Barack Obama Elected POTUS

Never did I think I'd see this day. I was prepared for this election to be stolen with all of the reports of faulty touch screen voting machines.

A Black man and his family in the White House. Amazing. It's really empowering to know that we can now honestly tell young Black children that they can be president. This is so surreal. I'm speechless and all cried out over this joyous moment.

See you at the inauguration :-)

Going Green

Call me a flip-flopper but when I see that there isn't a desire to change, when my votes and needs as an American are being disrespected, I will defect and join a space that has my interests at heart. I was a Democrat, then Independent, and I will soon be changing my political party to Green.

I respect their platform. They're not kowtowing. They're not appeasing to racists and chauvinists. Their platform is radical in the sense that they are pro-American. They have strong ideas on education, the economy, affordable housing and gentrification, HIV/AIDS in America, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Y'know --- issues. And they're proud liberals.

I know some will say that it's not wise to vote for a candidate that's least likely to win. What I say to that is it is not wise to continue throwing your vote away. It is not wise to subscribe to a two-party system when it is not working. We need different perspectives brought to the political table. Americans have the right to plentiful options and it is time that we act like it.

Voting for the FISA Bill, kowtowing to AIPAC, changing positions on oil drilling, coming off soft to appeal to stubborn and ignorant voters --- I can't accept that. And I won't accept that for the superficial desire to have a Black president.

Cynthia McKinney - Run Cynthia Run
Rosa Clemente - Rosa Clemente, VP Nominee for the Green Party

Michael Moore Keeps It Real

How The Democrats Can Blow It ...In Six Easy Steps
A blueprint for losing the most winnable presidential election in American history
MICHAEL MOORE

For years now, nearly every poll has shown that the American people are right in sync with the platform of the Democratic Party. They are pro-environment, pro-women's rights and pro-choice. They don't like war. They want the minimum wage raised, and they want a single-payer universal health-care system. The American public agrees with the Republican Party on only one major issue: They support the death penalty.

So you would think the Democrats would be cleaning up, election after election. Obviously not. The Democrats appear to be professional losers. They are so pathetic in their ability to win elections, they even lose when they win! So when you hear Democrats and liberals and supporters of Barack Obama say they are worried that John McCain has a good chance of winning, they ain't a-kidding. Who would know better than the very people who have handed the Republicans one election after another on a silver platter? Yes, be afraid, be very afraid.

In an effort to help the party doofuses and pundits — and the candidate himself — spare all of us another suicide-inducing election night, as the results giving the election to the Republican pour in, here is the blueprint from the Democrats' past losing campaigns. Just follow each of these steps and you, the Democratic Party establishment, can help elect John Sidney McCain III to a four-year extension of the Bush Era.

1. Keep saying nice things about McCain.
2. Pick a running mate who is a conservative white guy or a general or a Republican.
3. Keep writing speeches for Obama that make him sound like a hawk.
4. Forget that this was a historic year for women.
5. Show up to a gunfight with a peashooter.
6. Denounce me! (More Stuff...)

I've gotta agree. This will be another close election.

Barack Obama Becomes the Democratic Nominee; Michelle's "Whitey" Tape

Obama Clinches Nomination, Capping Historic, Bitter Contest:
First African-American To Lead a Major Party Ticket; Clinton Refuses to Concede
By JACKIE CALMES

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Barack Obama captured enough convention delegates Tuesday to make a historic claim to the Democratic presidential nomination, the first African-American to earn a major party's nod.

The first-term Illinois senator defeated what had once been the most powerful machine in the party. His rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, the former first lady who sought to be history's first female nominee, saluted him. But she did not concede, even as she signaled openness to being considered as his vice presidential running mate.

Sen. Clinton's refusal to drop out immediately came after her surprise win in South Dakota's primary Tuesday. That victory didn't change the dynamics of the race. But it underscored some of Sen. Obama's weaknesses, which were on display over the final month of the long campaign, when he suffered a string of landslide losses to his challenger.

Still, the nomination marked a remarkable accomplishment for the son of a Kenyan immigrant who spent part of his childhood in Hawaii and Indonesia.

"Tonight, I can stand before you and say that I will be the Democratic nominee for president of the United States of America," Sen. Obama told an estimated 32,000 people gathered in St. Paul, Minn., late Tuesday. (More Stuff...)

All I can say right now is that I'm very excited for him. I don't wanna get too excited because I can only imagine what the Republicans have in store for him. So far, there's this alleged tape out there of Michelle Obama sitting on a panel with Louis Farrakhan and tossing around epithets like "Whitey." If this has been around, then why hasn't it come out yet? I guess they're looking to ether Obama's campaign. We'll just wait and see.

Here's Obama's victory speech



UPDATE: Just wanted to add this pic



Now that's looove :-) H/T to Yaowwwwww!!! on that pic.

