillary Clinton out of the election.

Poor Obama. Wait until Hillary Clinton debates him on April 16. His bowling score will be Obama’s Pennsylvania highlight when Hillary gets through with him.

Oh well, let them try to thug Hillary Clinton out. It’s the Chicago way. Ken Starr, Newt, the whole Republican Party, the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, they all tried to thug Hillary Clinton out. A bunch of PINOs and libertarian left blogs such as DailyKooks, Obama shills like Josh Marshall at the Obama Talking Points, Arriana Huff n’ Puff, Hate Hillary Cheerleaders Olbermann and Matthews with pom poms Russert and the entire NBC network will be as successful as Newt and the boys.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton is not only campaigning in Montana, Indiana, North Carolina, the Dakotas, Oregon, Kentucky and West Virginia, but Puerto Rico too. We love seeing Bill in Puerto Rico campaiging for Hillary.

Let Obama Chicago thugs try to thug Hillary out of the elections in the next 10 primaries. Let Dean and Brazile try to thug Hillary out of the race so they can then and only then, reverse themselves and enfranchise the crucial, must win voters of Florida and Michigan. Let them all play their games. We’ll show them all what we are made of in Denver. For now, we’ll watch Bill in Puerto Rico:

Bill Clinton was in Puerto Rico for a two day visit. Here is a good site for Puerto Rico political news (LINK).

While in Puerto Rico Bill visited the San Juan Unveiling of an FDR statue, visited the Barceloneta Industrial Zone; attended the Dedication of a pediatric wing in Hermanos Meléndez Hospital; attended a community forum in Salinas; and went to a rally in Ponce plaza.

Bill Clinton made the case for Hillary Clinton, La Borinquena, in Puerto Rico and let Puerto Rico know Hillary will fight for their right to be heard along with all the states yet to be heard from:

Bill Clinton took his wife’s presidential campaign to Puerto Rico on Sunday night, telling islanders that Sen. Hillary Clinton is the best candidate to fix a struggling economy. The former president arrived for a two-day visit ahead of the U.S. Caribbean territory’s June 1 Democratic primary, which could give Puerto Rico a rare opportunity to have a say in national politics.

The irony in all this is that Puerto Rico, which is not a state in the United States, will have a large voice in the Democratic nominating process while Dean/Brazile disenfranchise the states of Florida and Michigan.

[For those that want a giggle: while President Bill Clinton was in Puerto Rico for Hillary the Barack Obama circus sent in - Patrick Kennedy! Patrick Kennedy, ha, who cannot win his own Rhode Island for Obama, is sent to win the Island of Puerto Rico. Those great results in California when Ted and Maria and Carolina were supposed to win over the Latino vote must have been forgotten by Obama’s Chicago thugs.]

As we have written before, Puerto Rico, Indiana, North Carolina, Oregon, West Virginia, the Dakotas, Montana, Nebraska and Kentucky are concerns for the future. Right now the concern, the object of our attention is Pennsylvania.

Join sisters Theresa Gropelli and Kathy Benn.

Contribute financially to the Pennsylvania Victory or ask friends to contibute.

Make calls to Pennsylvania.

Let’s open the windows and get rid of the incense stink.

Let’s win Pennsylvania!

303 Comments » - Posted in Hillary, Obama, Scum by Staff

---

Monday, April 7th, 2008

More Worries For Donna

Donna Brazile is whining to Hillary Clinton about “angry” Hillary supporters here on Big Pink.

Apparently some commenters on this site have been communicating with Donna on her Blackberry and Donna is not happy to be called out on her Obama bias.

Hillary supporters like Carville and Begala were dumped as commentators by CNN for being open Hillary supporters after Obama complained to Sam Feist of CNN. Donna Brazile deceives CNN viewers by faking neutrality in the presidential race but is not fired.

We certainly hope that the new responsible officials bought in weeks earlier by the Hillary campaign will assess Donna Brazile’s public statements and call for her removal by CNN. Former campaign officials who failed to note Brazile’s pro-Obama tilt are busy today promoting irresponsible proposals to consider the friend of indicted slumlord Rezko on the national ticket.

Obviously these former officials while at the campaign did not fully understand the full corruption of Obama and the Chicago crowd nor did they understand that Obama is simply not qualified to be president. They also did not understand that Obama has already disqualified himself in big swing states Michigan and Florida by disenfranchising those key voters. Hopefully these former campaign officials were the ones leaking doubt to Big Media outlets and they are now gone.

According to Politico, Donna just wants to help Hillary not hurt Hillary. Donna thinks it is Hillary supporters who are “destroying her candidacy”. We provide a complete response email by Donna:

I have not endorsed. So, please do not assume a thing about my conscience but I can honestly say this: no one who provoke this kind of anger in voters deserves to be President.

Honestly, I am so tired of Hillary’s supporters and I believe the vast right wing is also behind these rants.

Do you know how many undeclared supers are now just turned off by people like you? Do you understand you’re hurting her and not promoting Hillary? Perhaps that explains why a candidate like Obama has raised $40 million in one month. You don’t have to email me again.

I am not worthy of your anger or rants. Besides, I head home to Louisiana and I get enough from my own hard working friends and family members.

