While it appears that my "spam" flag has been removed, I cannot take the chance that it will happen again. I have moved this blog to its own domain name. (See the story on the sidebar.) Please update your bookmarks appropriately.
http://www.hillaryorbust.com
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
The First Presidential Campaign Truly Funded By the Corporations
Obama supporters are exceptionally naive if they really believe this propaganda that Obama is taking a stand against a broken public campaign finance system by not taking public money. Hello, people, he wants to take corporate money - that's why he's not taking public money. Here's a ridiculous comment spammed on the latest AOL Straw Poll (with McCain leading by an overwhelming margin):
Barack Obama just announced a major strategic decision -- this campaign will not participate in the broken public financing system for the general election.
Our opponents are dedicated to manipulating this broken system to raise as much money as possible -- and they've proven they are very good at it.
To compete, Barack has decided to keep putting his faith in ordinary people like you giving only what you can afford.
Your generosity has gotten us this far. Join Barack today by declaring your independence from our broken system.
(snip)
Many Citizens have declared their Independence from a Broken System by supporting the First Presidential Campaign Truly Funded By the People
Right. As if taking PUBLIC TAX DOLLARS wasn't actually THE PEOPLE funding the campaign. What an amazing spin. Don't fall for it - it's a bunch of lies. Wall Street is where Obama gets his big money from, and that's whose pocket he will be in if he gets elected.
Barack Obama just announced a major strategic decision -- this campaign will not participate in the broken public financing system for the general election.
Our opponents are dedicated to manipulating this broken system to raise as much money as possible -- and they've proven they are very good at it.
To compete, Barack has decided to keep putting his faith in ordinary people like you giving only what you can afford.
Your generosity has gotten us this far. Join Barack today by declaring your independence from our broken system.
(snip)
Many Citizens have declared their Independence from a Broken System by supporting the First Presidential Campaign Truly Funded By the People
Right. As if taking PUBLIC TAX DOLLARS wasn't actually THE PEOPLE funding the campaign. What an amazing spin. Don't fall for it - it's a bunch of lies. Wall Street is where Obama gets his big money from, and that's whose pocket he will be in if he gets elected.
Obama = Dr. Evil
I laughed out loud when I read this columnist's description of the short-lived "Obama for America" presidential seal:
Is Obama a bad man? Of course not. He might make a decent president someday, once he rids himself of the lingering desire to stamp his "Obama for America" campaign seals on his lecterns, like the one with that almost presidential eagle, which looks like something designed for Dr. Evil by a lovingly devoted Mini Me.
(View the seal here.)
Is Obama a bad man? Of course not. He might make a decent president someday, once he rids himself of the lingering desire to stamp his "Obama for America" campaign seals on his lecterns, like the one with that almost presidential eagle, which looks like something designed for Dr. Evil by a lovingly devoted Mini Me.
(View the seal here.)
An Alternative View on Iraq
I was opposed to the war in Iraq. But now that we are there, I think it's wrong to blanket promise that we can pull troops out immediately without creating a worse situation in the region. I think Obama and his supporters are naive to think that we can pull troops out at lightning speed without it backfiring. Here's an interesting take on the subject:
Why Iraqis Back McCain
Why Iraqis Back McCain
Monday, June 23, 2008
Obama Fans Having Second Thoughts
Here is a great video from a thoughtful, recovering Obamabot, who is disappointed about Obama reneging on his pledge to use public campaign financing:
I hate to say it...but...I told you so...this is just the tip of the iceberg.
I hate to say it...but...I told you so...this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
I Won't Sleep With Obamabots
If you thought Obama Girl was sexist and offensive, wait until you see this stunningly horrible video on YouTube. It's called "Blue Balled" and features a guy trying to get laid, only to have the young woman run out on him when she finds a picture of McCain in the drawer where the condoms are supposed to be. (Warning, the video is somewhat sexually explicit.)
This part of a project by TruthThroughAction.org, who apparently are stupid enough to believe that showing pictures of women in their underwear and a shirt that says "I only sleep with Democrats" is a good way to market the Democratic party.
This is why the left is no longer speaking to me. The left has totally become pornogrified and anti-woman. Do I really care that guys on the left want to save the spotted owl, when on the other side of their mouth they are telling me that I, as a woman, only have value to them when I'm wearing a negligee?
But here's what really blows my mind. Do these guys at the ironically named "Truth Through Action" honestly believe this sort of marketing is going to have any positive impact? Let's look at this somewhat pragmatically, OK?
1. Obama already does well with younger voters. He doesn't need to reach out to them anymore.
2. Obama is having a hard time wooing Hillary's supporters, many of whom are females and mature, strong women. (By "mature," I mean, not 22-years-old and putting up half-naked pictures of themselves on MySpace, not just "old.")
3. Obama also needs to gain the support of the more conservative Reagan Democrats, who he has insulted and pushed aside in his primary bid.
These women and Reagan Democrats are the ones who are going to swing the election either to Obama or McCain. They are the crucial demographic in November. Not a bunch of young idiots who spend their weekends watching E! Entertainment.
So who came up with the "brilliant" idea that Obama needed more MTV-style marketing? Apparently...a couple of young male chauvinists who bought into the line that sex sells.
Sure, sex sells when you are selling sexy underwear, but I don't think it sells when it comes to something IMPORTANT like who is going to be the president of the United States of America.
As a woman, I am so completely offended by this marketing campaign, that not only am I even more turned off of Obama, I am turned off the Democrats as a whole.
I am certain that other, more moderate Democrats will also find this sleazy campaign to be a turn-off. (Never mind the issue of respecting women - the idea that you should be a Democrat just to have cheap sex is offensive and juvenile!)
I'm not against sex. It has its place. But if this campaign is any indication of where our culture is headed...well, let's just say the predictions of "Idiocracy" have already come true.
This part of a project by TruthThroughAction.org, who apparently are stupid enough to believe that showing pictures of women in their underwear and a shirt that says "I only sleep with Democrats" is a good way to market the Democratic party.
This is why the left is no longer speaking to me. The left has totally become pornogrified and anti-woman. Do I really care that guys on the left want to save the spotted owl, when on the other side of their mouth they are telling me that I, as a woman, only have value to them when I'm wearing a negligee?
But here's what really blows my mind. Do these guys at the ironically named "Truth Through Action" honestly believe this sort of marketing is going to have any positive impact? Let's look at this somewhat pragmatically, OK?
1. Obama already does well with younger voters. He doesn't need to reach out to them anymore.
2. Obama is having a hard time wooing Hillary's supporters, many of whom are females and mature, strong women. (By "mature," I mean, not 22-years-old and putting up half-naked pictures of themselves on MySpace, not just "old.")
3. Obama also needs to gain the support of the more conservative Reagan Democrats, who he has insulted and pushed aside in his primary bid.
These women and Reagan Democrats are the ones who are going to swing the election either to Obama or McCain. They are the crucial demographic in November. Not a bunch of young idiots who spend their weekends watching E! Entertainment.
So who came up with the "brilliant" idea that Obama needed more MTV-style marketing? Apparently...a couple of young male chauvinists who bought into the line that sex sells.
Sure, sex sells when you are selling sexy underwear, but I don't think it sells when it comes to something IMPORTANT like who is going to be the president of the United States of America.
As a woman, I am so completely offended by this marketing campaign, that not only am I even more turned off of Obama, I am turned off the Democrats as a whole.
I am certain that other, more moderate Democrats will also find this sleazy campaign to be a turn-off. (Never mind the issue of respecting women - the idea that you should be a Democrat just to have cheap sex is offensive and juvenile!)