MUST-READ:
So Will the INFAMOUS Michelle Obama Tape Drop Today???

Sen. Byrd (D-WV) Has Caught That Obama Fever

Obama is killing it!!!

Sen. Robert Byrd endorses Obama

The Charleston Gazette reports an endorsement deep with symbolism: West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd is endorsing Barack Obama.

"Barack Obama is a noble-hearted patriot and humble Christian, and he has my full faith and support," Byrd says.

He said he has "no intention of involving myself in the Democratic campaign for President in the midst of West Virginia's primary election. But the stakes this November could not be higher."

Byrd, 91, a master of Senate rules and Iraq war foe, has spent much of his political career repenting the racism of his youth. He's acknolwedged having joined the Ku Klux Klan in 1942, and campaigned against civil rights legislation in the 1960s.

In The Audacity of Hope, Obama wrote of meeting Byrd, and their joint awareness of the past; his endorsement is a note of reconciliation that underscores Obama's message.

Obama wrote of meeting Byrd as new senator in one of his book's most compelling passages:

Listening to Senator Byrd I felt with full force all the essential contradictions of me in this new place, with its marble busts, its arcane traditions, its memories and its ghosts. I pondered the fact that, according to his own autobiography, Senator Byrd had received his first taste of leadership in his early twenties, as a member of the Raleigh County Ku Klux Klan, an association that he had long disavowed, an error he attributed—no doubt correctly—to the time and place in which he'd been raised, but which continued to surface as an issue throughout his career. I thought about how he had joined other giants of the Senate, like J. William Fulbright of Arkansas and Richard Russell of Georgia, in Southern resistance to civil rights legislation. I wondered if this would matter to the liberals who now lionized Senator Byrd for his principled opposition to the Iraq War resolution—the MoveOn.org crowd, the heirs of the political counterculture the senator had spent much of his career disdaining. (More Stuff...)

Note to Billary --- Throw. Up. The. Deuces.

The Stench of Desperation

Sidney Blumenthal Uses Former Right-Wing Foes To Attack Obama
by Peter Dreier

Former journalist Sidney Blumenthal has been widely credited with coining the term "vast right-wing conspiracy" used by Hillary Clinton in 1998 to describe the alliance of conservative media, think tanks, and political operatives that sought to destroy the Clinton White House where he worked as a high-level aide. A decade later, and now acting as a senior campaign advisor to Senator Clinton, Blumenthal is exploiting that same right-wing network to attack and discredit Barack Obama. And he's not hesitating to use the same sort of guilt-by-association tactics that have been the hallmark of the political right dating back to the McCarthy era.

Almost every day over the past six months, I have been the recipient of an email that attacks Obama's character, political views, electability, and real or manufactured associations. The original source of many of these hit pieces are virulent and sometimes extreme right-wing websites, bloggers, and publications. But they aren't being emailed out from some fringe right-wing group that somehow managed to get my email address. Instead, it is Sidney Blumenthal who, on a regular basis, methodically dispatches these email mudballs to an influential list of opinion shapers -- including journalists, former Clinton administration officials, academics, policy entrepreneurs, and think tankers -- in what is an obvious attempt to create an echo chamber that reverberates among talk shows, columnists, and Democratic Party funders and activists. One of the recipients of the Blumenthal email blast, himself a Clinton supporter, forwards the material to me and perhaps to others.

These attacks sent out by Blumenthal, long known for his fierce and combative loyalty to the Clintons, draw on a wide variety of sources to spread his Obama-bashing. Some of the pieces are culled from the mainstream media and include some reasoned swipes at Obama's policy and political positions.

But, rather remarkably for such a self-professed liberal operative like Blumenthal, a staggering number of the anti-Obama attacks he circulates derive from highly-ideological and militant right-wing sources such as the misnamed Accuracy in Media (AIM), The Weekly Standard, City Journal, The American Conservative, and The National Review.

To cite just one recent example, Blumenthal circulated an article taken from the fervently hard-right AIM website on February 18 entitled, "Obama's Communist Mentor" by Cliff Kincaid. Kincaid is a right-wing writer and activist, a longtime critic of the United Nations, whose group, America's Survival, has been funded by foundations controlled by conservative financier Richard Mellon Scaife, the same millionaire who helped fund attacks on the Clintons during their White House years. Scaife also funds AIM, the right-wing media "watchdog" group.

The Kincaid article that Blumenthal circulated sought to discredit Obama by linking him to an African-American poet and writer whom Obama knew while he was in high school in Hawaii. That writer, Frank Marshall Davis, was, Kincaid wrote, a member of the Communist Party. Supported by no tangible evidence, Kincaid claimed that Obama considered his relationship to Davis to be "almost like a son." In his memoir, Dreams from My Father, Obama wrote about meeting, during his teenage years, a writer named "Frank" who "had some modest notoriety once" and with whom he occasionally discussed poetry and politics. From this snippet, Kincaid weaves an incredulous tale that turns Davis into Obama's "mentor." More Stuff...