We assume that Donna is blaming the victim, Hillary, here when she confusingly writes “no one who provoke this kind of anger in voters deserves to be President”. Donna is clearly not aware of the loathing and anger directed toward JFK, FDR, Abe Lincoln and just about any president worth a damn.

Assuming Donna is referring to Hillary, Donna appears in this sentence to disqualify Hillary from becoming president due to the “anger” Hillary “provoke”. In either case, whether Donna is blaming the victim or needs a refresher course in history it’s not as if plenty of Americans don’t find Obama repulsive and will never accept him as president.

If Donna is upset with Big Pink. Donna has more worries coming.

Hillary donors are angry and are threatening to withhold donations and some are already asking for refunds.

Hillary Florida donors are especially angry:

“If you’re not going to count my vote, I’m not going to give you my money,” said Mr. Cejas, who was the United States ambassador to Belgium from 1998 to 2001.

Christopher Korge, a Florida real estate developer who is another top fund-raiser for Mrs. Clinton, held an event last year in his home that brought in about $140,000 for the national party, which was set aside in a special account for the general election battle in Florida. But he told committee officials this week that if Florida’s delegate conundrum was not settled satisfactorily he would be asking for the money back.

“If we do not resolve this issue,” Mr. Korge said, “I think it’s safe to say there will be a request for a return of $140,000.”

There’s a revolt against the men in Massachusetts:

Last week, a group of Democratic women who support Clinton rallied in front of the State House. They want the state’s superdelegates - including Governor Deval Patrick and Senators Edward M. Kennedy and John F. Kerry - to support primary revotes in Michigan and Florida.

The men - all Obama supporters - are less than eager to take up their request. The women, lead by Senate President Therese Murray, have Clinton’s self-interest on their side. But they also have principle.

By disenfranchising voters in two states, the Democratic Party looks less than inclusive; and, Obama, the candidate who promises a different kind of politics, looks like he’s practicing the same old, same old. That’s wrong, and it’s also shortsighted. If the Obama campaign works to stifle votes now, how can any Democratic nominee complain if Republicans do the same in November?

Watch it Donna, those ladies look “angry”:

Clinton won the Massachusetts primary over Obama, despite his high-profile male supporters. Now, Clinton backers are pressuring the male political establishment to support revotes elsewhere.

The State House rally also included Boston City Council President Maureen Feeney; Suffolk County Sheriff Andrea Cabral; former state treasurer Shannon O’Brien; and former lieutenant governor Evelyn Murphy. They are threatening to withhold support for the party nominee, if they don’t like the way the nominating process plays out.

“Without us, there is no party. And if we leave, that wouldn’t be good,” said Murray, according to a State House News Service report.

Earlier this year, Murray, the first woman to hold the Senate president’s post, chastised Kennedy and other prominent men for abandoning Clinton to support Obama. “I don’t want to be pushed aside anymore,” said Murray. “I don’t want to be patted on the head, saying, ‘You did a good job on that, but now we got this young person, we got this attractive man, because you can’t get elected because the media said you couldn’t, because the polls said you couldn’t. We’re going to put this guy out front.’ ”

Watch it Donna, these ladies look really really “angry”. They are attacking the hypocrites full on. They are like a “hornet’s nest”, “wasps” - as the Massachusetts Obama male delegation would say:

Kennedy backs a delegate-driven nomination, rather than one determined by superdelegates. It’s a position of some irony, given his stance during the 1980 presidential campaign, when he and incumbent President Jimmy Carter battled through a nine-month primary season. Kennedy came into the Democratic Convention with fewer delegates than Carter, and pushed unsuccessfully for a rule to release delegates from their voting commitment. A few years later, the party embraced the rule that prevails today; so-called superdelegates can pledge their vote to whomever they prefer.

Kerry - the Democratic presidential nominee still haunted by how the votes were counted in Ohio in 2004 - told Clinton’s female supporters he cares about fairness, but has yet to finalize a meeting with them.

Patrick finally agreed to a one-hour meeting set for Thursday, after repeated requests from women who were among his staunchest supporters during his 2006 gubernatorial campaign.

Watch out, guys. Another revolution could be brewing in Massachusetts.

Oh, Donna. It’s not just the donors and the women - there are other troublemakers who are “angry”. There’s this video from “angry” Youtube watchamacallits - Oh, Donna, the internets people are “angry” too at all the ugly media bias - which probably includes you Donna:

It’s not only on the internets, Donna. We are sure you agree: the people are revolting.

They will be “angry” this Friday, April 11, 2008 - outside West 48th Street and Rockefeller Plaza.

Fire up your Blackberry Donna. There is more “anger” ahead.

[We’ll discuss more Donna emails and Donna’s role against Gays and Donna’s hypocritical roles as a “voter rights advocate” in the biggest election swindle yet - the voter disenfranchisement in Florida and Michigan.]

305 Comments » - Posted in Hillary, Scum by Staff

---

Sunday, April 6th, 2008

Hillary Clinton’s Battle Cry Of Freedom

Yesterday, our own bcc captured in one single graphic what a thousand words cannot. bcc has captured, the Howard Dean aided, Obama theft scam - the 48 State Strategy. This is the flag we will carry into the “Democratic” National Committee Convention hall.

Taylor Marsh is flying the flag today too.

