A Catharsis in Denver?

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: houstonpsp @ 08/08/2008 11:27:34 AM

    Hillary isn't provoking this...there are lots of her supporters that simply don't like Obama and are very concerned about this lack of experience. The fact is, he's not ready . Obama clearly isn't leading and can't bring people together. If he could, there wouldn't be so many people that have feelings similiar to mine. Quit blaming Hillary (and Bill) for this. Obama can't deliver and I won't drink his kool-aid.

    • Posted By: notroubleatall1963 @ 08/08/2008 11:36:47 AM

      Oh please will everyone stop writing about "drinking kool-aid" -- it is SO CLICHE and dumb sounding by now. Eliminate this phrase from your vocabulary.

      Says you, regarding Obama not being ready. Clintons are very polarizing and we're all SICK to death of the establishment players in our politics. Let Obama win and stop this whining. Hillary lost because she took bad advice from Bill, Mark Penn and the Barracuda. She dissed Obama and played dirty before she finally "found her voice" and all the voters who are too afraid to elect a black president got behind her.

      She and Bill are important to the party, but they didn't win. Get over it.

      • Posted By: summer4077 @ 08/08/2008 11:55:40 AM

        Isn't it crazy how bitter the Clinton supporters are? I wanted her to get the nomination, she didn't, and I'm ok with it. I had an Obama sticker on my car the whole time I supported Clinton--I think either one will make a fine president. I'm happy that Obama is doing well...I don't understand how they don't see that the bitterness is putting at risk for 4 years of Bush Jr.

        • Posted By: al2k @ 08/08/2008 12:15:46 PM

          no, Obama and camp had to play the race care for him to win. The end.

          • Posted By: summer4077 @ 08/08/2008 1:20:37 PM

            Not true. You just have a hard time believing a HALF black man could possibly be ahead on his own accord.

            • Posted By: sjpersonal @ 08/08/2008 3:29:32 PM

              I am so tired of people like al2k throughing out this blanket statement "Obama plays the race card everytime he opens his mouth" Yet they are never willing or more than likely unable to provide any verifiable examples. They are a waste of space!

              • Posted By: legume @ 08/13/2008 10:53:14 AM

                you have been given examples but you dont look. check here and check finemans article...and did you know that axelrod admitted that yes barry was referring to race with the dollar bill comments? and will you white people stop talking about race and whether people aren't willing to accept a half black mana. its absolutely baseless as well as ignorant.

                • Posted By: jjkk @ 08/13/2008 11:19:35 AM

                  Don't bother. He's been told that already and when the info/link is provided he doesn't acknowledge it.

        • Posted By: what? @ 08/09/2008 12:04:36 PM

          you were never a Clinton supporter. nice try,

        • Posted By: al2k @ 08/08/2008 12:18:18 PM

          Are kidding me! obama is doing well? he is tied with mccain and he should be up by 20 points in the polls.

          • Posted By: summer4077 @ 08/08/2008 1:21:08 PM

            Why should he be up 20 points? When was the last time that happened? Elections are always close.

    • Posted By: what? @ 08/09/2008 12:03:35 PM

      when are they going to realize that no matter what Clinton does they will still not vote for him? it has nothing to do with Clinton. It's Obama's responsibility and he has shown absolutely no inclination. He thinks he's won her votes on the issues. McCain is not a two-termer so what's the likelihood of him nominating a Supreme Court judge? And how much has Obama leaned on abortion since the Primary?

      I won't drink his soda either.

    • Posted By: Shakas_Gem @ 08/08/2008 12:17:53 PM

      Are these the same people who felt so secure with current nter Your Comment imbecile at the helm? What experience did he have? By the way, what experience did any of them have, including George, Lincoln etc.? Oh, I forgot, the experience question comes in to play when You're different from previous Seat Holders!
      You probably was eating 10 miles of Bush's crap before you realized he was a fool, and only after he had **** up the nation. And, of course got so many people killed in His Illegal Misguided War.

      • Posted By: miriamac @ 08/08/2008 2:04:02 PM

        Houstonpsp. What experience does Hillary have. In fact what qualified her to be Senator from NY, a plce where she had never spent any time as her first public office.

  • Posted By: Ethel @ 08/08/2008 2:01:59 PM

    Senator Obama limped across the finish line at the end of the primaries and he is limping along now. We are about to nominate the wrong candidate. Hillary can win in November. Obama cannot.

    • Posted By: 12waz @ 08/08/2008 11:00:29 PM

      he's still limping...and will limp into the Convention. Nobody wants Sen Clinton on the ballot because there's a chance barry would lose or win by a very slim margin and then what? they allow Sen Clinton on the ballot and those staunch supporters might vote for barry in november instead of writing Clinton's name in. it's up to the DNC. Barry has shown absolutely no interest in Clinton supporters and has gone out of his way to alienate them. and barry supporters continue to write all this nastiness? only immature democrats would continue this idiocy. party on.

      • Posted By: raddave @ 08/09/2008 7:20:01 AM

        "Barry" has not gone out of his way to alienate Clinton supporter. Some of his supporters have, but not he.

        • Posted By: what? @ 08/09/2008 11:23:48 AM

          HINT # 1 Forgets to ask his donors to help retire Sen Clinton's debt. And for those of you who don't seem to know--retiring the other candidates is the norm. As is giving them time to speak during the Convention, which won't be happening for Edwards.