I'm disgusted but not surprised. If she miraculously becomes the nominee, she will not get my vote. Her behavior and tactics are devisive, fear-mongering, shameful, and overzealous. She reeks of desperation.

Now, why isn't the mainstream media covering this? Wouldn't this be more news-worthy than "What Will the Negroes Do If Obama Doesn't Get the Nod?" Wouldn't this be more news-worthy than obsessing over Rev. Wright? Of course not. Much is not to be expected from the mainstream media when they continue to give McCain a free ride.

When things like this fall below the mainstream media's radar, it's a reminder of why I rely on the blogosphere. Far too many trivial things are reported in the news and I can't tolerate it. There are significant stories that are reported but then obsession occurs (e.g., Rev. Wright). The mainstream media's obsession with Rev. Wright had me wondering at one point if he was a presidential candidate.

So, if you don't already know, venture into the blogosphere for raw, unsexy news stories. Feel free to peruse through my archives and blog rolls for some insightful commentary and thorough information. Today's popular TV and radio programs simply aren't reliable sources of information and intelligent discussion.

What If Hillary Loses? A Question for White Women

I was over at Concrete Loop reading "What Happens If Obama Loses?" and it brought up an article from the McClatchy Washington Bureau.

The third reader comment noted how annoying this question is, queried if the same question was raised about (White) women staying home if Hillary loses, and said that they wouldn't stay home. I'm gonna have to agree on this one.

I am pretty annoyed with this line of questioning. Is there a purpose for this article cuz I don't understand how the premise leans toward being informative. Why the interest in what a group of people would do if their chosen candidate loses the nomination? This article (one of far too many) seems to only be interested in influencing people. I really hate the interest in Black people because this same line of questioning can be raised for White women, White men, and etc.

What do you guys think? Considering the fact that White women are a significant voting bloc, why isn't the same question being asked of them if Hillary loses? Does either question annoy you? Is this topic even news-worthy?

Must-Read Links:
POLITICS: WHAT HAPPENS IF OBAMA LOSES?
Will black voters stay home if Obama loses nomination?

An Assessment of Obama and Hillary's Senate Records

I Refuse to Buy into the Obama Hype
by Grassroots Mom

The next President is going to have some MAJOR challenges.
I refuse to buy into the hype, on either side, but especially on that of Obama. However the "empty rhetoric" v. "history of accomplishments" arguments have prompted me to check it out on my own, not relying on any candidate's website, book, or worst of all supporters' diaries, like this one.

I went to the Library of Congress Website. The FACTS of what each did in the Senate last year sure surprised me. I'm sure they will surprise you, too. Whether you love or hate Hillary, you will be surprised. Whether you think Obama is the second coming of JFK or an inexperienced lightweight, you will surprised. Go check out the Library of Congress Website. After spending some time there, it will be clear that there is really only one candidate would is ready to be the next president, even better than Gore. If you don't want to spend an hour or two doing research, then I'll tell you what I discovered on the jump. More Stuff...

I came across this article last month but I forgot to post it. Then I had trouble finding it when I was ready to post it.

This article is an assessment of the senate records of both Hillary and Barack and I found it to be pretty thorough. If you're unsatisfied with this article, then please visit the Library of Congress' website for further info on both candidates. Let's not just be dismissive. It's important that you are INFORMED before deeming someting "useless."

Props to Grassroots Mom.

And let's be clear people: Obama's been a politician for a longer time (since 1997) than Billary (since 2000). Seems like the experience that people are judging him on have to do with how long he's been a legislator. If experience is your ultimate deciding factor, that's fine. But consider the length of experience of these politicians who voted in favor of the Iraq invasion, who voted in favor of the war on drugs, and who voted in favor of infringing upon our privacy.

Obama's Economy Speech

Some Political Humor

"Raining McCain" by The McCain Girls



"Hillary! Stop the attacks! Love, Obama Girl" by Obama Girl

At least the Obama Girl's on tempo.

"A More Perfect Union"

When I get a chance, I'll search for a video and post it. My wonderful job blocks YouTube :-/ so I can't do a search right now.

Update: Found a video.



Remarks of Senator Barack Obama
"A More Perfect Union"
Constitution Center
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

"We the people, in order to form a more perfect union."

Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America's improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.

The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation's original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.

Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution - a Constitution that had at is very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.

And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part - through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.

This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign - to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America. I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together - unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction - towards a better future for of children and our grandchildren.

This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. But it also comes from my own American story.

I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton's Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. I've gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world's poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners - an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.

It's a story that hasn't made me the most conventional candidate. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts - that out of many, we are truly one.

More stuff...