The damage already inflicted by Dean/Obama/Brazile will not be undone by a backroom deal which eventually seats the Florida and Michigan delegates.

The Obama/Dean/Brazile belief that they can force an Obama nomination and then seat the Florida and Michigan delegates thereby reversing the damage to Democrats in Florida and Michigan is delusional.

Every voter in Michigan and Florida will remember that Dean/Obama/Brazile have done everything possible to disenfranchise Florida and Michigan voters. The damage is done.

When Florida and Michigan needed an advocate for their civil rights, Obama voted “NO”.

Obama cannot win Michigan nor Florida in November. At every poll site Florida and Michigan voters will remember in November that Obama/Dean/Brazile will not protect their democratic rights.

Obama cannot be trusted with the civil rights of Michigan and Florida voters. Obama cannot be trusted.

The 44 electoral votes of Michigan and Florida will be decisive in November. John McCain and the Republicans will remind voters of the Obama/Dean/Brazile treachery at every turn. Florida and Michigan voters cannot trust Obama. None of us can trust Obama.

Obama cannot be trusted. Obama started his political career in Chicago by removing other candidates from the ballot. Now Obama/Dean/Brazile want to remove Hillary Clinton from the national ballot. Now Obama/Dean/Brazile want to remove states they cannot wiin from the ballot. Obama/Dean/Brazile want to shut down this election - the many states still left to vote will also remember in November.

Hillary Clinton has always understood Democrats cannot disenfranchise voters, let alone voters from two big swing states. When Michigan was declared a leper by the Democratic National Committee Hillary’s campaign warned that it would be foolish to rebuff an important swing state.

Hillary Clinton will win Florida and Michigan in November. Hillary Clinton is fighting, not just talking, fighting for the civil rights of Michigan and Florida voters - NOW - when those civil rights need defending.

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton on Saturday strengthened her pitch to allow the results of disputed primaries in Michigan and Florida to be counted in the nominating contest, noting the vote totals had been officially recognized in each state.

“Some say their votes should be ignored and the popular vote in Michigan and Florida should be discounted. Well, I have a different view,” Clinton said at a rally here. “The popular vote in Florida and Michigan has already been counted. It was determined by election results, it was certified by election officials in each state, it’s been officially tallied by the secretary of state in each state, and the question is whether those 2.3 million Democrats will be honored and their delegates seated by the Democratic party.” [snip]

Both states saw record turnout in their primaries and the former first lady won both contests. [snip]

The best way to block the back room deals by the hurley-burley trio of Obama/Dean/Brazile is for Hillary Clinton to win Pennsylvania. The bigger Hillary wins in Pennsylvania the more the cauldron fires of Obama/Dean/Brazile will be doused.

Sign the petition to in support of Florida and Michigan (LINK).

But the priority is a Pennsylvania victory. Let’s win the Keystone State and Block Obama/Dean/Brazile, as well as Big Media from stealing this election. Make calls.

DONATE for the Pennsylvania victory (LINK).

Help Hillary carry the battle flag of freedom.

369 Comments » - Posted in Hillary, Obama, Scum by Staff

---

Saturday, April 5th, 2008

How Does Hillary Clinton Win?

Work.

It’s that simple.

Work.

The next stop is Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is the Keystone State in this campaign.

All the Obama Drama about “the Math” is as ridiculous as Karl Rove’s “the Math” in 2006. What matters now is winning Pennsylvania. The bigger the margin of victory in Pennsylvania the bigger the impact on “the Math”.

Once Hillary Clinton wins Pennsylvania, American voters will recall, once again, how Big Media and Barack Obama are trying to shut down this election. They tried to shut down voters before New Hampshire and just about everywhere else.

Mike Gravel was not mentioned in months even as he was the third candidate running for the Democratic nomination. The reason there was little mention of Gravel was because he had no chance of winning. Barack Obama is worried about Hillary Clinton and that is why he continues his attacks on Hillary. That is why Obama surrogates persist in trying to shut down the elections. Obama and his internet temples filled with incense are afraid of the voters.

There is a way for Barack Obama to win the nomination: if Hillary Clinton drops out.

BTW, also note that calling for her to drop out before PA, PR, KY and WV vote would be akin to asking Obama to drop out because he was trailing with GA, AL, and MS yet to vote. It’s cutting her off before literally her best states vote

Play with this vote calculator to see why Obama is worried.

Obama’s worries are such that the only scenario he has for a “victory” is to disenfranchise millions of voters in Florida and Michigan. Any nomination that does not fully respect the voters and the votes of Florida and Michigan will not be legitimate.

How does Hillary Clinton win? By winning - in Pennsylvania and some of the states that follow. Obama wants to distract from the issues and Big Media wants to talk about tax returns and other nonsense. Voters want to hear Hillary Clinton talk about issues that matter to their lives.

How does Hillary Clinton win? By fighting for the voters of Florida and Michigan. Hillary Clinton wins by fighting against any back room deals that steal the election by disenfranchising, in George W. Bush manner, millions of voters. Obama wants to steal the election by proposing formulas that award him 50% of votes he did not get.

How does Hillary Clinton win? By staying in the race until all voters vote in all the upcoming primaries and demonstrating in a real world manner that Obama wants to shut them out of the process while she fights for their right to be heard and to vote.