          HINT # 2 Patty Solis Doyle

          Those are only two of Obama's DIRECT actions. Yes, he has gone out of his way.

          • Posted By: legume @ 08/13/2008 10:41:33 AM

            raddav derides posters and asks for JUST ONE whatever and when it's provided he never acknowledges it. and he tries to rebut people on the truth wiithout checking it. says a great deal...about the person and the value of their words.

            • Posted By: jjkk @ 08/13/2008 11:06:39 AM

              an he says he's a marine. the things he says about Sen McCain, an ex-POW, are inexcusable.

  • Posted By: vinmc39 @ 08/08/2008 6:41:07 PM

    Please explain the term "prickly pacifist" in relation to Jimmy Carter.

    • Posted By: 12waz @ 08/08/2008 10:27:03 PM

      especially when Carter doesn't consider HAMAS a terrorist organization because they weer voted into power.

      • Posted By: jjkk @ 08/13/2008 11:04:46 AM

        Barry threw Brzezinski under the bus that time.

  • Posted By: Tom Terrific @ 08/10/2008 11:04:11 AM

    Every male candidate has always had his name put in nomination and has always been on the first ballot. This is just the same old misogyny we saw repeatedly during the campaign season, treating Hillary differently because she's a woman. How sick and perverted is that.

    • Posted By: systems88 @ 08/10/2008 7:34:03 PM

      absolutely. and no primary has ever been this close. no second place has gotten so many delegates and certainly not 18 Million votes. they don't want her on there because she could either beat him or come close enough that the DNC would have no excuse to not put her on the ticket. they don't put her on...how many of those 18 Million are going to vote for Obama vs not vote vs write her in?

      • Posted By: jjkk @ 08/13/2008 11:01:05 AM

        Absolutely. And her delegates deserve to have their voices heard after all the pounding they took. imagine if Sen Clinton and Barry's positions were reversed? would there be any doubt his name would be in nomination? and would there be any doubt that Clinton would have to have him as VP. This election is a joke.

    • Posted By: raddave @ 08/11/2008 12:46:12 AM

      How is it misogyny? It is Hillary Clinton's decision to have her name put in the nomination or not. The last times that I know of the second place "male" candidate put his name up for nomination were in 1976, when Regan and Kennedy did it.

      • Posted By: 12waz @ 08/11/2008 5:54:48 AM

        1980 Kennedy 1984 Hart...

        It's standard protocol for any presidential candidate who has delegates to be put on the first roll call. That means even Edwards could qualify. Sen Clinton never suspended her campaign and still has her pledged delegates. Her delegates deserve to be heard after all the evil flak they got. Rep Sheila Jackson Lee was terrorized by obamabotlets.

        • Posted By: raddave @ 08/11/2008 8:12:09 AM

          Yes, Clinton did in fact suspend her campaign, she has the right to put her name on the ballot if she sho chooses. It is her decision to do that. If she wants to do it, I say go for it. It might make for a more interesting debate. Thank you for correcting my mistake on the year Kennedy put his name up for nomination.

          • Posted By: legume @ 08/13/2008 9:16:05 AM

            too interesting...and much too close. not a single delegate -- pledged or super -- has to vote like they said. i would imagine a few have some serious worries about his bantamweight near finishing off. no matter how you dissect it -- superdelegates will decide the nominee. they will have more power than any of the americans who voted. the pledged delegates are to speak the will of the people (as if Massachusetts cared) and neither candidate had enough...both needed the superdelegates. barry has *won* nothing, he will be handed the nomination by the superdelgates who are speaking only for their self-interest. the legitimacy of this primary is forever compromised...first because of the closed door negotiations about michigan and the superdelgates deciding the nominee. democracy? yeah right.

  • Posted By: HolyRoller @ 08/10/2008 3:21:15 PM

    My fellowbloggers....Are ya'll following the HOTTEST HUSSEIN QUESTION?????????

    The question of Hussein's Certificate Of Live Birth (COLB)........if not you are behind on your Fact Checking. Seems quite a few people have opinions. Look at the results of a Google..................

    ................Results 1 - 10 of about 482,000 for obama birth certificate........................482,000.........that is a BUNCH of opinions. I know most of ya'll are.....TOO LAZY or TOO SCARED....to look yourself.....so HolyRoller will give a helping hand. Here is a very recent "Israeli Insider" report.....................

    Claim: Obama's "birth certificate" forged with sister Maya's original
    By Israel Insider staff August 5, 2008

    Independent analysts, working separately, claim to have discovered that the original Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth used in the fabrication of the Barack Obama "birth certificate" belongs to the Presidential candidate's younger half-sister, Maya.

    Examining the high resolution image originally posted by the "Daily Kos" left-wing blog and subsequently claimed as authentic by the campaign, and posted in lower resolution on the campaign official "Fight the Smears" website, at least two analysts have been able to independently discern the name "Maya Kassandra Soetoro" from artifacts left behind in the process of forging a new fake document for Barack from an image of Maya's original document. Additional confirmatory information, such as her birthday and the nationality of her father have also been resurrected. A full report documenting all details is to be published in the coming days. Israel Insider has not yet seen proof that would validate the claim.