CROSS-POST: Hillary Clinton’s Qualifications to Serve as Vice President

I found this blog piece on The Vigil. Greg Craig does a good job of breaking down Hillary's claims of experience that she's expressed to the media recently.

Hillary Clinton’s Qualifications to Serve as Vice President --- are 'just words'?

I hope everyone got this memo today:



When your entire campaign is based upon a claim of experience, it is important that you have evidence to support that claim. Hillary Clinton's argument that she has passed "the Commander- in-Chief test" is simply not supported by her record.

There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton played an important domestic policy role when she was First Lady. It is well known, for example, that she led the failed effort to pass universal health insurance. There is no reason to believe, however, that she was a key player in foreign policy at any time during the Clinton Administration. She did not sit in on National Security Council meetings. She did not have a security clearance. She did not attend meetings in the Situation Room. She did not manage any part of the national security bureaucracy, nor did she have her own national security staff. She did not do any heavy-lifting with foreign governments, whether they were friendly or not. She never managed a foreign policy crisis, and there is no evidence to suggest that she participated in the decision-making that occurred in connection with any such crisis. As far as the record shows, Senator Clinton never answered the phone either to make a decision on any pressing national security issue - not at 3 AM or at any other time of day.

When asked to describe her experience, Senator Clinton has cited a handful of international incidents where she says she played a central role. But any fair-minded and objective judge of these claims - i.e., by someone not affiliated with the Clinton campaign - would conclude that Senator Clinton's claims of foreign policy experience are exaggerated.

- Northern Ireland: Senator Clinton has said, "I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland." It is a gross overstatement of the facts for her to claim even partial credit for bringing peace to Northern Ireland. She did travel to Northern Ireland, it is true. First Ladies often travel to places that are a focus of U.S. foreign policy. But at no time did she play any role in the critical negotiations that ultimately produced the peace. As the Associated Press recently reported, "[S]he was not directly involved in negotiating the Good Friday peace accord." With regard to her main claim that she helped bring women together, she did participate in a meeting with women, but, according to those who know best, she did not play a pivotal role. The person in charge of the negotiations, former Senator George Mitchell, said that "[The First Lady] was one of many people who participated in encouraging women to get involved, not the only one."

News of Senator Clinton's claims has raised eyebrows across the ocean. Her reference to an important meeting at the Belfast town hall was debunked. Her only appearance at the Belfast City Hall was to see Christmas lights turned on. She also attended a 50-minute meeting which, according to the Belfast Daily Telegraph's report at the time, "[was] a little bit stilted, a little prepared at times." Brian Feeney, an Irish author and former politician, sums it up: "The road to peace was carefully documented, and she wasn't on it."

- Bosnia: Senator Clinton has pointed to a March 1996 trip to Bosnia as proof that her foreign travel involved a life-risking mission into a war zone. She has described dodging sniper fire. While she did travel to Bosnia in March 1996, the visit was not a high-stakes mission to a war zone. On March 26, 1996, the New York Times reported that "Hillary Rodham Clinton charmed American troops at a U.S.O. show here, but it didn't hurt that the singer Sheryl Crow and the comedian Sinbad were also on the stage."

- Kosovo: Senator Clinton has said, "I negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo." It is true that, as First Lady, she traveled to Macedonia and visited a Kosovar refugee camp. It is also true that she met with government officials while she was there. First Ladies frequently meet with government officials. Her claim to have "negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo," however, is not true. Her trip to Macedonia took place on May 14, 1999. The borders were opened the day before, on May 13, 1999.

The negotiations that led to the opening of the borders were accomplished by the people who ordinarily conduct negotiations with foreign governments - U.S. diplomats. President Clinton's top envoy to the Balkans, former Ambassador Robert Gelbard, said, "I cannot recall any involvement by Senator Clinton in this issue." Ivo Daalder worked on the Clinton Administration's National Security Council and wrote a definitive history of the Kosovo conflict. He recalls that "she had absolutely no role in the dirty work of negotiations."

- Rwanda: Last year, former President Clinton asserted that his wife pressed him to intervene with U.S. troops to stop the Rwandan genocide. When asked about this assertion, Hillary Clinton said it was true. There is no evidence, however, to suggest that this ever happened. Even those individuals who were advocating a much more robust U.S. effort to stop the genocide did not argue for the use of U.S. troops. No one recalls hearing that Hillary Clinton had any interest in this course of action. Based on a fair and thorough review of National Security Council deliberations during those tragic months, there is no evidence to suggest that U.S. military intervention was ever discussed. Prudence Bushnell, the Assistant Secretary of State with responsibility for Africa, has recalled that there was no consideration of U.S. military intervention.