How does Hillary Clinton win? By fighting for every vote at the Democratic National Convention.

How does Hillary Clinton win? By winning the popular vote of Democrats. Let the Democratic Party disenfranchise its own voters with skewed formulas and Republican interference in our primary calendar and Obama’s “Democrat for a Day” schemes.

Hillary Clinton wins not by talking about defending the right to vote, but by defending the right to vote and counting every vote.

How does Hillary Clinton win? By her supporters working. Make calls to Pennsylvania and travel to Pennsylvania and the upcoming primaries and win.

Donate to help the campaign in Pennsylvania. Help determine how your dollars get spent.

That’s the way to win.

Pennsylvania first, then the states that follow, that’s the path to victory.

How do you eat an elephant? One piece at a time. Pennsylvania is the next piece.

234 Comments » - Posted in Hillary, Obama, Scum by Staff

---

Friday, April 4th, 2008

Superdelegate Rezko

Of all the Superdelegates, the two most powerful Superdelegates at the Democratic National Convention this summer will be Superdelegate Wright and Superdelegate Rezko. Neither Wright nor Rezko will be actual Superdelegates with an actual vote, but their influence on the vote will be supersized.

The actual Superdelegates, the ones with the actual votes, will be looking at the rise of the anti-Obama vote created in the wake of Obama’s “Pastor” Wright’s “God Damn America” sermons. The actual Superdelegates will also be looking at the Rezko trial.

Levine’s testimony in the Rezko trial puts Davis in the middle of an attempted quid pro quo, making him yet another associate Obama might be pressured to disown. And the trial could stretch well into May, at which point a Rezko conviction could lead to even more headaches for the candidate. If Rezko is looking at a long prison sentence and decides to start talking, who knows what he might say?

We’ve heard for the longest time that neither the Governor of Illinois, nor Barack Obama are targets of the prosecution in the corrupt slumlord Rezko trial.

While Obama is not considered a target of the Rezko investigation, Stewart says it will shed light on a man who was pivotal to Obama’s political career.

“This wasn’t just some guy who wrote a check once for Barack Obama, it’s someone who was an early supporter and had a personal relationship with Sen. Obama for quite some time,” Stewart said.

The latest testimony at the slumlord Rezko trial has directly implicated the Illinois Governor in having knowledge of at least one corrupt scheme. Maybe now Big Media can abandon the narrative that the Rezko trial does not implicate any “higer-ups”. Prosecutor Fitzgerald, like most prosecutors, will use the little fish to get the big fish. In Chicago there are plenty of big fish to catch.

Chicago corruption is legendary. The gangs of Chicago always find marvelous new ways to corrupt public officials. They used to pass paper bags filled with money under the table to corrupt officials. Now the kickbacks and corruption appear more diverse and more, um, bourgeois. Appointments to state boards and commissions and gifts of houses are the fashion these days among Chicago gangs.

Levine used his positions on various state boards to steal as much money as he could from people with business before those boards. One of those people was a Hollywood producer and financier named Tom Rosenberg. Rosenberg was a principal at a firm called Capri Capital. Capri managed over a billion dollars for the Illinois Teachers Retirement System, of which Levine was a trustee.

Through a variety of corrupt means, including allowing TRS executive director Jon Bauman to write his own (glowing) evaluations, Levine wielded a disproportionate amount of influence over TRS investment decisions. Levine used this influence to steer TRS contracts to whomever would pay him and his associates the biggest “finder’s fees.” Levine decided that Rosenberg was getting far too much TRS business and paying far too little in the form of kickbacks to him and his cronies — an arrangement that Levine saw an opportunity to amend when Capri sought a new contract from TRS in early 2004.

According to his testimony, Levine and an associate named Bill Cellini (both Republicans) conspired with two of Governor Blagojevich’s top fundraisers and advisers — Tony Rezko and a roofing contractor named Chris Kelly (both Democrats) — to offer Rosenberg a choice: Either pay a $2 million bribe or raise $1.5 million for Blagojevich’s re-election campaign. Rosenberg was to be made to understand that all of his business with TRS was at stake.

Levine testified that Allison Davis, a lawyer friend of Rosenberg’s, was the go-between. Davis allegedly approached Rezko on behalf of Rosenberg to ask about Capri’s business with TRS, and he told Rezko that Rosenberg would be willing to do some fundraising for Blagojevich if that would speed things along. Rezko told Davis that Rosenberg should “call Stuart Levine.” [snip]

Rosenberg’s threat convinced the alleged conspirators to back off, and — in the biggest bombshell to emerge during the trial so far — Levine testified that Rezko told him that Governor Blagojevich had been informed of the situation. Prosecutors also played a recorded conversation between Cellini and Levine that appeared to confirm Levine’s testimony. In it, they discussed how “the big guy” had implied that Rosenberg should not get any further business from the state.

Superdelegate Davis can now be added to Superdelegate Rezko and Superdelegate Wright. We wrote about Davis a long time ago. Davis has been protecting Obama for a while now. It was Davis who tried to deflect questions about Obama’s involvements with Rezko. Davis even tried to deceive Chicago newspapers by saying Obama had no real estate experience as a lawyer. It is Davis who promised but never delivered law firm records which would show how many hours Obama really worked on Rezko projects.