    The dramatic claim comes just a day after a forensic specialist, posting on the Texas Darlin blog under the name Techdude (his real name is known to Israel Insider), announced the discovery of the identity of the original owner of the COLB document used in the forgery but would initially only indicate that it was a woman born in the 1970's. However, he provided enough clues to enable another graphic specialist (screen name KG) to independently reproduce the incriminating evidence. (Techdude had said that he wanted to give the guilty parties time to confess to the forgery, but also to allow independent confirmation of his discovery. He even offered to pay for a trip to Vegas to the first person to discover the name and detail the method by which it was discovered.

    Ya'll need to keep your eyes open. Is this why Barry is in Hawaii??? Wonder when the Nation Enquirer is gonna break this???

    NOBAMA!!!

    • Posted By: legume @ 08/13/2008 9:09:45 AM

      why in the heck did he have his birth certificate on his website? has it gone the way of his "speech" from 2002 and his glowing endorsements from wright and the new black panther party?

      • Posted By: jjkk @ 08/13/2008 10:58:13 AM

        and he writes in his book he never had the courage to look into his parent's marriage certificate...why?

  • Posted By: All4America @ 08/08/2008 1:05:22 PM

    Why is the Obama campaign doing everything in their power to prevent Hillary from having her name placed on the ballot at the convention and denying her delegates their right to democratically represent the primary voters and vote for her in a roll-call vote?

    After all, the DNC rules indicate that that would be the proper procedure. Many previous candidates - such as Gary Hart and Ted Kennedy and Jerry Brown and so many others - were allowed to place their name in the ballot and their delegates were allowed to vote in a roll-call vote. Shoudn't Hillary be treated just like these others? Does the DNC believe in equal rights?

    Are Obama and his delegates scared of Democracy? How can he be a "uniter" when he does not mind pissing on 18 million primary voters? Is the DNC for having an Obama "coronation" and risk alienating enough Hillary supporters to give the presidency to McCain?

    Has the Democratic Party become an undemocratic institution?

    • Posted By: raddave @ 08/09/2008 7:23:31 AM

      Obama is not trying to keep Hillary's name placed up for nomination, she is free to sign to have herself considered for nomination. Her delegates can still vote for her because they are pledged to her.

      • Posted By: what? @ 08/09/2008 1:19:35 PM

        she's *free to sign to have herself considered for nomination" Define *free* in political terms..

        • Posted By: legume @ 08/13/2008 10:46:15 AM

          or in *new washington* terms

    • Posted By: sjpersonal @ 08/08/2008 3:17:38 PM

      all4america wrote: Why is the Obama campaign doing everything in their power to prevent Hillary from having her name placed on the ballot at the convention and denying her delegates their right to democratically represent the primary voters and vote for her in a roll-call vote?


      How exactly is Obama doing this? Please site either a verifiable example or a link to this information. Thank you.

      • Posted By: 12waz @ 08/09/2008 12:09:09 AM

        you're joking right? how many days away from the Convention is it? i see your name all over here posting for barry and you ask for links and when they're given you don't even follow them. you didn't bother read any of barry's books and refused to believe those quotes directly from his Dreams book. you didn't google qatar and you wanted a link to barry's website for his travel itinerary. and you are a barry supporter? none of you can defend him...you ask for links but don't follow them or you attack the poster and/or the opponent. do you really think you are helping barry? do you know how much all of you in here are riling up Clinton supporters? get a clue. and do a little research on the candidate you profess is the savior of the universe! watch this video. do you understand body language? do you know what barry does when he lies? here's what he says about Clinton's name on the ballot.

        http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=5534799

    • Posted By: summer4077 @ 08/08/2008 1:12:29 PM

      Dividing a party undermines the party's strength. The DNC wants voters to be united under one candidate, not divided under two, which would lead McSame to win the presidency.

  • Posted By: wyl5326 @ 08/08/2008 7:01:31 PM

    Remember Trojan Horse. The Clintons can't be trusted and Barack should not rely on them to win but do it on his own terms avoiding any debt of gratitude. Greek Drama will only prolong Hill's agony and won't make a dent on her rabid fanatics' hate for Barack. No catharsis will happen in Denver as her fanatics are just plainly fanatics, pure and simple, like the jihadists.

    • Posted By: josemarti @ 08/08/2008 7:15:04 PM

      Great metaphor. No catharsis is right. Unless Obama insisist she takes a laxative before her speech.

      • Posted By: Right is RIGHT!!! @ 08/09/2008 11:29:56 AM

        Your a blatent idiot who posts are off-the-wall. Go back to watching Simpsons your irrelevant fool.

        • Posted By: Carol L. @ 08/10/2008 10:04:55 PM

          So many of these obama bloggers seem like they must be Jerry Springer program rejects.

          • Posted By: legume @ 08/13/2008 10:43:35 AM

            ...or the show's writers.

    • Posted By: Right is RIGHT!!! @ 08/09/2008 11:36:14 AM

      Sounds like you have a case of unecessary fears. And even to say jihadists in the same breath, aren't you going a bit extreme with your comparisons? A big stretch that could have been summarized in one sentence by you. As an example, I don't trust the Clintons. There, now that is off your chest, along with your fear mongering, do you feel better?