At no time prior to her campaign for the presidency did Senator Clinton ever make the claim that she supported intervening militarily to stop the Rwandan genocide. It is noteworthy that she failed to mention this anecdote - urging President Clinton to intervene militarily in Rwanda - in her memoirs. President Clinton makes no mention of such a conversation with his wife in his memoirs. And Madeline Albright, who was Ambassador to the United Nations at the time, makes no mention of any such event in her memoirs.

Hillary Clinton did visit Rwanda in March 1998 and, during that visit, her husband apologized for America's failure to do more to prevent the genocide.

- China: Senator Clinton also points to a speech that she delivered in Beijing in 1995 as proof of her ability to answer a 3 AM crisis phone call. It is strange that Senator Clinton would base her own foreign policy experience on a speech that she gave over a decade ago, since she so frequently belittles Barack Obama's speeches opposing the Iraq War six years ago. Let there be no doubt: she gave a good speech in Beijing, and she stood up for women's rights. But Senator Obama's opposition to the War in Iraq in 2002 is relevant to the question of whether he, as Commander-in-Chief, will make wise judgments about the use of military force. Senator Clinton's speech in Beijing is not.

- Iraq: Senator Obama's speech opposing the war in Iraq shows independence and courage as well as good judgment. In the speech that Senator Clinton says does not qualify him to be Commander in Chief, Obama criticized what he called "a rash war . . . a war based not on reason, but on passion, not on principle, but on politics." In that speech, he said prophetically: "[E]ven a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences." He predicted that a U.S. invasion of Iraq would "fan the flames of the Middle East," and "strengthen the recruitment arm of al Qaeda." He urged the United States first to "finish the fight with Bin Laden and al Qaeda."

If the U.S. government had followed Barack Obama's advice in 2002, we would have avoided one of the greatest foreign policy catastrophes in our nation's history. Some of the most "experienced" men in national security affairs - Vice President Cheney and Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and others - led this nation into that catastrophe. That lesson should teach us something about the value of judgment over experience. Longevity in Washington, D.C. does not guarantee either wisdom of judgment.

- Conclusion: The Clinton campaign's argument is nothing more than mere assertion, dramatized in a scary television commercial with a telephone ringing in the middle of the night. There is no support for or substance in the claim that Senator Clinton has passed "the Commander-in-Chief test." That claim - as the TV ad - consists of nothing more than making the assertion, repeating it frequently to the voters and hoping that they will believe it.

On the most critical foreign policy judgment of our generation - the War in Iraq - Senator Clinton voted in support of a resolution entitled "The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of U.S. Military Force Against Iraq." As she cast that vote, she said: "This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction." In this campaign, Senator Clinton has argued - remarkably - that she wasn't actually voting for war, she was voting for diplomacy. That claim is no more credible than her other claims of foreign policy experience. The real tragedy is that we are still living with the terrible consequences of her misjudgment. The Bush Administration continues to cite that resolution as its authorization - like a blank check - to fight on with no end in sight.

Barack Obama has a very simple case. On the most important commander in chief test of our generation, he got it right, and Senator Clinton got it wrong. In truth, Senator Obama has much more foreign policy experience than either Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan had when they were elected. Senator Obama has worked to confront 21st century challenges like proliferation and genocide on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He possesses the personal attributes of a great leader - an even temperament, an open-minded approach to even the most challenging problems, a willingness to listen to all views, clarity of vision, the ability to inspire, conviction and courage.

And Barack Obama does not use false charges and exaggerated claims to play politics with national security.

Based upon the evidence presented in this memo, I conclude that Hillary Clinton should immediately knock off on her campaign for President. Then she could take a couple of crash courses at C.C.N.Y. in international relations and American foreign policy and see if she can't train-up and get up to speed by the third week in this coming August. She could then contend for the position of Vice-President on a slam-dunk winning Democratic ticket. But if she persists in her campaign to run on John McCain's shirt tails ... well, I guess we'll never get a chance to re-start the 21st century.

Hillary Clinton’s Qualifications to Serve as Vice President - The Vigil

Hillary's Delusions of Grandeur; Obama Sets Her Straight

Clintons push a Hillary/Obama ticket
By Thomas Ferraro

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Hillary and Bill Clinton are again teaming up on Barack Obama -- this time saying the first-term U.S. lawmaker, whom they have derided as inexperienced, would be a strong running mate on a Democratic presidential ticket headed by the former first lady.

In hailing Obama as a possible vice president, the Clintons are reaching out to him and, perhaps more importantly, to his backers, whose support she would need to defeat Republican presidential candidate John McCain in the November election.

"The Clintons are in a difficult position," said Dennis Goldford, a political science professor at Drake University in Iowa, who has tracked the presidential race.

"If she wins the Democratic presidential nomination, she would need Obama's supporters. But she needs to be careful. If this talk of him on the ticket is seen as a cynical maneuver, it could backfire and hurt her," Goldford said.