I'm not against sex. It has its place. But if this campaign is any indication of where our culture is headed...well, let's just say the predictions of "Idiocracy" have already come true.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Well, We Know Now That Hillary Won't be VP
At first, I wanted Obama to pick Hillary as his VP, even though I would have been unhappy with him at the top of the ticket. As I learned more about him, I decided that I absolutely wanted Hillary to stay off of his ticket. I think Hillary should stay as far away from Obama as she can. He's just bad news.
But I've been concerned that, even though it's obvious Obama personally dislikes Hillary, he might have conceded that he really needed her as VP. So I've been waiting somewhat anxiously to see who he will choose.
And now, we have a clear indication that Hillary is not going to be it. Yesterday, we found out that Obama has hired Patti Solis Doyle to be his VP's "chief of staff." Doyle, if you recall, was Hillary's former campaign manager, the one Hillary fired due to her incompetence.
Notwithstanding that it's very bizarre for Obama to be appointing a chief of staff for his veep when normally that's the veep's choice...why on earth would he pick a failed campaign manager for the job?
Some are now speculating that Doyle was on the Obama payroll the whole time, and perhaps was a mole in the Clinton campaign, actively working to sabotage her.
It makes sense when you think about it...because otherwise, why would you choose someone who had screwed up so badly for a plum gig, and at the same time, tick off Hillary and her supporters? There is definitely something fishy going on here.
But the good news in all of this? With Doyle and Clinton not on speaking terms, we now know for certain that Hillary will not be Obama's VP. And HURRAH for that!
But I've been concerned that, even though it's obvious Obama personally dislikes Hillary, he might have conceded that he really needed her as VP. So I've been waiting somewhat anxiously to see who he will choose.
And now, we have a clear indication that Hillary is not going to be it. Yesterday, we found out that Obama has hired Patti Solis Doyle to be his VP's "chief of staff." Doyle, if you recall, was Hillary's former campaign manager, the one Hillary fired due to her incompetence.
Notwithstanding that it's very bizarre for Obama to be appointing a chief of staff for his veep when normally that's the veep's choice...why on earth would he pick a failed campaign manager for the job?
Some are now speculating that Doyle was on the Obama payroll the whole time, and perhaps was a mole in the Clinton campaign, actively working to sabotage her.
It makes sense when you think about it...because otherwise, why would you choose someone who had screwed up so badly for a plum gig, and at the same time, tick off Hillary and her supporters? There is definitely something fishy going on here.
But the good news in all of this? With Doyle and Clinton not on speaking terms, we now know for certain that Hillary will not be Obama's VP. And HURRAH for that!
Monday, June 16, 2008
Will Hillary Be on the DNC Ballot in August?
So the big question on everyone's minds is, will Hillary be on the Democratic ballot at the convention? We've been hearing a lot of confusing (mis)information regarding this...has Hillary released her delegates or not? Is Howard Dean pressuring Hillary to take her name off the ballot in the name of "unity"?
What I think is the most telling are stories like these, showing the Obama campaign engaging in some pretty juvenile tactics to take Hillary-positive superdelegates out of the equation and replace them with pro-Obama people. Are they concerned that Hillary might actually win with a vote?
What all of this confusion and misinformation says to me is that the Democratic party really doesn't care too much about "democracy." They want to push Obama through without giving Hillary's delegates a chance to stand for her. This is the main reason I am leaving the "Democratic" party and voting against Obama in the fall.
Some are calling on Hillary supporters to help retire her debt as a way to show the DNC that Hillary has support and power. Do not be concerned that her money is going to Obama: From what I understand, her donations are going to reduce her debt. You can contribute here.
What I think is the most telling are stories like these, showing the Obama campaign engaging in some pretty juvenile tactics to take Hillary-positive superdelegates out of the equation and replace them with pro-Obama people. Are they concerned that Hillary might actually win with a vote?
What all of this confusion and misinformation says to me is that the Democratic party really doesn't care too much about "democracy." They want to push Obama through without giving Hillary's delegates a chance to stand for her. This is the main reason I am leaving the "Democratic" party and voting against Obama in the fall.
Some are calling on Hillary supporters to help retire her debt as a way to show the DNC that Hillary has support and power. Do not be concerned that her money is going to Obama: From what I understand, her donations are going to reduce her debt. You can contribute here.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Keep it Out of the Gutter, Please!
Here's a plea to those of you who are anti-Obama. Please stick to the what matters. That means: Obama's record, his character, how he's taking over the DNC, the unfair seating of delegates, etc.
Let's NOT start acting like children and go on the attack against Barack Obama's middle name or Michelle Obama's appearance. I am sick and tired of people running around yelling Barack HUSSEIN Obama. I don't care what his middle name is. I don't care if he has a Muslim background. When you harp on that, you come off like a racist, xenophobic idiot.
Likewise, go ahead and criticize Michelle Obama's words and actions, but lay off her looks. No Quarter, which I am generally a fan of, sunk to a new low this morning by posting an unflattering, candid photo of Michelle Obama next to a picture of Cindy McCain all dressed up for the ball, with the note:
Which woman has the appearance of a First Lady?
I could not believe my eyes. This is the very same type of sexist, looks-based crap that Hillary has had to go through this campaign. I do not want to see this sort of treatment thrown at ANY woman, even if it is Michelle Obama.
By acting like children in these matters, we hurt our arguments and give fuel to the Obama people who claim that Hillary supporters are "racist" or just being "bitter."
Stick to the facts, stick to the issues, stick to what really matters. Leave Michelle Obama's looks and Barack Obama's middle name out of it.
Thank you.
UPDATE: No Quarter has removed the offending article and posted up a Statement on the Standards of No Quarter. Thank you!
Let's NOT start acting like children and go on the attack against Barack Obama's middle name or Michelle Obama's appearance. I am sick and tired of people running around yelling Barack HUSSEIN Obama. I don't care what his middle name is. I don't care if he has a Muslim background. When you harp on that, you come off like a racist, xenophobic idiot.
Likewise, go ahead and criticize Michelle Obama's words and actions, but lay off her looks. No Quarter, which I am generally a fan of, sunk to a new low this morning by posting an unflattering, candid photo of Michelle Obama next to a picture of Cindy McCain all dressed up for the ball, with the note:
Which woman has the appearance of a First Lady?
I could not believe my eyes. This is the very same type of sexist, looks-based crap that Hillary has had to go through this campaign. I do not want to see this sort of treatment thrown at ANY woman, even if it is Michelle Obama.
By acting like children in these matters, we hurt our arguments and give fuel to the Obama people who claim that Hillary supporters are "racist" or just being "bitter."
Stick to the facts, stick to the issues, stick to what really matters. Leave Michelle Obama's looks and Barack Obama's middle name out of it.
Thank you.
UPDATE: No Quarter has removed the offending article and posted up a Statement on the Standards of No Quarter. Thank you!
Friday, June 13, 2008
Darth Barack Takes Over DNC
I don't know about you, but I find the fact that Obama has taken over the DNC and is now moving it to Chicago to be downright frightening. He hasn't even officially been given the nomination yet! Why do I get the feeling I'm watching Star Wars and seeing Senator Palpatine maneuvering himself to get control over the Republic?
If you read the story on Politico, you'll see a bunch of Obamabots swooning about how "smart" Obama is to be doing this. But not everyone has their eyes closed. Here are a few choice comments:
That's change all right. Move the DNC operations to arguably the most corrupt democratic machine city/state in history and I'm from Illinois.