    • Posted By: 12waz @ 08/08/2008 10:14:36 PM

      and why exactly do you think her "rabid fanatics" hate barry?

      your words and the rest of the barrybot's. keep it up. reflects well on your candidate and "party unity" when are you barrybots going to wake up? and what about YOUR OWN rabiid hate for Senator Clinton? utterly clueless.

  • Posted By: FreeMasonGW @ 08/08/2008 3:58:46 PM

    Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton does belong in the White House! in the kitchen that is..............

    • Posted By: loriw @ 08/08/2008 6:06:14 PM

      No, not even in the kitchen....she'd steal the china and silver!

      • Posted By: what? @ 08/09/2008 1:15:37 PM

        more loveliness.

        • Posted By: loriw @ 08/10/2008 9:22:19 PM

          The Clintons walked off with property that belonged to the White House when they left.

    • Posted By: raddave @ 08/12/2008 3:10:07 AM

      now, that is a sexist comment

  • Posted By: WHSocialSecy @ 08/08/2008 6:58:49 PM

    I bed to differ with LORIW's comment below. I worked in the Clinton White House for 6.5 years and never once saw President Clinton imbibe. His step father was a known alcoholic and the President never drank because of that. At official functions, he would toast with water. I needed to correct this lie that has been told about the former President.

    • Posted By: loriw @ 08/08/2008 7:13:01 PM

      I replied to you below on this. Again I ask under what administration do you claim to have worked in the White House? You say you never saw Clinton imbibe. Are you visually impaired perhaps?

      • Posted By: WHSocialSecy @ 08/08/2008 8:17:01 PM

        Sorry, loriw - just saw you other response. I worked in the Clinton WH - for 6.5 years. Inside the residence as part of the staff. Again, I beg to differ with you and you sources. TOTALLY!

        • Posted By: loriw @ 08/08/2008 8:49:13 PM

          WHSocial,
          Please tell us then about how poorly Hillary treated the White House staff. This is some "two bit gossip" that I hear from so many sources. Heard the White House staff despised Hillary including the Secret Service agents that had to protect Chelsea because she treated them like trash.

          • Posted By: 12waz @ 08/08/2008 10:25:58 PM

            "I hear from so many sources"

            do you know how ridiculous and pathetic this sounds?

            • Posted By: loriw @ 08/09/2008 1:21:05 AM

              Guess what...when you keep hearing the same thing from many different sources you have to think that there is some credibility to it. And lets face it we know the Clintons are liars, Bill even has the perjury conviction to prove it. We know that Bill is an adulterer- he FINALLY admitted to it when FORCED to do so.
              His treatment of his intern Lewinsky should have gotten him Sexual Harrassment in the work place charges. We know the Clinons have stolen property from the White HOuse. Fine people they are.

              • Posted By: raddave @ 08/09/2008 5:13:28 AM

                According to Miss Lewinski it was consensual, so there would be no sexual harrassment.

                • Posted By: loriw @ 08/10/2008 9:52:24 PM

                  I thought part of the definition of sexually harrassment in the workplace included someone who was in a position of higher authority or rank that seduces someone else who works for or "under" them.
                  Is there and attorney in the house that could weigh in on this one?

                  • Posted By: legume @ 08/13/2008 10:30:21 AM

                    try googling. it has to be unwelcome.

                  • Posted By: raddave @ 08/12/2008 3:02:23 AM

                    it has to be unwanted to be considered sexual harrasment.

              • Posted By: legume @ 08/13/2008 10:27:51 AM

                loriw: "when you keep hearing the same thing from many different sources you have to think that there is some credibility to it."

                so you're sure there are UFOs like kucinich?

              • Posted By: what? @ 08/09/2008 11:08:52 AM

                "when you keep hearing the same thing from many different sources you have to think that there is some credibility to it."

                You make comments about our former President and First Lady based on that statement?

            • Posted By: loriw @ 08/09/2008 1:01:02 AM

              And I care about your opinion because???....

              • Posted By: legume @ 08/13/2008 9:30:27 AM

                you clearly do since you responded to it.

    • Posted By: loriw @ 08/08/2008 7:19:04 PM

      OK how about this info also from my co-worker who states he was the RN on Air Force One during the Clinton administration. He stated that if Hillary was aboard AF1 that she spent most of her time in her own cabin and every thing was subdued if she was aboard. If she wasn't aboard on a flight then often "ladies" of the escort type ( i call them prostitutes) boarded AF1 while it was still in the hanger and it was one big party when Hillary wasn't on board the plane.
      Let's see this is the President who "didn't inhale" and "didn't have sexual relations with that woman" and now you want us to believe that he never drank either. Did they brainwash you as part of your employment?

      • Posted By: WHSocialSecy @ 08/08/2008 8:15:06 PM

        No, I wasn't brainwashed. Wheny you are part of the staff that worked inside the residence, we would hear about everything. Again, I have never heard about what you are your insinuations about the antics on AF 1. Sorry - can't agree with you. Again, I was never brainwashed. Two bit gossip I'm afraid. Of course you can believe whatever you want.

        • Posted By: loriw @ 08/08/2008 8:51:55 PM

          What then was your role in the White House? By your posts I seriously doubt you were a White House Social Secretary as your name implies. Let's be real here....the Clinton administration was one big 8 year ANTIC!