Source


Obama Ridicules Notion of VP Slot
By CHARLES BABINGTON

COLUMBUS, Miss. (AP) — Democrat Barack Obama ridiculed the idea of being Hillary Rodham Clinton's running mate Monday, saying voters must choose between the two for the top spot on the fall ticket.

The Illinois senator used his first public appearance of the week to knock down the notion that he might accept the party's vice presidential nomination. He noted that he has won more states, votes and delegates than Clinton so far.

"I don't know how somebody who is in second place is offering the vice presidency to the person who is first place," Obama said, drawing cheers and a long standing ovation from about 1,700 people.

Saying he wanted to be "absolutely clear," he added: "I don't want anybody here thinking that somehow, 'Well, you know, maybe I can get both.' Don't think that way. You have to make a choice in this election."

"I am not running for vice president," Obama said. "I am running for president of the United States of America."

Later, The Associated Press asked Obama if he would "absolutely close out any possibility" of taking the ticket's second spot. He replied: "I am not running for vice president, and don't intend to be the vice president."

Source

As I've said before, those two running together as a dream ticket wouldn't be a good idea because they represent different aspects of politics. They do have similarities but Hillary comes off very old school and Obama's the new kid on the block running on change. I don't understand how Hillary can, with a straight face, suggest that Barack run as her VP when he's the frontrunner.

3 AM Girl Casey Knowles Endorses Obama

Obama Throws Kitchen Sink at Himself

'NAFTA-gate', Part II

"I don't just criticize [NAFTA]. I don't have my campaign go tell a foreign government behind closed doors: `That's just politics. Don't pay attention to it'"

--Hillary Clinton, Toledo, Ohio, March 3, 2008.

The Facts
The official Canadian report on the Feb. 8 meeting, leaked to the Associated Press over the weekend, presents a much more nuanced account of what took place than the story being retold by the Clinton campaign. It shows that Goolsbee talked about the need for a limited renegotiation of the NAFTA agreement, "in favour of strengthening/clarifying language on labour mobility and environment and trying to establish these as more `core' principles of the agreement." This is consistent with what Obama has been saying about NAFTA on the campaign trail.

Unfortunately for Obama, the Canadian memo also quotes Goolsbee as saying that some of the protectionist sentiment aired in Ohio had more to do with "political positioning than the clear articulation of policy plans." To anybody who has been following the campaign closely, this is a blinding statement of the obvious, but it is not the kind of thing that you want to concede in public. Goolsbee has denied expressing such sentiments to the Canadians.

Clearly, both the Clinton and Obama camps are trying to spin the Canadian memo to their own advantage, picking out the phrases that best suit their argument. At different times in the past, both candidates have talked about the economic benefits to America of trade agreements like NAFTA, while criticizing unfair labor and environmental practices.

Both candidates are also guilty of glossing over the difficulties of renegotiating highly complex trade agreements. During last week's debate, both Clinton and Obama threatened to "opt out" of NAFTA unless the deal is renegotiated to U.S. satisfaction. There was no mention of the fact that Canada might like to renegotiate parts of the agreement that give the U.S. preferential access to Canadian oil, or that Mexico may have second thoughts about importing subsidized American grain.

Source

Obama's Got Rezko and Hillary's Got a Fraud Trial

Obama's Eyes on Rezko
Andrew Romano

As jury selection began yesterday in the corruption trial of veteran Chicago fixer Antoin "Tony" Rezko, there was an unexpected face in the courtroom audience: an unidentified staffer scoping out the scene for Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama.

As Newsweek reported this week, Obama is a long-time friend of Rezko's. In 2005, Rezko and his wife were involved in a tangled property deal in which Rezko's wife bought a vacant lot next to a historical house purchased by Obama and his wife; Obama later acknowledged that his real-estate dealings with Rezko were "boneheaded."

There is no allegation that there was anything illegal about the house deal or Obama's role in it. But federal prosecutors have indicated in court papers that it is at least possible that Obama's name could surface in Rezko's trial on complex corruption charges. Government documents say that an unnamed politician received a $10,000 campaign contribution through a straw donor from Rezko, and that the money originated with a dubious "finders fee" paid to the developer as part of an allegedly corrupt scheme to influence members of a state teachers' pension fund board. Chicago media have reported that the politician who received the $10,000 was Obama; this was confirmed to NEWSWEEK by a source close to the Rezko investigation, who asked for anonymity when discussing non-public information. (There is no suggestion that Obama knew that the campaign contribution was tainted, and he has donated $160,000 in Rezko-related funds to charity.)

Bill Burton, an Obama campaign spokesman, confirmed that a campaign representative was indeed present in the courtroom for Rezko's trial. "She went to the trial to gather information since we've gotten so many media inquiries," Burton said in an e-mail to NEWSWEEK.