Davis is another 20 year plus judgment by Barack Obama.:

Obama’s relationship with Allison Davis — the alleged go-between in Rezko’s scheme to shake down Tom Rosenberg — could pose another problem for him. Obama worked for Davis at the law firm of Davis Miner Barnhill. Later, when Obama sat on the board of a charity called the Woods Fund, he voted to invest $1 million in a partnership operated by Davis, according to the Chicago Sun-Times.

Davis is another lovely friend of Obama, what with the benzene and all:

Obama’s former boss “Davis soon went into business with Rezko, creating a company called New Kenwood LLC to build the seven-story apartment building for senior citizens on a vacant stretch of land once occupied by a gas station at 48th and Cottage Grove. The city of Chicago owned the land — nearly two acres tainted by lead, benzene and other toxic chemicals. Davis is a member of the Chicago Plan Commission. He was originally appointed to the commission in 1991 by his friend, Mayor Daley. Davis, like Rezko, has been a prolific campaign fund-raiser for politicians including Daley and Obama.”

This is Chicago after all. Michelle Obama works for the Landmarks Commission, Obama’s boss is on the Planning Commission, Obama does legal work for Rezko real estate, Michelle works for a hospital, the Obama house was sold by a doctor, there are doctors investing in real estate with Rezko including in the Pizza parlors now in such deep legal troubles. We are sure this is all coincidence. We won’t even mention Todd Stroger and the corruption swirling around him and his dad and how Obama endorsed Todd and why Todd’s father had to leave public life. That’s for another day.

We do recall, as we have written before, that while Obama was writing letters to benefit by millions of dollars his indicted slumlord friend Antoin “Tony” Rezko, Obama’s African-American constituents were freezing in their tenements. Obama was busy writing letters.

Ever so slowly American voters are getting an ‘honest’ picture of Obama. Maybe someday we’ll even hear about Michelle Obama’s work at the boards she was appointed to.

373 Comments » - Posted in Obama by Staff

---

Thursday, April 3rd, 2008

The Rise Of The Anti-Obama Voter

Update of video: Via Hillbuzz

———————————————————————

Normalcy is returning to the 2008 Democratic nomination race. In earlier primaries/caucuses we witnessed 3 voting blocs - Pro-Hillary voters, Anti-Hillary voters, Pro-Obama voters.

We are now witnessing The Rise of the Anti-Obama Voter.

The birthplace of the Anti-Obama voter is once again Pennsylvania - the birthplace of the “Reagan Democrat”.

It’s not White flight, its Wright flight by “garlic noses” and other “Reagan Democrats”:

“We need her,” Barbara Vizzini, a 46-year-old equipment operator from Middletown, said before Hillary Clinton took the stage at a rally in Fairless Hills Monday night. “If we don’t get her, we’re going to end up with John McCain.”

What about Barack Obama? Why couldn’t he beat the Republican nominee?

“The race thing,” interjected her colleague Daniel Kirner, 52, from Tullytown.

“I mean, a president named Barack?” agreed Ms. Vizzini.

Hillary Clinton has spent the past few days courting the white, blue-collar workers who are most receptive to her no-nonsense message of hard work and experience. They also happen to be the people most suspicious of Mr. Obama. Some, like Ms. Vizzini, like him well enough, but echoing Pennsylvania governor and Hillary surrogate Ed Rendell, they think he will have problems with some white voters. Others think he’s an unreliable upstart who will stumble when it counts, or worse, that he’s simply a fraud.

Among such voters, Mrs. Clinton is reveling in her role as the anti-Obama—a grounded, nuts-and-bolts candidate who refers to infrastructure problems on I-95 and declares herself “excited” to be in whatever factory or faded manufacturing center she happens to be touring at that moment.

She frequently says, in an implicit contrast with Mr. Obama’s cosmopolitan heritage, “My father was from Scranton.”

And in a purposeful counterpoint to Mr. Obama’s nonspecific message of hope, Mrs. Clinton casts herself as a deliverer of more jobs, fairer trade and a better economy.

Barack Obama injected race into the nomination process in order to tarnish Hillary Clinton, a longtime advocate for civil rights for all. When Barack Obama was caught lying about his “Pastor”, Obama instead of addressing questions about his own judgment in listening to “Pastor” Wright for 20 years, distracted and diverted the attention of Big Media supporters and once again injected the topic of race. White working class voters were not fooled and are now Anti-Obama.

Hillary has turned the Big Media/Obama demands to drop out to connect viscerally with voters in Pennsylvania - voters long derided by Big Media princes because they entertain themselves by bowling:

On the evening of March 31, Mrs. Clinton spoke at another “Solutions for the Pennsylvania Economy” rally, this time in Fairless Hills, just over the border from Trenton. [snip]

Her speech consisted of a litany of populist applause lines and references to small-bore economic issues—Pell Grants, college loans and targeted tax cuts—that resonated with the attendees. She spoke disparagingly of the “Wall Street money manager,” and said that her father, a former Penn State football player, “was a little skeptical about having a daughter who was a lawyer.” She spoke worshipfully of the workers she recently met, “a nurse, a teacher, a truck driver, a steel worker, right here in Pennsylvania,” and promised a return to fiscal responsibility. She lashed out at oil companies for getting tax breaks, and at “China and their unfair trade practices.”