          • Posted By: legume @ 08/13/2008 9:29:51 AM

            haha you get defensive about *ron* and then question a man who exists. an "ANTIC" that lead to prosperity...but you'd know that having raised your children warning them about the hazards of oral sex ad having voted in 8 elections. you were born in 1976...ron told me.

      • Posted By: raddave @ 08/09/2008 5:09:52 AM

        It is funny when someone has "dirt" on someone else, it comes from a co-worker, friend, or a relative, never any direct evidence.

        • Posted By: loriw @ 08/10/2008 9:12:31 PM

          um Ron worked as Clintons RN on AF1 and I worked with Ron. So just because we were co-workers makes what Ron experienced invalid? Sorry I couldn't be on AF1 myself- I'd have sobbered Bill up real fast.

          • Posted By: raddave @ 08/11/2008 12:54:56 AM

            It would not hold up in a court.

            • Posted By: loriw @ 08/11/2008 9:19:39 PM

              It would if I got Ron on the witness list and he testified

              • Posted By: legume @ 08/13/2008 9:26:12 AM

                yeah if ron actually existed. hint: the more you protest and the more you try to justify your answer the more likely it is not true.

      • Posted By: 12waz @ 08/08/2008 10:23:28 PM

        SCURRILOUS HEARSAY. Name your "co-worker". name any news report. you've already shown your (lack of ) character allover these blogs. when are you barrybots (yes barry) going to get it?

        .You continue to write filth (as expected) and barry's on vacation and what is this nasty woman doing? campaigning for barry. what kind of democrat are you? Sen Clinton talks to the crowd abut barry's "passion, his determination, his grace and his grit", & "Senator Obama needs all of us, he needs us working for him,"

        Are you working for him? Is what you are writing helping him or turning off more Clinton supporters? Sen Clinton has done more for him today than any of you puerile posters with your foul language and ridiculous innuendos. And if you want to point fingers - be educated and realize that barry not only inhaled he snorted cocaine. get a grip.

        • Posted By: loriw @ 08/08/2008 10:50:28 PM

          Sorry but I don't work for Sen. Obama.

          • Posted By: 12waz @ 08/09/2008 12:16:57 AM

            that the best you got?

            • Posted By: loriw @ 08/09/2008 12:53:50 AM

              Nope, You asked for me to name my co-worker...his name is Ron but I no longer recall his last name as I no longer work at the same hospital. For protection of the nurses we did not use last names so patients cannot contact us outside of work. He was agency staff so he worked when we needed fill in staffing. He was well spoken, sincere and was a good nurse. It was a hospital in Indy.

              • Posted By: what? @ 08/09/2008 11:05:25 AM

                you can't remember his name--but you remember what he said?

                • Posted By: loriw @ 08/10/2008 9:13:30 PM

                  did you even read the whole post?

              • Posted By: loriw @ 08/09/2008 12:59:50 AM

                The timing of my posts have nothing to do with Sen. Obama's vacation. I just returned from vacation myself and have been on these blogs since the IN primary. You can ask the long term folks here and they will tell you I have been consistently anti-Clinton. Since you are new to these blogs you know nothing about me or my character and that is clear by your attack and accusations. You seem to want to lump me in with others who you say use foul language and if you were familiar with my you would know I rarely use foul language.

                • Posted By: what? @ 08/09/2008 1:12:14 PM

                  "barry's on vacation and what is this nasty woman doing?"

                  barry's vacation - not yours.

                  foul language does not equal profanity. one does not need to swear to say foul things. foul language includes vulgar, unsubstantiated rumors about the former President and First Lady involving prostitutes. This is not a myspace page and these are not your friends you're dissing on.

  • Posted By: hallihunt @ 08/09/2008 6:35:04 AM

    You idiots still keep insisting that Obama is going to win in November. The media is out of touch with the fears of middle America at a time of war and difficult economic times. Change is what people say they want, but it is also one of our greatest fears and fear is very strong motivator. How do you think Bush stayed in power so long?

    • Posted By: raddave @ 08/09/2008 7:14:30 AM

      Why does someone have to be an idiot for thinking Obama is going to win? John Kennedy, Ronal Regan, and Bill Clinton also ran a campaign for change and it worked pretty damned good for them.

      • Posted By: olderwiser @ 08/09/2008 10:36:05 AM

        Ike Eisenhower ran a campaign with the slogan, "It's time for a change", and won big in 1952. It was all over the radio and in newspaper ads. Didn't have TV yet. He won big. The usual pendulum took over.

        • Posted By: 12waz @ 08/11/2008 11:03:40 AM

          uhm...excuse me...his "change" was called D-day and he went from Supreme Allied Commander Europe to the presidency. No TV in 1952? Have you ever seen footage of WWII? FDR? I Love Lucy?

          you gave yourself away big time. what are you 18? you couldn't even bother googling? how informed are barry supporters? olderwiser?

          • Posted By: raddave @ 08/11/2008 9:40:52 PM

            Most households did not have TV in 1952. I love Lucy did not come out until the 1960s. Footage from WWII was not from TV but from movie reels.