Posted By: CAS | June 12, 2008 at 03:33 PM
I've always thought Obama was a creation of the sleeze that is Illinois and Chicago politics. This is just one more proving point.
Posted By: Vinny | June 12, 2008 at 03:33 PM
This is scary--I don't care who the candidate is. Who is in charge the Democratic Party or one candidate? This smacks of a personality cult. The Dems better be very, very cautious about this type of thing. Obama is not a king-apparent. He's just a candidate.
Posted By: mayorjake | June 12, 2008 at 03:33 PM
This is "unprecendented" alright, in America, anyway, this is a third world coup. This is the most totalitarian move in history in the only current Superpower and the press needs to call this totalitarian move for what it is. And on top of that, paid bloggers are HERE to tell people in zombie like fashion (robot voice of Barack's Undead from Big Brother "here are three reasons why this is a fabulous move." How would a normal person know that? This guy is frightening, Democrats and voters of all stripes, if you care about voter suppression, totalitarian and controlling power grabs wake up. Keep in Mind: Obama is just a Senator and NOT EVEN the official nominee. He's the "presumptive" nominee and he's making a totalitarian, communist or fascist move like this? Wake up America, Barack doesn't do anything the Democratic Way. And it is really scary. THIS is scary.
Posted By: Baraq's Coup Frightening | June 12, 2008 at 06:02 PM
The democratic party is NOW the party of Obama and his elites.. I am NOT elite.. I am and always have been a hard working democrat..The party has left me and others and is now becoming a part of a organization under a powerful man who has already started to tell us what we are allowed to say and do..We are slowly losing our rights to free speech and when he has COMPLETE control of our country, we will be on our way to losing all our rights.. It all starts with charisma.. Check your history and watch very carefully what is now unfolding before your eyes. Then pray.
Posted By: shirley | June 13, 2008 at 11:36 AM
If this keeps up, we'll all be forced to drop to our knees and say "All Hail Emperor Obama!" in no time. Yikes.
If you read the story on Politico, you'll see a bunch of Obamabots swooning about how "smart" Obama is to be doing this. But not everyone has their eyes closed. Here are a few choice comments:
That's change all right. Move the DNC operations to arguably the most corrupt democratic machine city/state in history and I'm from Illinois.
Posted By: CAS | June 12, 2008 at 03:33 PM
I've always thought Obama was a creation of the sleeze that is Illinois and Chicago politics. This is just one more proving point.
Posted By: Vinny | June 12, 2008 at 03:33 PM
This is scary--I don't care who the candidate is. Who is in charge the Democratic Party or one candidate? This smacks of a personality cult. The Dems better be very, very cautious about this type of thing. Obama is not a king-apparent. He's just a candidate.
Posted By: mayorjake | June 12, 2008 at 03:33 PM
This is "unprecendented" alright, in America, anyway, this is a third world coup. This is the most totalitarian move in history in the only current Superpower and the press needs to call this totalitarian move for what it is. And on top of that, paid bloggers are HERE to tell people in zombie like fashion (robot voice of Barack's Undead from Big Brother "here are three reasons why this is a fabulous move." How would a normal person know that? This guy is frightening, Democrats and voters of all stripes, if you care about voter suppression, totalitarian and controlling power grabs wake up. Keep in Mind: Obama is just a Senator and NOT EVEN the official nominee. He's the "presumptive" nominee and he's making a totalitarian, communist or fascist move like this? Wake up America, Barack doesn't do anything the Democratic Way. And it is really scary. THIS is scary.
Posted By: Baraq's Coup Frightening | June 12, 2008 at 06:02 PM
The democratic party is NOW the party of Obama and his elites.. I am NOT elite.. I am and always have been a hard working democrat..The party has left me and others and is now becoming a part of a organization under a powerful man who has already started to tell us what we are allowed to say and do..We are slowly losing our rights to free speech and when he has COMPLETE control of our country, we will be on our way to losing all our rights.. It all starts with charisma.. Check your history and watch very carefully what is now unfolding before your eyes. Then pray.
Posted By: shirley | June 13, 2008 at 11:36 AM
If this keeps up, we'll all be forced to drop to our knees and say "All Hail Emperor Obama!" in no time. Yikes.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Once Again, the AP Takes Obama's Side
Here's a very one-sided article from our favorite Obama propaganda machine, the Associated Press: Obama Launches Site to Debunk Rumors
Nedra Pickler, author of the article, is a name I recognize. She has been one of the few AP political reporters covering the Democratic primaries, with her coverage skewed towards Obama the whole campaign. The entire article she wrote is completely biased towards Obama, and tries to portray any negative information put out against him as a lie that is being drummed up by conservatives. For example, she writes:
It's a particular problem for Obama, a relative newcomer to national politics who is still unknown to many voters and has been the target of persistent misinformation campaigns online.
Right. So all the information out about Rezko is just a "persistent misinformation campaign."
She also goes so far as to equate negative information on Obama as an Internet hoax, by writing:
E-mails about Obama rank No. 2 on the list of "Hottest Urban Legends" on snopes.com, an Internet rumor-debunking site, behind e-mail greeting cards that could expose computers to viruses.
The final straw for me was reading the following graph:
There have also been more insulting attacks, and not just limited to the Internet. The Fox News Channel recently labeled her as "Obama's baby mama" and also raised the inflammatory suggestion that she gave her husband a "terrorist fist jab" when they bumped knuckles the night he clinched the nomination.
Oh gee, poor Obama. You mean he's finally getting a small taste of what Hillary had to endure her entire campaign? Boo hoo.
Nedra Pickler has obviously been in the tank for Obama for a while now. Whether she's just a fan of his or actually getting encouraged by the higher ups at AP to support him, this article is yet another example of Obama propaganda.
I'm not saying all Internet rumors about Obama are true, but a real reporter would look at some of the more substantiated charges, such as his associations with Ayers and Rezko. To not do so is not journalism, but rather a rehashing of an Obama press release.
Shame on Pickler, and the AP for putting forth this shoddy journalism.
Nedra Pickler, author of the article, is a name I recognize. She has been one of the few AP political reporters covering the Democratic primaries, with her coverage skewed towards Obama the whole campaign. The entire article she wrote is completely biased towards Obama, and tries to portray any negative information put out against him as a lie that is being drummed up by conservatives. For example, she writes:
It's a particular problem for Obama, a relative newcomer to national politics who is still unknown to many voters and has been the target of persistent misinformation campaigns online.
Right. So all the information out about Rezko is just a "persistent misinformation campaign."
She also goes so far as to equate negative information on Obama as an Internet hoax, by writing:
E-mails about Obama rank No. 2 on the list of "Hottest Urban Legends" on snopes.com, an Internet rumor-debunking site, behind e-mail greeting cards that could expose computers to viruses.
The final straw for me was reading the following graph:
There have also been more insulting attacks, and not just limited to the Internet. The Fox News Channel recently labeled her as "Obama's baby mama" and also raised the inflammatory suggestion that she gave her husband a "terrorist fist jab" when they bumped knuckles the night he clinched the nomination.
Oh gee, poor Obama. You mean he's finally getting a small taste of what Hillary had to endure her entire campaign? Boo hoo.
Nedra Pickler has obviously been in the tank for Obama for a while now. Whether she's just a fan of his or actually getting encouraged by the higher ups at AP to support him, this article is yet another example of Obama propaganda.
I'm not saying all Internet rumors about Obama are true, but a real reporter would look at some of the more substantiated charges, such as his associations with Ayers and Rezko. To not do so is not journalism, but rather a rehashing of an Obama press release.
Shame on Pickler, and the AP for putting forth this shoddy journalism.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Hillary's Friendship With McCain
Here's an interesting article in the LA Times about Hillary Clinton's friendship with John McCain. What I found even more interesting was the following comment buried in the discussion area:
I've never trusted Hillary Clinton and this just proves, to me, that she's not worthy of trust. To abandon what principles she has and cozy up to someone who is (or at least would have been, had she gotten the nomination)her avowed enemy, is the true mark of treason.
Not surprising at all, to see a major political figure in bed with the opposition - or maybe that's what American party politics is all about. If so, then Obama has a lesson to learn, and we're all in more trouble than we think.
Yes...that's the brave new world some Obamabots want to see: Where it is outright treason to simply talk to and befriend someone from your own country who just happens to be in the opposing party.
Hey Dave, in case you hadn't noticed, the Civil War ended over a hundred years ago. It's a positive thing when party members can reach across the divide and work together. We need more of that in this country, not less!
So I guess, in the minds of some Obama people, if you happen to so much as like a person who is a Republican, you should be tried for treason. I don't know about you, but I find this sentiment to be downright scary!
I'm sure not all Obama supporters feel this way, but there's definitely a push towards this totalitarian thinking from the far left lunatic fringe that believes that all Republicans are an "enemy" that should be defeated like Al Qaida. Their idea of "unity" is that we all believe everything they believe and fall into step.
So much for Obama being the "great uniter." Hillary and McCain has actually shown through their own friendship that they are the ones truly capable of uniting this country, going past all the old partisan political BS.
I've never trusted Hillary Clinton and this just proves, to me, that she's not worthy of trust. To abandon what principles she has and cozy up to someone who is (or at least would have been, had she gotten the nomination)her avowed enemy, is the true mark of treason.
Not surprising at all, to see a major political figure in bed with the opposition - or maybe that's what American party politics is all about. If so, then Obama has a lesson to learn, and we're all in more trouble than we think.
Yes...that's the brave new world some Obamabots want to see: Where it is outright treason to simply talk to and befriend someone from your own country who just happens to be in the opposing party.
Hey Dave, in case you hadn't noticed, the Civil War ended over a hundred years ago. It's a positive thing when party members can reach across the divide and work together. We need more of that in this country, not less!
So I guess, in the minds of some Obama people, if you happen to so much as like a person who is a Republican, you should be tried for treason. I don't know about you, but I find this sentiment to be downright scary!
I'm sure not all Obama supporters feel this way, but there's definitely a push towards this totalitarian thinking from the far left lunatic fringe that believes that all Republicans are an "enemy" that should be defeated like Al Qaida. Their idea of "unity" is that we all believe everything they believe and fall into step.
So much for Obama being the "great uniter." Hillary and McCain has actually shown through their own friendship that they are the ones truly capable of uniting this country, going past all the old partisan political BS.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Why I'm Moderating Comments Now
Lately, I've been noticing a rash of canned comments posted around anti-Obama sites. The theme is persistent. The poster often claims to be a Hillary supporter but then states how they are now switching over to Obama. At their worst, these comments have been posted falsely under the names of some very vocal anti-Obama people.
The latest one to hit my site was a sob story about a mother who supposedly had a child in Iraq who was now going to vote absentee for Obama. Here's a small snippet of the propaganda:
He will be voting this year through an absentee ballot, and he's voting Obama for one simple reason: through his firsthand experience in Iraq, he knows Americans can't afford another President who will wage unneeded wars. Many of his fellow soldiers feel the same. For them, their vote could be the difference between coming home to their families, or fighting for their lives in a country that does not want them nor need them.
Now COME ON. That is obviously not a real person writing this! And sure enough, once I had nuked that comment from my site, I saw it appear word for word on another anti-Obama blog.
So here's the deal. If you are a real Obama supporter with your own opinion and not some canned speech, and you want to come on here and argue with MY content, that's fine...as long as you don't go overboard with the flaming. (If you get too annoying or insulting, I will stop giving you a platform.)
However, if you are posting some canned piece of PR, claiming that you are a Hillary support now turned to Obama, or the mother of a soldier, or...I'm sure this will be the next one...some young woman posting to tell about how abortion saved your life and we can't afford to lose Roe v. Wade: Your comments will be nuked.
I will not let my blog be hijacked for Obama propaganda.
PS. I had already started moderating my comments last night and woke up this morning to the following story on all this at No Quarter. I can't say I was surprised:
Barack Obama Condones Coordinated Internet Harassment by his Thugs
The latest one to hit my site was a sob story about a mother who supposedly had a child in Iraq who was now going to vote absentee for Obama. Here's a small snippet of the propaganda:
He will be voting this year through an absentee ballot, and he's voting Obama for one simple reason: through his firsthand experience in Iraq, he knows Americans can't afford another President who will wage unneeded wars. Many of his fellow soldiers feel the same. For them, their vote could be the difference between coming home to their families, or fighting for their lives in a country that does not want them nor need them.
Now COME ON. That is obviously not a real person writing this! And sure enough, once I had nuked that comment from my site, I saw it appear word for word on another anti-Obama blog.
So here's the deal. If you are a real Obama supporter with your own opinion and not some canned speech, and you want to come on here and argue with MY content, that's fine...as long as you don't go overboard with the flaming. (If you get too annoying or insulting, I will stop giving you a platform.)
However, if you are posting some canned piece of PR, claiming that you are a Hillary support now turned to Obama, or the mother of a soldier, or...I'm sure this will be the next one...some young woman posting to tell about how abortion saved your life and we can't afford to lose Roe v. Wade: Your comments will be nuked.
I will not let my blog be hijacked for Obama propaganda.
PS. I had already started moderating my comments last night and woke up this morning to the following story on all this at No Quarter. I can't say I was surprised:
Barack Obama Condones Coordinated Internet Harassment by his Thugs
Monday, June 9, 2008
AOL Straw Poll Favors McCain
You've probably seen the Obamabots posting some of the latest polls showing Obama with a few point lead over McCain nationally. These polls are generally done canvassing around 1,000 people or fewer. I could never figure out for the life of me how 1,000 people who actually bothered to pick up their telephone to answer a survey represented the average American. (I certainly don't do phone surveys.)
So Obama fans should be concerned over an AOL straw poll showing McCain leading Obama by about 8 percentage points. The poll has gotten over 200,000 responses. In order to vote, you have to enter in your state and a unique code, so the poll is hard to game.
So Obama fans should be concerned over an AOL straw poll showing McCain leading Obama by about 8 percentage points. The poll has gotten over 200,000 responses. In order to vote, you have to enter in your state and a unique code, so the poll is hard to game.
Important Read on Caucus "Terrorism"
I've been accused in the comments here of being a "terrorist" for simply speculating that powerful people may be putting Obama into power simply to assassinate him and wreak major havoc in America. This same person then says the following about the caucuses:
"It's not rigging to try to insult someone and then urge them away from the mob. That's just how caucuses work. Tests of endurance. This isn't imposed by the DNC, it's imposed by those in the caucus. Survival of the fittest."
Survival of the fittest? THAT'S NOT DEMOCRACY. And if anything, what you are describing is "terrorism" based on your own definition. It is not Democracy if you have to withstand insults and pressure just to cast your vote.
Please read this following story of a young Hillary supporter who was insulted and called a "fag" when he tried to participate in a caucus:
My Final Rant
"It's not rigging to try to insult someone and then urge them away from the mob. That's just how caucuses work. Tests of endurance. This isn't imposed by the DNC, it's imposed by those in the caucus. Survival of the fittest."
Survival of the fittest? THAT'S NOT DEMOCRACY. And if anything, what you are describing is "terrorism" based on your own definition. It is not Democracy if you have to withstand insults and pressure just to cast your vote.
Please read this following story of a young Hillary supporter who was insulted and called a "fag" when he tried to participate in a caucus:
My Final Rant
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Hillary in 2012 T-Shirt
I saw someone was looking for one, so here is a Hillary 2012 t-shirt. There are lots of t-shirt styles available. You can get one at CafePress:http://www.cafepress.com/hillaryin2012
Saturday, June 7, 2008
Here's My Obama Conspiracy Theory
OK, I realize this may sound far-fetched, but let me piece together my reasoning for believing that Obama is backed by a vast conspiracy of powerful interests. I believe the DNC is being manipulated, because otherwise what they've done in ousting Hillary Clinton makes no sense whatsoever.
Why was the DNC in such a rush to stop Hillary's campaign? Why would it have been so horrible for her to go to the convention and let the superdelegates decide? The race was pretty much tied (Obama with a slight lead in pledged delegates, Clinton with a slight lead in popular vote). It makes no sense that she would be forced out so unilaterally.
Now, I've heard that the reason the DNC superdelegates are supporting Obama is that they believe it's more important to appease the new voters Obama brought in, even if that means risking the November election. But this makes no sense. Why piss off Hillary's supporters and risking losing an election if you don't need to?
Anyone doing any market research could easily go online and read the sentiments from Obama's supporters. By and large they lean farther to the left than Hillary's supporters. Obama's supporters are completely closed to the idea of voting for a moderate Republican. Thus, even if they had to hold their noses, Obama supporters would have voted for Hillary in November if Obama was not on the ticket.
Therefore, the smart thing to do would have been to put Hillary on the top of the ticket, with Obama as the VP. Hillary had already stated publicly she would do this.
A Clinton/Obama ticket would appease Obama supporters, who would, given a rallying speech by Obama on this point, back up the ticket enthusiastically. It would also have made Hillary's supporters happy. It would have garnered votes from the Reagan Democrats. Democrats who were concerned over Obama's experience would have felt fine with him as VP.
Polls and date repeatedly showed that Clinton was a lock for November. In the primaries, she won all the large states and swing states.
Thus, a Clinton/Obama ticket would have been a guaranteed landslide victory for the Democrats in November.
It would also have given Obama the opportunity to serve as VP for eight years and then as president for another eight years.
Why did the DNC fight so hard to bring Hillary down and shut off her options? A Clinton/Obama ticket was the sensible solution. That this was not brokered truly makes no sense whatsoever. And it shows me that there's something fishy going on here. Is the DNC simply filled with morons? Or is something else going on here?
So I am piecing together the following:
1. The DNC's concerted push to oust Clinton with complete disregard for 1) the old guard Democrats and base of the party and 2) the statistics showing Clinton to be the clear winner over McCain.
2. A media that has relentlessly complied with the ousting of Clinton, to the point of putting out false reports of her concession when her own website denied this.
3. A constant, repeated meme presented of Obama as another "JFK" before he has actually accomplished anything.
4. Obama's volatile supporters, who consist of three constituencies ripe for manipulation and easily mobilized: young people, the far left, and angry African Americans (note, I'm not saying all African-Americans).
5. A Republican candidate, McCain, who is universally despised by the far right and who is causing dissent among Republicans.
6. Obama's overwhelming support by large corporations and Wall Street financiers, topping even McCain in corporate donations.
7. Obama's shady Chicago-politics past, and his continued arrogance and confidence despite all the skeletons in his closet.
8. The fact that any inexperienced black man would rise to such prominence and power in this country so quickly...if blacks are truly suffering from discrimination in this country, it stands to reason that such a quick rise in power for a black man is suspicious.
9. The media's lack of in-depth scrutiny over Obama's past and his poor associations.
10. The utter willingness of the DNC to lose in November in support of Obama.
When I look at all of this and a bigger picture, here's what I see:
I think powerful people have decided to put Obama in power. I believe Obama is so arrogant and cocky because perhaps they are planning to rig the November election in Obama's favor.
Who are these powerful people? I believe they are the same people who put Bush and Cheney into power, i.e., the "NeoCons."
Let's be clear: The NeoCons don't like McCain. They can't control him. He does not do what they want him to do.
And in order to confuse the country, what better way to maintain control and power than to back a candidate on the opposite end of the political spectrum? In other words, dupe the very people (the far left) who have been fighting you for the past eight years.
I might not have actually bought this conspiracy hokum if I had not actually watched in disbelief as the press distorted facts on the last day of the primaries. Clinton was portrayed as conceding when she wasn't, and Obama was declared a winner way before the polls had closed based on his word that delegates had privately committed to him.
That scared the crap out of me! I knew something big was going down then.
But here's the kicker: If the NeoCons are indeed trying to put Obama in power, I don't think they mean to keep him there. I wouldn't be surprised if they plan on assassinating him at some point.
Think about it. Obama is backed by the group of people in this country most likely to riot: young people, the far left (white people who rioted at the WTO talks in Seattle), and a certain segment of the black population that rioted back in 1992. Obama has set himself up as a messiah. If he falls, his hard-core constituents, who are more like cult followers, will go berserk.
If Obama is assassinated, either before or after the election, complete chaos will ensue. In the midst of rising gas prices and an economic meltdown, the government may well institute martial law.
If an assassination occurs before the election, Bush has now every right to suspend the constitution and even stop the elections so he can remain in power.
It's possible, however, that they just plan to keep Obama in there as a puppet, and will keep him alive as long as he plays the game and they can pull the strings.
Now, I hope I'm wrong about this, but that's my bad feeling on the whole thing. But you have to admit, something really fishy is going on here.
We shall see.
Why was the DNC in such a rush to stop Hillary's campaign? Why would it have been so horrible for her to go to the convention and let the superdelegates decide? The race was pretty much tied (Obama with a slight lead in pledged delegates, Clinton with a slight lead in popular vote). It makes no sense that she would be forced out so unilaterally.
Now, I've heard that the reason the DNC superdelegates are supporting Obama is that they believe it's more important to appease the new voters Obama brought in, even if that means risking the November election. But this makes no sense. Why piss off Hillary's supporters and risking losing an election if you don't need to?
Anyone doing any market research could easily go online and read the sentiments from Obama's supporters. By and large they lean farther to the left than Hillary's supporters. Obama's supporters are completely closed to the idea of voting for a moderate Republican. Thus, even if they had to hold their noses, Obama supporters would have voted for Hillary in November if Obama was not on the ticket.
Therefore, the smart thing to do would have been to put Hillary on the top of the ticket, with Obama as the VP. Hillary had already stated publicly she would do this.
A Clinton/Obama ticket would appease Obama supporters, who would, given a rallying speech by Obama on this point, back up the ticket enthusiastically. It would also have made Hillary's supporters happy. It would have garnered votes from the Reagan Democrats. Democrats who were concerned over Obama's experience would have felt fine with him as VP.
Polls and date repeatedly showed that Clinton was a lock for November. In the primaries, she won all the large states and swing states.
Thus, a Clinton/Obama ticket would have been a guaranteed landslide victory for the Democrats in November.
It would also have given Obama the opportunity to serve as VP for eight years and then as president for another eight years.
Why did the DNC fight so hard to bring Hillary down and shut off her options? A Clinton/Obama ticket was the sensible solution. That this was not brokered truly makes no sense whatsoever. And it shows me that there's something fishy going on here. Is the DNC simply filled with morons? Or is something else going on here?