And unlike Mr. Obama’s supporters, who have been trying hard in recent days not to look like bullies, Mrs. Clinton warmed to the opportunity to underscore (if the Rocky metaphor wasn’t obvious enough) that she’s no softy.

“You know,” Mrs. Clinton said at one point, “I see that sign out there that says, ‘Do not quit.’ Well, you know one thing about me is I do not quit.”

The increased vitriol recently by Big Media against Hillary, and yes as bad as the attacks on Hillary have been since the beginning of this campaign season the recent attacks are profoundly worse - are due to the fact that they have to shout louder to be heard by fewer. By this we mean that the “Reagan Democrats”, the White working class voters don’t believe and don’t pay much attention to Big Media Princes.

By the end, some of the people in the crowd found it frankly inconceivable that she could lose to Mr. Obama.

“She’s got this one locked,” said Mary Yates, a 67-year-old retired worker in a chemical factory. “No Muslim is going to be president. No drug addict. If Hillary isn’t the one, everyone I know will vote for John McCain.”
[dnip]

For Mike Tangradi, a 44-year-old union representative, “Any way we get her in, we’re better off.” He said he didn’t trust Mr. Obama’s eloquence, and considered it a cloak for his weakness on the issues. The longer Mrs. Clinton ran, he said, the more time Mr. Obama would have to stumble. “This is about the working people of America, like me,” he said. “She’s the better leader for us.”

Muslim, drug addict, weak, a fraud - inartful ways to express a deep discomfort with Obama - the anti-Obama voter.

On the morning of April 1, Mrs. Clinton, dressed almost psychedelically in a purple jacket and spotted scarf, toured a sheet-metal factory in Philadelphia. As Mrs. Clinton admired the precision of the workers’ craftsmanship, Don Grant, a 57-year-old factory worker who had chatted with her, said he was leaning toward the former first lady because he considered her more grounded.

Mr. Obama, he said, “talks a lot.”

If Mrs. Clinton is to post the sort of big win she’s clearly counting on in Pennsylvania on April 22, she’ll need the support of an army of Don Grants. [snip]

She criticized Mr. Obama’s decision to vote for an energy bill that she opposed. (Mrs. Clinton regularly refers to the legislation as the “Dick Cheney energy bill.”)

“When it was time to turn talk into action, his promises were just words,” she said.

We have written repeatedly, in our own inartful way, about Obama’s flowery talk and unclean actions. The emerging anti-Obama voters sense the basic dishonesty and fraud behind Obama’s flowery talk - that’s why they reject him.

Like that Pennsylvania voter, organized groups are fast becoming Anti-Obama voters. In April 2007, The Order of Sons of Italy in America spoke out against Don Imus and his insults against the Rutgers University Women’s Basketball team.

The coalition ad notes that Don Imus and his producer, Bernard McGuirk have also taken aim at Italian Americans. During the show’s Nov. 2, 2005 broadcast, shortly after President Bush nominated Judge Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court, McGuirk called Alito a “meat-ball sucking wop,” adding “First Scalia, now Alito. What is [President Bush] doing? Interpreting the Constitution or mixing concrete?” He ended, wishing Alito luck “And to hell with those who don’t like the fact that he’s a God-fearing guido.”

The coalition finds such ethnic epithets as abhorrent as racial and religious insults and need to be dealt with just as severely. Of equal concern was the fact that no journalist, columnist or talk show host criticized Imus and McGuirk for using such offensive language.

The media’s silence is further evidence of an unfortunate double standard of tolerance when it comes to Italian Americans and political correctness even when such offensive language is directed at a respected jurist who now sits on the highest court in the country, the coalition notes.

The Order Sons of Italy In America, as in the Imus situation, speaks again against Obama’s 20 year long “Pastor”:

We write on behalf of the 103 year old Order Sons of Italy in America (OSIA) and our 550,000 family members throughout the nation, and our anti-defamation arm, the Commission for Social Justice (CSJ), to strongly and unequivocally reject and condemn recently reported remarks made by the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. According to MSNBC and other published and internet sources, Rev. Wright in 2007 stated: “[Jesus’] enemies had their opinion about Him…. The Italians for the most part looked down their garlic noses at the Galileans.” He then called Jesus’ crucifixion “a public lynching Italian style” executed in “Apartheid Rome”. [snip]

Words are important and have meaning, clear and subliminal.

As the words of Obama’s 20 year “Pastor” circulate, along with Obama’s lack of judgment, the Anti-Obama voter ranks swell. Big Media is trying to sell the notion that the Wright “controversy” is over, but it is not.

Andrea Helmer was interested in Barack Obama until she heard sound bites of his fiery pastor’s sermons. Last week, she volunteered for Hillary Clinton’s campaign in Indiana.

“As things came out regarding some of the things his pastor has said, I got concerned,” said Helmer, a 36-year-old respiratory therapist and mother of two in Evansville, Indiana.

Interviews with dozens of Democrats in this overwhelmingly white region — where voters will go to the polls in the May 6 primary — suggest residual concerns over the controversy involving Obama’s former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

To be sure, this flies in the face of most polls taken after Obama’s widely praised March 18 speech on race and the Wright controversy.