            • Posted By: legume @ 08/13/2008 10:16:01 AM

              what's it gonna take? why do you rebut people on things you don't even know? it's absolutely hysterical. it makes all your other comments basically worthless. did you google I love Lucy? had you, you would have found out that I Love Lucy was indeed on TV beginning in 1951. craziness,

        • Posted By: olderwiser @ 08/09/2008 10:41:01 AM

          The "change" slogan works big when you get a chronic screwup in office who starts useless wars that seem to have no end, the usual excuse for not stopping being that it would defile the memory of those who have already died. This is much the same reason that Lemmings keep going into the sea behind those who went before them to die in the salt water. Wouldn't be fitting to stop now that grandad has gone over the cliff. If we keep electing these same people, the grandchildren of our present troops will likely be saying similar things.

          • Posted By: olderwiser @ 08/09/2008 10:42:42 AM

            So, there you have it. It's time for a change.

    • Posted By: Right is RIGHT!!! @ 08/09/2008 11:48:12 AM

      Eight years of one of or the most incompetent president's in our beloved country, and you think that change scares people. How is this for the word scare. How about the following list of words that invoke scare after eight years of a Bush Administration. ..a quagmire, Israel and Iran, outrageous gasoline prices, global warming, healthcare, food costs where people have to choose to eat or get gasoline to get to work, housing market turning downward, energy, foreclosure, yeah some of the words that inspire badly needed change in our country. Either McCain or Obama will be much better than what we have now. Obama is the media darling so far, but that can change too. If you don't like it, than shut off the internet, turn off the television, go read some books, and enjoy life without the MSM. Batman is still playing, if you can afford to go to the movies.

      • Posted By: what? @ 08/09/2008 12:53:55 PM

        or do something about it.

  • Posted By: Morgan2008 @ 08/09/2008 7:15:17 AM

    I am still hoping Hillary Clinton will be nominated and enough Super delegates will change their mind and give their votes to Hillary now that they see it is not looking too much like Obama can win. I am a Hillary supporter who cannot stand Obama for many reasons, and I will not vote for him. I will vote for John McCain because I trust John McCain and I don't trust Obama. I will vote democrats for congress. That will bring some bipartisan balance to Washington.

    • Posted By: lorainewells @ 08/09/2008 7:46:42 PM

      You trust McCain????? Why/

      • Posted By: gg67 @ 08/11/2008 8:21:23 PM

        Wow, this is my first time here, and I'm a little embarrassed by some of the comments, especially all of the comments bashing Obama. I was a Hillary supporter as well but just because she didn't receive the nomination I'm not going to vote for John McCain, that's utterly rediculous. Women who are democrats that are talking about voting for John McCain should probably check out his voting record in regard to womens issues. We know what Bush has accomplished in the white house and now you talk about putting someone else in office who has many of the same view, doesn't make sense to me. If McCain gets in, those of you who are democrats and voted for him, should not complain when he turns out to be as they say a 3rd Bush term.

        • Posted By: legume @ 08/13/2008 9:37:22 AM

          has barry already *received* the nomination?

  • Posted By: ihavehadit @ 08/09/2008 4:45:59 PM

    O.K. you people need to stop with the Bambi comments.
    Obama is no Bambi, he's not soft or any of these nicknames you guys in the media refer to him as. One thing we know is that he is quite capable more than adverage, that most of you people can hope to ever be. As a black woman, believe me, there is nothing soft about black men, Try living in his shoes before you make that comment. If half of you had to go through what black men do on a daily basis, there is no way that you'd be half as successful as he is.

  • Posted By: emmarcee @ 08/11/2008 9:59:00 AM

    This November election will be a verdict against MSM.

    • Posted By: 12waz @ 08/11/2008 10:19:27 AM

      first bush and iraq...then edwards...then barry...?

      • Posted By: legume @ 08/13/2008 9:33:33 AM

        ...and it's coming...get a whole lot more money and notoriety in October than november,

  • Posted By: sharenews @ 08/10/2008 12:00:14 AM



    Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
    Saturday, August 09, 2008

    With Leaners:

    McCain - 47%

    Obama - 46%


    Without leaners

    TIED:

    McCain - 44%

    Obama - 44%

    The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows that the race for the White House is tied - Barack Obama and John McCain each attract 44% of the vote. When leaners are included, it???s McCain 47% and Obama 46%. With leaners, the candidates have been within one point of each other for nine straight days

    Tracking Polls are released at 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time each day.

    • Posted By: raddave @ 08/10/2008 12:12:38 AM

      You forgot to mention that Obama holds a 5 point lead over McCain in the latest Gallup poll and it has actually increased 2 points in the last week. You "sharenews" kind of like how FOX News reports it.

      • Posted By: bill i @ 08/10/2008 8:22:14 AM

        You forgot to mention the fact that Gallops methodology is conflicted when polling during the same time period. The last Gallop-USA poll had McCain up 5 points. Furthermore, none of the Polling reflects the "Bradley Effect" or the fact historically all the undecideds break heavily against Obama. Apparently the National Inquirer has more credibility than another of your MSM sources.

        • Posted By: raddave @ 08/11/2008 12:53:32 AM

          McCain has never even had a lead in the Gallup poll, much less a 5 point lead. If you do not believe me, check it out. http://www.gallup.com/poll/109351/Gallup-Daily-Obama-46-McCain-43.aspx they have a graph that shows their results since Jul 20th on that page, The closest was in late July, when both were at 44%. I do not put much stock into the so-called Bradley-effect.