So I am piecing together the following:
1. The DNC's concerted push to oust Clinton with complete disregard for 1) the old guard Democrats and base of the party and 2) the statistics showing Clinton to be the clear winner over McCain.
2. A media that has relentlessly complied with the ousting of Clinton, to the point of putting out false reports of her concession when her own website denied this.
3. A constant, repeated meme presented of Obama as another "JFK" before he has actually accomplished anything.
4. Obama's volatile supporters, who consist of three constituencies ripe for manipulation and easily mobilized: young people, the far left, and angry African Americans (note, I'm not saying all African-Americans).
5. A Republican candidate, McCain, who is universally despised by the far right and who is causing dissent among Republicans.
6. Obama's overwhelming support by large corporations and Wall Street financiers, topping even McCain in corporate donations.
7. Obama's shady Chicago-politics past, and his continued arrogance and confidence despite all the skeletons in his closet.
8. The fact that any inexperienced black man would rise to such prominence and power in this country so quickly...if blacks are truly suffering from discrimination in this country, it stands to reason that such a quick rise in power for a black man is suspicious.
9. The media's lack of in-depth scrutiny over Obama's past and his poor associations.
10. The utter willingness of the DNC to lose in November in support of Obama.
When I look at all of this and a bigger picture, here's what I see:
I think powerful people have decided to put Obama in power. I believe Obama is so arrogant and cocky because perhaps they are planning to rig the November election in Obama's favor.
Who are these powerful people? I believe they are the same people who put Bush and Cheney into power, i.e., the "NeoCons."
Let's be clear: The NeoCons don't like McCain. They can't control him. He does not do what they want him to do.
And in order to confuse the country, what better way to maintain control and power than to back a candidate on the opposite end of the political spectrum? In other words, dupe the very people (the far left) who have been fighting you for the past eight years.
I might not have actually bought this conspiracy hokum if I had not actually watched in disbelief as the press distorted facts on the last day of the primaries. Clinton was portrayed as conceding when she wasn't, and Obama was declared a winner way before the polls had closed based on his word that delegates had privately committed to him.
That scared the crap out of me! I knew something big was going down then.
But here's the kicker: If the NeoCons are indeed trying to put Obama in power, I don't think they mean to keep him there. I wouldn't be surprised if they plan on assassinating him at some point.
Think about it. Obama is backed by the group of people in this country most likely to riot: young people, the far left (white people who rioted at the WTO talks in Seattle), and a certain segment of the black population that rioted back in 1992. Obama has set himself up as a messiah. If he falls, his hard-core constituents, who are more like cult followers, will go berserk.
If Obama is assassinated, either before or after the election, complete chaos will ensue. In the midst of rising gas prices and an economic meltdown, the government may well institute martial law.
If an assassination occurs before the election, Bush has now every right to suspend the constitution and even stop the elections so he can remain in power.
It's possible, however, that they just plan to keep Obama in there as a puppet, and will keep him alive as long as he plays the game and they can pull the strings.
Now, I hope I'm wrong about this, but that's my bad feeling on the whole thing. But you have to admit, something really fishy is going on here.
We shall see.
Send a Thank You to Hillary
Being forwarded around the Internet:
We are trying to get a "Thank you card campaign" started. We want to flood Senator Clinton's DC office with thank you cards. On the front of the envelope we are writing "WE ARE ONE OF 18 MILLION" and we are asking her to take it to Denver. We want to reach as many supporters as possible so it can be effective. THE ADDRESS:
THE HONORABLE HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON
UNITED STATES SENATE
476 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON DC 20510-3202
We are trying to get a "Thank you card campaign" started. We want to flood Senator Clinton's DC office with thank you cards. On the front of the envelope we are writing "WE ARE ONE OF 18 MILLION" and we are asking her to take it to Denver. We want to reach as many supporters as possible so it can be effective. THE ADDRESS:
THE HONORABLE HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON
UNITED STATES SENATE
476 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON DC 20510-3202
Friday, June 6, 2008
T-Shirts, T-Shirts
OK...I saw a bunch of people looking for "Hillary Supporters for McCain" t-shirts so I made one and put it up on CafePress. I also made one that says "No We Won't - Hillary or Bust." I won't get rich off them...but if you like the blog and want to buy one, that'd be nice. :-)
You will find the shirts at:
http://www.cafepress.com/hillarymccain
http://www.cafepress.com/hillaryorbust
You will find the shirts at:
http://www.cafepress.com/hillarymccain
http://www.cafepress.com/hillaryorbust
Worth a Read
From "Righteous Indignation" on Savage Politics:
This entire election has been a sham. An almost comical farce in which the Mainstream Media, along with the ideological Left fringes within the Democratic Party have decided AHEAD OF TIME, who should become President of the United States. In this manner, and with full knowledge and intent, they have decided to re-write history, dismiss entire demographics, and besmirch the reputation of countless individuals, for the sake of political power and the ‘almighty dollar’. They have courted and laid with the ugly specter of sexism and anti-White racism, insulting the very same people who have literally fed them over the years, with their vast economic and moral support.
This entire election has been a sham. An almost comical farce in which the Mainstream Media, along with the ideological Left fringes within the Democratic Party have decided AHEAD OF TIME, who should become President of the United States. In this manner, and with full knowledge and intent, they have decided to re-write history, dismiss entire demographics, and besmirch the reputation of countless individuals, for the sake of political power and the ‘almighty dollar’. They have courted and laid with the ugly specter of sexism and anti-White racism, insulting the very same people who have literally fed them over the years, with their vast economic and moral support.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Barack Obama's Supporters: OMG!!
Well, this explains a lot. I NEVER go to Barack Obama's site, but I was reading Cindy McCain's bio on John McCain's site, which was filled with her wonderful charity work, and wanted to see if Michelle Obama's bio compared in any way. (Michelle's bio was pathetic in comparison.)
I could not believe the "discourse" going on at Obama's blog. In one particular thread, the chat was dominated by childish MySpace teen talk, the likes of:
"ARE STILL FIRED UP"
"...the girl on the right is HAWT ;) lol"
"LOL!"
"I am foc-- ooooo shiny....." (??)
"No, I don't have ADD, but...
Oh, LOOK! a bunny!"
"those girls r sooo hot"
This following back and forth is somewhat typical:
By Raf bitter about gas price . 7 minutes ago
Hillary supporters if u thinking about voting for MaCcain check this out.
Link
Reply
By ♥ ♥New Destiny♥ ♥ 2 minutes ago
OMG!!!!!!!!"
In my entire time reading Hillary's blog, I have never seen such juvenile, puerile conversation. No wonder there's no talking sense to Obama's supporters. They are too busy going to see the latest Hilary Duff film.
So, Obamaheads, let me see if I can say this in a language you understand:
"OMG!!! Obama stol the nom! He sucks!!!!!! McCain is da man! FU, BO!!!!!!"
Clear enough?
I could not believe the "discourse" going on at Obama's blog. In one particular thread, the chat was dominated by childish MySpace teen talk, the likes of:
"ARE STILL FIRED UP"
"...the girl on the right is HAWT ;) lol"
"LOL!"
"I am foc-- ooooo shiny....." (??)
"No, I don't have ADD, but...
Oh, LOOK! a bunny!"
"those girls r sooo hot"
This following back and forth is somewhat typical:
By Raf bitter about gas price . 7 minutes ago
Hillary supporters if u thinking about voting for MaCcain check this out.
Link
Reply
By ♥ ♥New Destiny♥ ♥ 2 minutes ago
OMG!!!!!!!!"