The Obama distract and divert speech on race, instead of addressing his lack of judgment was praised - by Big Media Princes. The speech has help give rise to the Anti-Obama voter.

Still, there are stirrings of unease among white voters, including those who fear the issue will hurt Obama in a general election. Pew also found that 39 percent of all white voters who had heard of the controversy, including Republicans and independents, said it made them less favorable toward Obama.

John Friend, an uncommitted Democrat and Evansville city councilman, said Republicans may use Obama’s ties to the pastor much in the same way they attacked Democratic candidate John Kerry’s patriotism in 2004.

“It’s going to be like the Swift Boat thing,” Friend said.

Last month, excerpts of sermons in which Wright is heard saying “God damn America” and “U.S. of KKKA” were broadcast on television and distributed over the Internet. In response, Obama delivered what his aides billed as a major address on race on March 18 in which he condemned the remarks.

That didn’t repair the damage for some white voters, said Trent Van Haaften, an Indiana state representative from Mount Vernon who is backing Obama.

“The 10-second sound bite” is all that many voters know about the Illinois senator, who so far has visited Indiana just once this year, Van Haaften said. [snip]

The recent intense focus on Wright is complicating Obama’s efforts to appeal to some in culturally conservative southwest Indiana, which has a record of electing Republicans and conservative Democrats. Evansville is 86 percent white and 11 percent black. [snip]

“Back when Clinton was in office our money was more stable, jobs were coming in, my husband had a lot more overtime,” Helmer said.

That familiarity, along with media coverage of the pastor controversy, is pushing voters toward Clinton, said Democrat Justin Jarvis, a 34-year-old Evansville health-care worker.

“I know people who were previously Obama supporters who view it as reverse racism at its worst,” he said.

Michael Rivera, a 33-year-old computer programmer from Evansville, said he had donated to the Obama campaign and now believes his electability is damaged.

“I understood where he was coming from, but I don’t think anyone else will,” said Rivera, who currently is backing Clinton. [snip]

Phil Hoy, a 71-year-old retired minister who represents Evansville in the General Assembly and supports Obama, said the episode is hard to overcome in his community.

Pennsylvania is giving birth to the Anti-Obama voter.

824 Comments » - Posted in Hillary, Obama, Scum by Staff

---

Wednesday, April 2nd, 2008

Howard Dean Must Go - Hillary Clinton Will Stay, Part III

Updated with video:

——————————————————-

What a mess. And it will get worse. Howard Dean must go.

Donna Brazile who writes garbage like this (LINK) yet still pretends she is not a pro-Obama shill must go too. Nancy Pelosi must also resign as co-Chair of the Democratic convention this August because she too is attempting to rig this election for Big Media tool Barack Obama.

Maybe Ted Kennedy, who in 1980 after Jimmy Carter had secured many more delegates than needed for renomination, tried to get delegates released from their voting commitment can help Dean understand the mess Democrats are in.

Maybe Ted Kennedy who stayed IN the race, after President Jimmy Carter had more than enough votes for renomination, yet forced a nomination vote at the Democratic Convention can explain to Howard Dean the full mess we are in. Kennedy continued his challenge to Jimmy Carter but has been absent lately in challenging those who want to stop the election before millions of Democrats vote.

Let’s fully grasp the mess Dean, Brazile, and Pelosi have made. The Wall Street Journal:

To fully grasp the dysfunction of the system by which Democrats are choosing a presidential nominee, consider this anomaly: The party punished Florida and Michigan for holding their primaries too early. Now many party elders want to punish several states, including Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Oregon, for holding their primaries too late.

That isn’t the way party leaders would describe their predicament, of course. Yet that’s the reality of the effort now under way by some to coerce Sen. Hillary Clinton into dropping out of the race before the 10 remaining states and territories on the calendar, which dutifully waited their turn, have a chance to vote.

The nominating system doesn’t work very well as it is. But curtailing it before it runs its course would risk eroding its credibility further and virtually ensure chaos in election cycles down the road.

The problem Democrats have created for themselves boils down to this: They have rules for picking a nominee, and they aren’t sure whether they want to live by them or not.

Rules are rules only when they help Big Media tool Obama:

Earlier in this cycle, the party was a stickler for living by the rules. When Florida and Michigan tried to buck the system by pushing their primaries earlier on the calendar than the national party wanted, the two states had their delegates unseated from the party convention. Don’t front-load the system, the states were told. Live by the calendar we’ve set.

Now, the battle for the nomination has turned into a long and increasingly divisive fight between Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Clinton — and, worse yet for the party establishment, a fight that seems destined to be decided not by popular votes but by superdelegates: the governors, lawmakers and party leaders who are free to back the nominee of their choice.

So the growing desire among some in the party — the opposite of the one voiced earlier this year - is not to let the process play out according to the established calendar, but to short-circuit it by having Sen. Clinton withdraw before the primaries still ahead. This would get superdelegates off the hook, but the effect would be to punish the states that waited their turns by making their votes meaningless, much as Florida and Michigan were punished for not waiting.

Any of these “Party elders” that do not understand the mess we are in should visit the festival of laughter at this Republican website (LINK) which mocks Democrats. The Republican website crows: Great Scott! The Power to choose does not belong to the Democrat voter! Wait until John McCain tours Florida and Michigan promising representation to the swing voters of those states. All the talk of “Count Every Vote” by Democrats in 2000 will be hollow indeed. And we have Dean, Brazile, and Pelosi to blame.

More from Gerald Seib’s Wall Street Journal article:

If some in the party succeed in essentially disenfranchising voters in some states by forcing an end to the campaign before those states get a chance to vote, good luck to the party’s leaders in trying to persuade Michigan, Florida and many other states four years from now that they shouldn’t move up their primaries to early January — or even December.

So does the party want states to move their primaries earlier on the calendar, or not? Does it want a system in which almost 800 unelected superdelegates are in a position to decide a nomination, or not?

Logic suggests that the time to answer those questions is either before or after a primary season, not in the middle of one.

The problem is “Party elders” aiding and abetting Big Media attempts to supplant Democratic voters in the choice of our Democratic nominee. To this end “Party elders” are willing to insult and alienate two of the biggest swing states in the nation.

Our recent call for the removal or resignation of Howard Dean is today front page news at the New York Times. Even that Big Media outlet recognizes the mess Howard Dean and his 48 state strategy have thrown real Democrats into.

After months in which he was largely absent from public deliberations about how to avert a risk to the party’s hopes of taking the White House in November, Mr. Dean stepped forward last week to say he wanted the contest resolved by July 1 and for Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama to tone down their attacks on each other.

Now that Hillary threatens to upend the Big Media/”Party elders’” attempt to force feed Democrats Obama, by winning in Pennsylvania and many more states - Dean decides to speak. The current attempt to force “Superdelegates” to decide immediately instead of waiting for developments in the resumed slumlord Rezko trial, more Wright revelations, and more Obama IEDs exploding during the Summer is part of the continuing ploys devised to thwart Democratic voters.

Yet three years after he won election as the party chairman by running largely as an outsider, it is not clear that Mr. Dean has the political skills or the stature with the two campaigns to bring the nominating battle to a relatively quick and unifying conclusion.

Indeed, 24 hours after he made his remarks, Mrs. Clinton said she intended to keep fighting for the nomination through the summer, if necessary. It was an unmistakable rebuke to Mr. Dean, who has never had good relations with the Clintons.

In an interview, Mr. Dean said he was taking steps to pave the way to a smooth convention in Denver this summer, suggesting that he had had private conversations with both campaigns.

Mr. Dean and his aides said they were assembling resources — voter lists, political organizations and polling on vulnerabilities of Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee. Beyond that, Mr. Dean and other Democrats argued that with the party so divided — and in the midst of a fight between two outsized political figures — there were limits to what he could, or should, do.

We doubt that these “resources” cobbled by the Chairman will be of much use. Further, Chairman Dean appears willfully obtuse on the need to seat all Florida and Michigan delegates in full and complete accordance with the wishes of Democrats in those two important swing states.

Still, senior officials in both campaigns said they had heard rarely from Mr. Dean on matters like the tone of the contest and how it might be concluded and what to do about the Michigan and Florida delegates, the subject of a bitter and potentially debilitating debate between the Clinton and Obama campaigns.

The chairman of the Florida Democratic Party, Karen Thurman, said she could not recall the last time Mr. Dean had called her to try work out the dispute. She and other Florida Democrats are to meet with Mr. Dean on Wednesday to try to persuade him to agree to a compromise.

Some Democratic Party leaders, while offering sympathy for Mr. Dean’s plight, said it was urgent that he take a more assertive role to restore peace. Several suggested that Mr. Dean — who has sought to build a legacy by expanding party operations to all 50 states — risked having his tenure as party leader remembered for a traumatizing loss in a year where most Democrats think victory should be easy.

Attempts by “Party elders” such as Pelosi to end the race by disenfranchising Democrats or forcing Superdelegates to immediately delcare their intentions are transparent attempts to buttress the Obama campaign as if faces difficult times in upcoming primaries soiled by Obama’s acquiescence to his podium humping “God Damn America” “Pastor’s” rants.

We applaud Democratic donors warning the Democratic Party of rank and file anger. We hope these donors follow a “No Donations Without Representation” policy in protecting the rights of Florida and Michigan Democrats.

But frustration with Mr. Dean’s hands-off approach was reflected across Democratic ranks. Peter S. Lowy, a prominent Los Angeles contributor who has held regular fund-raisers for Democratic campaign committees, sent Mr. Dean a letter complaining about his leadership of the party during this period.

“As long-term supporters of the party, we have been singularly dismayed with your performance during the current Democratic presidential primary season,” Mr. Lowy wrote.

“Party elders” and leaders had better stop worrying about salvaging Obama and start worrying about the Democratic voters of Florida and Michigan.

Any Democratic nomination that does not fully and completely represent the expressed will of Florida and Michigan voters will be illegitimate.

It’s Time For A Change - at the DNC.

977 Comments » - Posted in Hillary, Obama by Staff

---

---

Visit Our Pages:

Why Hillary?

Why Not Obama?

-- Hillary vs. Obama Voting Records

Iraq

--Hillary Iraq War Position Documents/Speeches

2008 Primary Calendar

Polls

The Hillary Team

Media And Blog Attacks

Hillary Questions and Answers

---