          • Posted By: bill i @ 08/11/2008 7:20:37 AM

            Your correct but those are daily tracking polls not the USA Today Gallop poll as I stated in my post. Both done by the same Pollsters. All polls had Obama up 20 points in Calif.. he lost by 10, thats a 20 point swing attributed to the bradley effect. These polls are worthless. The dem party needs retooling big time.














            • Posted By: raddave @ 08/11/2008 8:25:14 AM

              I agree with you that polls are worthliess, especially this far from the election. I just checked the polls in California before the primary there and they were pretty split on who was leading, certainly not a 20 point advantage for Obama in any of them. In fact in the Gallup poll for 26 Jan, Clinton was ahead by 12 points. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_Super_Tuesday_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2008#California Obama lost by little over 8 points.

              • Posted By: legume @ 08/13/2008 9:18:46 AM

                New Ham[shire...Texas...Ohio...Pennsylvania. either way it should not be this close.

              • Posted By: raddave @ 08/11/2008 8:27:19 AM

                I agree that the democratic party does need retooling, first they need to get rid of Howard Dean as the DNC chairman. He is a freakin idiot.

                • Posted By: Davole @ 08/11/2008 9:02:58 AM

                  raddave -

                  I would refrain from calling Howard Dean a "freakin idiot," but I do agree with the rest of your comment.

                  • Posted By: raddave @ 08/11/2008 9:37:40 PM

                    Should I have called him a f**king idiot?

                    • Posted By: Davole @ 08/12/2008 1:59:16 AM

                      raddave -

                      No, the name calling is unwarranted!.

                      I thought that your service in the US military would have taught you some level of respect, sir!

                      • Posted By: raddave @ 08/12/2008 2:56:16 AM

                        Ok, Howard Dean is a highly respected individual with many years of public service. Howver, his shortsidedness caused confusion and a lot of hurt feelings within the Democratic Party. Better?

                        • Posted By: Davole @ 08/12/2008 4:08:54 AM

                          raddave -

                          I wouldn't have "gone so far" as to credit him as being "a highly respected individual."

                          But yes, that was much better!

                          Looking forward to your blogs!

                • Posted By: 12waz @ 08/11/2008 10:40:20 AM

                  yeeeeeeeeeeeeee-haaaaaah!

      • Posted By: systems88 @ 08/10/2008 7:36:26 PM

        You're not taking into account the margin of error.

  • Posted By: mattie against MSM bias @ 08/10/2008 4:22:23 PM

    Mr Jonathan Alter:

    You are cordially invited to our blog: Citizens Against ProObama Media Bias. You will find plenty of Newsweek's finest featured. We are transferring over files from our other blog, so if you don't see your name at first...please be patient. I must admit -- you are one of our favorites.

    Please know that we are quite fond of your words, as they provide textbook examples to future journalists on how to avoid the pratfalls of bias and loss of journalistic integrity. The evidence itself will speak to how propaganda has influenced the most important and historic presidential election in modern history.

    Feel free to invite the rest of your colleagues--I will try to do so individually, but there are so, so, so many that we haven't had the chance yet to branch out to cover the propaganda blogs.

    We look forward to hearing from you because we don't in any way misquote or misinterpret your words. Feel free to comment. We promote equal opportunity and free speech so you will be allowed to post a rebuttal or whatever you wish.

    We are simple citizens. Our blog is not associated with any political party, candidate or organization. No one is benefiting financially. We were--and continue to be--appalled at the level pro-Obama media bias, so we began compiling video and print evidence of it. That is why it is taking so long to transfer over to the new site.

    Hope to see you soon!
    Mattie for Citizens Against Pro-Obama Media Bias

    http://citizensagainstproobamamediabias.blogspot.com/

    • Posted By: mattie against MSM bias @ 08/10/2008 4:30:07 PM

      You'll be pleased to know, Mr Alter, that your calling out of *KellyB from Politico* was the final straw. When did free speech become an enemy to the fourth estate? We look forward to KellyB to joining us! Thank you.

      • Posted By: systems88 @ 08/10/2008 7:30:54 PM

        aha.

      • Posted By: 12waz @ 08/11/2008 5:25:59 AM

        he won't comment...he's still hiding behind his rock!

  • Posted By: systems88 @ 08/10/2008 8:04:20 PM

    ALTER

    What would you write about if you couldn't hate on Sen Clinton and promulgate pro-Obama propaganda?


    • Posted By: legume @ 08/13/2008 9:05:15 AM

      more propaganda about something else. his thoughts are rather limited, arent they? and why can a man pontificate in his pjs ( that is an image i really didnt want to hear) and not look straight into the camera on tv or in his picture here?

  • Posted By: 12waz @ 08/11/2008 6:11:25 AM

    Posted By: raddave @ 08/09/2008 07:20:01

    Comment: "Barry" has not gone out of his way to alienate Clinton supporter. Some of his supporters have, but not he."

    Perhaps you might want to follow this link. I'll give you a sneak peek.

    SUSAN B. CASTNER on meeting with barry on 6-26-08

    "My friend who asked the question in DC explained that if we, on the finance committee, were expected to put our time, energy, effort, and rolodexes into getting Senator Obama elected, we wanted some assurance that we would be able to vote for Hillary in Denver.