Source


Clintons to face fraud trial
By Kathy Miller

WORLDNET DAILY- Judge setting date, testimony to include ex-president, senator

While Hillary Clinton battles Barack Obama on the campaign trail, a judge in Los Angeles is quietly preparing to set a trial date in a $17 million fraud suit that aims to expose an alleged culture of widespread corruption by the Clintons and the Democratic Party.

At the conclusion of a hearing Thursday morning before California Superior Court Judge Aurelio N. Munoz, lawyers for Hollywood mogul Peter F. Paul will begin seeking sworn testimony from all three Clintons – Bill, Hillary and Chelsea – along with top Democratic Party leaders and A-list celebrities, including Barbra Streisand, John Travolta, Brad Pitt and Cher.

Paul's team hopes for a trial in October. The Clinton's longtime lawyer David Kendall, who will attend the hearing, has declined comment on the suit.

The Clintons have tried to dismiss the case, but the California Supreme Court, in 2004, upheld a lower-court decision to deny the motion.

Bill Clinton, according to the complaint, promised to promote Paul's Internet entertainment company, Stan Lee Media, in exchange for stock, cash options and massive contributions to his wife's 2000 Senate campaign. Paul contends he was directed by the Clintons and Democratic Party leaders to produce, pay for and then join them in lying about footing the bill for a Hollywood gala and fundraiser.

The Clintons' legal counsel has denied the former president made any deal with Paul. But Paul attorney Colette Wilson told WND there are witnesses who say it was common knowledge at Stan Lee Media that Bill Clinton was preparing to be a rainmaker for the company after he left office.

Paul claims former Vice President Al Gore, former Democratic Party chairman Ed Rendell and Clinton presidential campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe also are among the people who can confirm Paul engaged in the deal.

Paul claims Rendell directed various illegal contributions to the DNC and Hillary Clinton's campaign and failed to report to the Federal Election Commission more than $100,000 given for a Hollywood event for Gore's campaign and the Democratic National Committee in 2000. McAuliffe, Paul says, counseled him in two separate meetings to become a major donor to Hillary Clinton to pave the way to hire her husband. Paul asserts top Clinton adviser Harold Ickes also directed him to give money to the Senate campaign but hid that fact in "perjured testimony" during the trial of campaign finance director David Rosen.

Source

"Pulling a Russert"; White Hate Mongers That Hide Behind Christianity Are OK

Meet Tim Russert
by Jamison Foser

"It's never the question that's the problem, Matt, it's the answer."
-- NBC's Tim Russert

"It's 'never the question that's the problem'? Really?
Spoken like the guy who gets to ask the questions."
-- CJR's Liz Cox Barrett

MSNBC recently began running commercials touting its coverage of "Decision 2008." One begins with on-screen text asking, "Why do people care about politics?" Viewers then hear Tim Russert explain: "It's about the war. Our sons and daughters. It's about the economy. Our jobs. It's about education. Our schools. It's about health care. Our families' well-being. It's about everything that matters." The ad ends with the on-screen declaration: "That's why you care. That's why we cover it."

During this week's Democratic presidential debate, Russert didn't ask a single question about global warming, continuing his longstanding habit of all but ignoring the topic. He didn't ask a single question about the mortgage crisis. (As one Cleveland resident noted, "We've got the mortgage industry's toxic waste scattered all over this city, but Mr. Blue-Collar-Buffalo-and-Cleveland-Marshall-Guy Russert couldn't be bothered with a question about it.") He didn't ask a single question about executive power, the Constitution, torture, wiretapping, or other civil-liberties concerns. But that shouldn't come as a surprise; of all the questions he has asked while moderating presidential debates during this campaign, only one has dealt with any of those topics.

This wasn't the first time Russert made the odd decision to ask Obama about controversial comments made by a famous African-American. During a 2006 interview, Russert asked Obama about controversial comments Harry Belafonte made the day before. But Belafonte, as Jane Hamsher noted at the time, had made similar comments two weeks before, and Russert had never asked any guest about them. Russert gave no indication of why Obama was uniquely qualified or required to comment on Belafonte's comments. (The only other time Russert has ever asked anyone about any comments made by Harry Belafonte, according to Nexis? 2003, when Russert asked then-Secretary of State Colin Powell about comments Belafonte made about U.S. actions toward Cuba.)

Given Russert's badgering of Obama about Farrakhan, you might be wondering how he handles endorsements by controversial figures who have a history of statements that are widely considered to be anti-Semitic ... when the endorser and the endorsed are both white Republicans.

Source

What stuck out to me in that part of the debate is that Hillary wasn't asked about rejecting the endorsement of mAnn Coulter. I'm also waiting on her rejection of Jenna Jameson's endorsement. If Tim wants to pose these "Gotcha!" type of questions, why wasn't Hillary leveled the same treatment?

Some hateful, radical ministers -- white evangelicals -- are acceptable
by Glenn Greenwald

One of this week's hysterical press scandals was that Minister Louis Farrakhan praised Barack Obama's candidacy even though Obama had previously denounced numerous Farrakhan remarks and the Obama campaign did nothing to seek out the Farrakhan praise. Nonetheless, Tim Russert demanded that Obama jump through multiple hoops to prove that he has no connection to -- and, in fact, "rejects" -- the ideas espoused by Farrakhan deemed to be radical and hateful.

Yesterday, though, the equally fringe, radical and hateful (at least) Rev. John Hagee -- a white evangelical who is the pastor of a sprawling "mega-church" in Texas -- enthusiastically endorsed John McCain. Did McCain have to jump through the same hoops which Russert and others set up for Obama and "denounce" Hagee's extremism and "reject" his support? No; quite the opposite. McCain said he was "very honored" to receive this endorsement and, when asked about some of Hagee's more twisted views, responded: "all I can tell you is that I am very proud to have Pastor John Hagee's support."

McCain's sainted supporter, Joe Lieberman, last year spoke to Hagee's group and lavished him with such obsequious praise that Lieberman actually compared Hagee, favorably, to Moses. Why is Louis Farrakhan deemed by our political establishment to be so radioactive as to not be fit for good company -- black candidates are required to repudiate his support even when they haven't sought it and denounce his views even when they've never advocated anything close to those views -- but John Hagee is a perfectly acceptable figure whom mainstream GOP politicians are free to court without any consequences or media objections?

Source

Where's the uproar for this? White Republican welcomes the endorsement of hate-mongering, crazed churchfolk, Obama caved into the bullying of Russert and Billary over semantics and tosses Farrakhan and his endorsement under the bus and people still aren't satisfied--- WTF?!

And as SheCodes noted, there seems to be an acceptable disregard for Muslims and I'm not feeling that. A lot of my childhood friends are Muslim and they and their parents were very good to me. Simply put --- I don't hate them. Consistency counts when unity is the backdrop to your campaign.

Michelle Fights as Dirty as Bill

What's really hood?



Ouch. That was a LOW blow. I'd rather Michelle take the high road and not deviate into using Clinton and right wing-esque tactics. If you're gonna attack, use the issues as your ammo. I think it's much more tasteful and tactful. Hopefully it's not true that Barack stepped out on Michelle cuz there will be egg on her face.

How in the world did this slip passed the media's radar anyway?

Black Folks' Fears Legitimized

Every candidate should receive an adequate amount of security but it should completely understood why Obama's been issued Secret Service protection. That's old news but that picture warrants a healthy fear.

I still don't feel that people should fear voting for him if he's their ideal candidate. You're only doing yourself a disservice by strengthening mind control.

Check out Reading the Pictures: Obama's Security --- A Little Too Much Hush

Obama Claps Back

Clinton tells Obama: 'Shame on you'; Obama fires back

(CNN) -- A visibly angry Sen. Hillary Clinton lashed out Saturday at Sen. Barack Obama over campaign literature that she said he knows is "blatantly false," while Obama called her outburst "tactical."

Clinton jabbed the air with her hands as she told a crowd in Cincinnati, Ohio, that two Obama mailings spread lies about her positions on universal health care and the North American Free Trade Agreement.

"Shame on you, Barack Obama," she said.

Polls show Clinton and Obama are in statistical dead heats in delegate-rich Ohio and Texas, which both hold votes March 4.

With Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland nodding in agreement behind her, Clinton accused Obama of emulating the tactics of Karl Rove, President Bush's former political director who is reviled by Democrats.

Obama "is continuing to send false and discredited mailings with information that is not true to the voters of Ohio," Clinton said. Watch Clinton demand a 'real campaign' »

One mailing says her health care proposal would force everyone to buy health insurance, regardless of ability to pay, a charge Clinton vehemently denied.

Here's the video in case CNN takes a while to load:



Obama denied Clinton's assertions that the literature was false.

"There's nothing in that mailing that is inaccurate," he said, adding that he was puzzled by the sudden scrutiny since the mailers had been around for days, if not weeks.

"We have been subject to constant attack from the Clinton campaign, except for when we were down 20 points. And that was true in Iowa. It was true in South Carolina. It was true in Wisconsin, and it is true now," Obama said.

He described Clinton's anger as "tactical" and defended his campaign.

"The notion that somehow we're engaging in nefarious tactics I think is pretty hard to swallow." Watch Obama respond »

Here's the video of Barack's response in case CNN takes a while to load:

Clinton challenged Obama to "meet me in Ohio, and let's have a debate about your tactics and your behavior in this campaign."

Source

:-/ = Child please. The nerve of her to cry over dirty tactics. Hillary needs to check herself cuz she pulled off one hell of a ruthless campaign.

He came at her with her own words and she's letting him see her sweat. I love it! :-D