In my entire time reading Hillary's blog, I have never seen such juvenile, puerile conversation. No wonder there's no talking sense to Obama's supporters. They are too busy going to see the latest Hilary Duff film.
So, Obamaheads, let me see if I can say this in a language you understand:
"OMG!!! Obama stol the nom! He sucks!!!!!! McCain is da man! FU, BO!!!!!!"
Clear enough?
Hillary: Quitting or Suspending?
The media has been so full of crap lately I'm not sure what to believe, but from my understanding, when Hillary "quits the race" this weekend, she will simply be suspending her campaign and keeping her delegates.
If this is the case, and I hope it is, I think this is the right move for her at this time. The media has been using her as a punching bag. She needs to drop out of sight for a while and then they will be forced to find a new punching bag. Maybe they'll do their jobs and talk about the Rezko verdict (but I'm not holding my breath).
Obama has many skeletons that could come out of the closet between now and August. The Rezko prosecutors may also turn their attention to the people in government who helped him. This could be bad for Obama. Hillary needs to lay low and just keep her delegates for now.
I have to say I am still shocked at how few leaders in the Democratic party have stood up for Hillary or her constituents...just one more sign that they are being bought up...or something.
If this is the case, and I hope it is, I think this is the right move for her at this time. The media has been using her as a punching bag. She needs to drop out of sight for a while and then they will be forced to find a new punching bag. Maybe they'll do their jobs and talk about the Rezko verdict (but I'm not holding my breath).
Obama has many skeletons that could come out of the closet between now and August. The Rezko prosecutors may also turn their attention to the people in government who helped him. This could be bad for Obama. Hillary needs to lay low and just keep her delegates for now.
I have to say I am still shocked at how few leaders in the Democratic party have stood up for Hillary or her constituents...just one more sign that they are being bought up...or something.
Obama is in Big Trouble
I realize this poll is on the Fox website but if you are an Obama fan, you should be worried. If the election were held today, less than 10% of Democrats polled there would vote for Obama (as of this writing). I'm sorry, but I told you so.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Hillary Clinton: What Now?
I spent yesterday watching in disbelief as the news media distorted election news in favor of Obama. On an hourly basis, it seemed, the Associated Press pummeled Hillary in a series of misleading articles that seemed to be pushed out to tell primary voters to give up on her.
First, it was the AP's "Hillary is conceding" article, which seemed to morph from a full concession to a subtle "oh wait, she's just 'conceding' that he has the most delegates" - a completely blatant attempt to manipulate a half-truth in favor of their candidate, Obama.
Then it was the news (before the polls had closed) that Obama had "clinched" the nomination based not on any public facts but Obama himself declaring that he had secured enough superdelegates in "private talks." This was a slap in the face to me as a Hillary supporter, knowing that four of his pledged delegates were Hillary's and he really didn't earn the other 60 or so from Michigan.
I have to wonder...isn't it possible, if Hillary successfully challenged the Michigan and Florida ruling, that he wouldn't have that lead? Is it possible that they could tie in total delegates at some point? Or perhaps those supers could change their minds?
Then the AP allegedly misrepresented what Hillary said on a conference call to trumpet that she'd be open to be VP.
At any rate, it became clear to me, as I was watching the Associated Press and then by extension, major news outlets, that the media had already made their minds up about who they wanted to win.
And, as a friend of mine said (who is no fan of Hillary's):
Whoever the media is backing, that's the candidate you need to be afraid of.
I realize at this point, it's going to take a miracle for Obama to be swept off his perch by August. (A miracle such as the alleged Michelle Obama rant tape that would probably end his political career.)
But considering Obama's fatal mistake in associating with Trinity Church for 20 years, I would not be surprised if new dirt came up about him in the next month or two (assuming that the mainstream media lets it out before he officially gets nominated).
With that, I want Hillary to hang in there, and take it to Denver.
She needs to lie low for now, since I think we're all feeling election fatigue. If she comes out too strongly too soon I think she'll be unfairly characterized as being "narcissisticly deranged" or whatever it was that horrible pundit said on CNN recently.
What she needs to do is sit back and let her supporters start making the noise. Let it come from the grassroots. Let it come from the people. Let us do the organizing, get loud, get noisy.
Of course, this means we need to get busy and not let this drop.
I don't know about you, but I'm in.
First, it was the AP's "Hillary is conceding" article, which seemed to morph from a full concession to a subtle "oh wait, she's just 'conceding' that he has the most delegates" - a completely blatant attempt to manipulate a half-truth in favor of their candidate, Obama.
Then it was the news (before the polls had closed) that Obama had "clinched" the nomination based not on any public facts but Obama himself declaring that he had secured enough superdelegates in "private talks." This was a slap in the face to me as a Hillary supporter, knowing that four of his pledged delegates were Hillary's and he really didn't earn the other 60 or so from Michigan.
I have to wonder...isn't it possible, if Hillary successfully challenged the Michigan and Florida ruling, that he wouldn't have that lead? Is it possible that they could tie in total delegates at some point? Or perhaps those supers could change their minds?
Then the AP allegedly misrepresented what Hillary said on a conference call to trumpet that she'd be open to be VP.
At any rate, it became clear to me, as I was watching the Associated Press and then by extension, major news outlets, that the media had already made their minds up about who they wanted to win.
And, as a friend of mine said (who is no fan of Hillary's):
Whoever the media is backing, that's the candidate you need to be afraid of.
I realize at this point, it's going to take a miracle for Obama to be swept off his perch by August. (A miracle such as the alleged Michelle Obama rant tape that would probably end his political career.)
But considering Obama's fatal mistake in associating with Trinity Church for 20 years, I would not be surprised if new dirt came up about him in the next month or two (assuming that the mainstream media lets it out before he officially gets nominated).
With that, I want Hillary to hang in there, and take it to Denver.
She needs to lie low for now, since I think we're all feeling election fatigue. If she comes out too strongly too soon I think she'll be unfairly characterized as being "narcissisticly deranged" or whatever it was that horrible pundit said on CNN recently.
What she needs to do is sit back and let her supporters start making the noise. Let it come from the grassroots. Let it come from the people. Let us do the organizing, get loud, get noisy.
Of course, this means we need to get busy and not let this drop.
I don't know about you, but I'm in.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
AP in the Tank for Obama
The Associated Press has sunk to a new low in its biased reporting for Obama. I started seeing stories from them last night that Clinton was conceding tonight, contrary to all reports from her campaign.
Today is the kicker. On the top of Yahoo News is a huge headline from Reuters that says:
Clinton campaign says she's not conceding:
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is "absolutely not" planning to concede the campaign to Barack Obama on Tuesday night, Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe told CNN on Tuesday.
Yet, down in the Politics section is a headline from AP that reads:
Clinton set to concede delegate race to Obama:
Hillary Rodham Clinton will concede Tuesday night that Barack Obama has the delegates to secure the Democratic nomination, campaign officials said, effectively ending her bid to be the nation's first female president.
Both were posted about an hour ago as of this writing.
I am stunned. I have never in my lifetime seen such an obvious spin of propaganda from a wire service. The AP has been spinning stories for Obama for a while now and this takes the cake. What's the intention...to try to keep voters in Montana and South Dakota from voting for Hillary?
The AP has lost all credibility during this election. The people who are pushing these stories need to be fired and have their journalistic privileges revoked.
Today is the kicker. On the top of Yahoo News is a huge headline from Reuters that says:
Clinton campaign says she's not conceding:
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is "absolutely not" planning to concede the campaign to Barack Obama on Tuesday night, Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe told CNN on Tuesday.
Yet, down in the Politics section is a headline from AP that reads:
Clinton set to concede delegate race to Obama:
Hillary Rodham Clinton will concede Tuesday night that Barack Obama has the delegates to secure the Democratic nomination, campaign officials said, effectively ending her bid to be the nation's first female president.
Both were posted about an hour ago as of this writing.
I am stunned. I have never in my lifetime seen such an obvious spin of propaganda from a wire service. The AP has been spinning stories for Obama for a while now and this takes the cake. What's the intention...to try to keep voters in Montana and South Dakota from voting for Hillary?
The AP has lost all credibility during this election. The people who are pushing these stories need to be fired and have their journalistic privileges revoked.
Monday, June 2, 2008
Obama's Rude Young Men
It's quite clear that just because you call yourself "progressive," it doesn't mean you respect women one bit. I've been around the net the past few days and the sexism and hatred being spewed by Obama supporters is absolutely stunning. And then they want us to back up Obama, unite, and support the "progressive agenda." Right. And then they honestly think we'll buy into their scare tactics that sexism will get "worse" under McCain. Is that a threat? Honey, it can't get any worse. You guys are already wayyy over the top.
Here's a comment I posted on an article on President She...
You know, what these so-called "progressive" people don't get is that a "progressive agenda" is not on everyone's top list for why they vote.
I vote based on my perception of people's abilities and character. I don't think any politician is perfect, but Obama, in my opinion, is the worst candidate of the three, based on his CHARACTER.
I would rather have McCain in office, as much as I disagree with him, because I believe that man stands for something other than himself. Whereas Obama claims he's progressive but has no record to back it up and will happily take away votes from people when it suits him.
Never mind the fact that he can't come up with any original talking points and fails in all debates - Hillary wipes the floor with him on intelligence and grasp of issues alone.
And never mind Obama's church - which is a whole other ball of wax. Anyone who would vote for a candidate going to a church like that has serious issues.
And if the angry pro-Obama people here are any indication of what we can expect under a "progressive" administration, I'll say no thank you. I have never in my life seen such horrible, hateful people as Obama supporters.
The sexism, by the way, is not directly from Obama himself but the MEDIA as well as Obama supporters. Just today I saw a bunch of young men posting comments on the video of the woman who got bruised at the DNC meeting. The comments called her and Hillary supporters "bitches." She was also "post-menopausal," fat, had "flabby arms," and possibly a "carpet muncher" who never had anyone touch her. The comments were downright vile and hateful.
One Obama supporter put up a video in response to an old woman protesting and the entire content of it was "f*** you, f*** you, f*** you."
If this is your idea of "progressive," you guys can take it and shove it up your @#$@.
I'll take four more years of a Republican in the White House rather than give power to people like you guys. You are hateful, sexist, and think you own the world. Well, guess what, you don't, and you and your candidate will lose come fall (IF Obama wins the nomination, which I am not sure is a given, considering all his skeletons in the closet.)
Here's a comment I posted on an article on President She...
You know, what these so-called "progressive" people don't get is that a "progressive agenda" is not on everyone's top list for why they vote.
I vote based on my perception of people's abilities and character. I don't think any politician is perfect, but Obama, in my opinion, is the worst candidate of the three, based on his CHARACTER.
I would rather have McCain in office, as much as I disagree with him, because I believe that man stands for something other than himself. Whereas Obama claims he's progressive but has no record to back it up and will happily take away votes from people when it suits him.
Never mind the fact that he can't come up with any original talking points and fails in all debates - Hillary wipes the floor with him on intelligence and grasp of issues alone.
And never mind Obama's church - which is a whole other ball of wax. Anyone who would vote for a candidate going to a church like that has serious issues.
And if the angry pro-Obama people here are any indication of what we can expect under a "progressive" administration, I'll say no thank you. I have never in my life seen such horrible, hateful people as Obama supporters.
The sexism, by the way, is not directly from Obama himself but the MEDIA as well as Obama supporters. Just today I saw a bunch of young men posting comments on the video of the woman who got bruised at the DNC meeting. The comments called her and Hillary supporters "bitches." She was also "post-menopausal," fat, had "flabby arms," and possibly a "carpet muncher" who never had anyone touch her. The comments were downright vile and hateful.
One Obama supporter put up a video in response to an old woman protesting and the entire content of it was "f*** you, f*** you, f*** you."
If this is your idea of "progressive," you guys can take it and shove it up your @#$@.
I'll take four more years of a Republican in the White House rather than give power to people like you guys. You are hateful, sexist, and think you own the world. Well, guess what, you don't, and you and your candidate will lose come fall (IF Obama wins the nomination, which I am not sure is a given, considering all his skeletons in the closet.)
Sunday, June 1, 2008
What Are They Smoking?
Thank you, Greta van Susteren, for pointing out the idiocy of the DNC when they think we'll "unite" behind Obama in November. Here's what she wrote on her blog (which has a great video of an angry Hillary supporter):
I hear from Democratic Party leaders as they pass through Fox News Channel that no matter who is the candidate in November (and it does look like it will be Senator Obama), there will be UNITY in the Party come November. I keep wondering, what are they smoking???
My response:
Greta, I am glad you are covering this. This is not about "white entitlement" as some of the "shoot themselves in the foot" Obama supporters charge. This is about WOMEN feeling like we've been thrown under the bus by the Democratic party.
I am a woman in my 30s and I have to say I am as angry as Harriet there. But let's get past the gender and race issues for a moment. Let's just get to the basic facts as they are now: Obama, by all recent data, will lose in November. Hillary would win. So what on earth is the Democratic leadership thinking forcing Obama down our throats?
The media has been crowning Obama all along, without questioning the unfair advantage the caucus states gave to Obama's constituency (young college students who have time to get to a caucus). I have repeatedly heard Clinton supporters in various venues online complain they couldn't get to the caucus (no handicapped parking), they were intimidated at caucus (shouting down by Obama supporters), or lied to at caucus (Obama supporters saying they didn't need to return in the evening when they did).
Does the DNC honestly believe that Obama holds a mandate here? He does not. And the more that comes out about him, the more I'm sure that many early voters for him would take their votes back.
So I have to agree with your assessment: WHAT ARE THEY SMOKING? Because the DNC leadership's pushing of Obama at this point seems suicidal at best.
I hear from Democratic Party leaders as they pass through Fox News Channel that no matter who is the candidate in November (and it does look like it will be Senator Obama), there will be UNITY in the Party come November. I keep wondering, what are they smoking???
My response:
Greta, I am glad you are covering this. This is not about "white entitlement" as some of the "shoot themselves in the foot" Obama supporters charge. This is about WOMEN feeling like we've been thrown under the bus by the Democratic party.
I am a woman in my 30s and I have to say I am as angry as Harriet there. But let's get past the gender and race issues for a moment. Let's just get to the basic facts as they are now: Obama, by all recent data, will lose in November. Hillary would win. So what on earth is the Democratic leadership thinking forcing Obama down our throats?
The media has been crowning Obama all along, without questioning the unfair advantage the caucus states gave to Obama's constituency (young college students who have time to get to a caucus). I have repeatedly heard Clinton supporters in various venues online complain they couldn't get to the caucus (no handicapped parking), they were intimidated at caucus (shouting down by Obama supporters), or lied to at caucus (Obama supporters saying they didn't need to return in the evening when they did).
Does the DNC honestly believe that Obama holds a mandate here? He does not. And the more that comes out about him, the more I'm sure that many early voters for him would take their votes back.
So I have to agree with your assessment: WHAT ARE THEY SMOKING? Because the DNC leadership's pushing of Obama at this point seems suicidal at best.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