    We all thought it was a reasonably benign question with a relatively simple answer. I was absolutely stunned when Senator Obama replied that that there were many issues that needed to be "negotiated" and we would not have a "negotiating session" that night. He did attempt to placate us by saying that Hillary would be "front and center" at the convention. He also told the woman who asked the question that he DID want her rolodex. Answers to other questions about the blatant misogyny and reducing Hillary"s campaign debt were no more satisfying."

    http://www.lynettelong.com/my_weblog/2008/07/face-to-face-wi.html

    What do you think now? She heard it straight from the horse's mouth.

    • Posted By: legume @ 08/13/2008 9:00:49 AM

      wow he is an egomaniac and no wonder Clinton fundraisers are rallying behind him. how much money did he waste on his world tour? how much fuel did he use? i bet he made sure the plane's tires were inflated properly. and i suppose not having the american flag on his official campaign plane (i thought he was trying to improve america's standing in the world) lightened the plane a bit.

  • Posted By: vakosh @ 08/11/2008 4:27:44 PM

    Obama don't care. He will still be on vacation when the convention starts, since that's about all he can accomplish effectively. Who does that remind you of ...... "the good ole ranch in Texas." Can't we even get a candidate who pretends to want to be in Washington.

    • Posted By: legume @ 08/13/2008 8:53:48 AM

      yeah he came out real strong in regards to georgia. commander in chief? haha

  • Posted By: emmarcee @ 08/11/2008 9:14:45 AM

    Just One Question for Newsweek editors. The liberal biased MSM was so deft in keeping the Edwards news from appearing on their pages.. for many reasons as they explain. Is that good journalism? So next more relevant question is .. how many things have you pushed into the deep end of the drawer when it came to your favourite son, Barack Obama? We, as readers are saying it again and again. You guys gave him a free pass for reasons beyond ourt reach. The MSM plays god. But there are many other things out there as you are slowly understanding. As I remember seeing Bliitzer standing dumpfounded when 2004 election results came out, not still believing Kerry lost, I will say, get ready for DeJa Vu.

    • Posted By: KellyBrowning @ 08/11/2008 12:25:53 PM

      Emmarcee, well stated. Since Mr. Alter has been in the tank for Obama for so long, I suggest his desk drawer be searched first for anything incriminating against Obama. I find it truly hilarious that we may have to resort to reading the National Enquirer for credible news.

      • Posted By: legume @ 08/13/2008 8:52:24 AM

        haha, hears the thing: jonjon made a prediction in 2006 that barry would be president and so he's done everything he can to prove his "smartness".

    • Posted By: Hope for America @ 08/11/2008 1:53:43 PM

      Agreed, the media is quite biased and is the only reason that Barack Obama is even mildly popular.

      Check out the book The Case Against Barack Obama. It goes into GREAT detail about Obama's political rise, his personal opinions, his lies, deceits, and ruses. And yes, this book is actually a good book. It puts to truth the fact that Obama WASNT sworn in on the Koran, and that Obama DOES salute the US flag... rather, it focuses on the TRUTH, not those false stories of hate, and the TRUTH is frankly more alarming than those ever can be anyways. 20 dollars at Walmart. Suggest everyone reads it. The first chapter goes well enough into showing the person that Obama is... a person who hired people to disqualify signatures in his very first election ever, in order to make ALL THREE of his running opponents "disqualified". He refers to this in his autobiography as "I guess everyone like what I said because I got enough votes to win".... HE WAS THE ONLY CHOICE BECAUSE HE DISQUALIFIED SIGNATURES! And on what? Things so simple as "printing instead of cursive" and "women who's last names had changed due to recent weddings". Sick, disturbing, lie, cheat, selfish, and frankly, evil. No, no, no, will I EVER respect him, whether he is elected or not.

      And thank YOU media for covering all this up... election day is 3 months away and ALL THIS STUFF is kept in the dark? You should be ashamed of yourselves as reporters.

      • Posted By: legume @ 08/13/2008 8:51:12 AM

        and he never ran against the GOP machine.

      • Posted By: eagles1776 @ 08/11/2008 2:24:17 PM

        Enter Your Comment
        Check out the following website. Answers to your questions and to the book are clearly given.
        http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/factcheckactioncenter

        • Posted By: Hope for America @ 08/11/2008 2:37:54 PM

          Ummm no, none of that answers to the specifics of the book. Obama's attempts to silence this revolve around bringing up flawed insults such as his being "muslim" and "forgetting to say the pledge of allegience". See beyond that to the truth please.

  • Posted By: annalou @ 08/11/2008 11:22:20 AM

    Obama couldn't do better for his administration than to pick Hillary as his VP. We would truly have the beginning of change. A black President and a very knowledgeable,capable,tried and tested; woman for Vice President. What an Asset!

    • Posted By: legume @ 08/13/2008 8:49:18 AM

      she would never accept the VP. she knows he's a fraud and he knows she knows it. besides she's smarter and thinks a whole lot faster on her feet. Sen Clinton came out immediately about bush not going to china because of human rights issues. barry made no comment...surrogate said he'd like congree to weigh in on it. and know with invasion of georgia by russia barry said the UN should get involved and handle it. whose he gonna have camped out in the Lincoln bedroom? pelosi and ban ki-moon?

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse