Opinion
Candidates' differences on display
Story by Cedric Jacobson | April 5, 2008
Montana Kaimin
Politically speaking, it’s been a great week for Montana. We’ve had the privilege of hosting a former president and two presidential hopefuls in several different cities and venues.
There’s a stark contrast in style and method between the two campaigns. These differences can tell us what has worked, and what hasn’t.
Let’s start with Hillary Clinton. Clinton’s campaign is a very upfront sort of business. Her speeches are always riddled with information about detailed policy stances, almost to the point of overwhelming the inattentive listener. She’s never afraid to elaborate on her thoughts, ideas and opinions, and neither are her supporters. For the most part, when you talk politics with a Hillary fan, you will hear information about her great policy stances, proposed changes and breadth of experience. I muse that the Clinton campaign sees this information exchange as a bit of a give-and-take. Typically, when first contacted by this campaign, supporters are solicited for donations. Perhaps this is the price to be paid for consistent, detailed information about beliefs. In fact, it seems that everything about Hillary’s campaign is upfront (except for tax returns and income statements, that is).
On the other hand, Barack Obama is a big picture sort of guy. In his speeches, we hear about what he stands for and against in only the most general terms. To get specifics, you need to do some searching and closely follow his appearances; debates seem to be the best sources for specific policy thoughts. It’s not that Obama lacks substance, it’s that it isn’t immediately present in his campaign. However, his depth is ever-present in his speaking ability and conviction. His campaign isn’t about peppering speeches with specific policies, it’s about his message. When you talk to Obama followers, this is the idea that they typically express first. Most seem to have been initially drawn to the energetic message of hope and only learned more specifics later on. As far as fundraising goes, Obama lets people get to know him through blogs and online information before asking for financial and volunteer-based support. The campaign attracts supporters using high-energy rhetoric and only later pushes policy. And it works: Obama has followers coming out in droves.
As we look at how this primary process has unfolded, we see a fundamental shift in American politics. Hillary is using a tried and true method for garnering support; she’s been in politics for some time now, and it is likely that this comes naturally for her. Perhaps that’s why her methods and policies aren’t receiving as much attention as they deserve – Americans, in this age of information overload, are tuning out the familiar in favor of the novel. Obama’s method and message are appealing because they’re fresh, energetic and easy to understand. He’s pulling considerable support from the middle and surprising numbers from the right, which is why he’s being billed as a unifier for the American public.
As it stands, the possibility of Hillary winning the nomination is unlikely. She would not only have to win by a nearly unachievable margin in the remaining states, but also sway a substantial number of Obama’s pledged superdelegates to her side. Given recent poll results that have Obama leading her nationally by roughly 10 points, it is unlikely that the 20 percent of the unpledged delegates would rally behind Hillary; it would be unseemly for party insiders to defy the voters.
I really admire Hillary Clinton’s determination thus far, I think her perseverance is a testament to her political ability, knowledge and experience. But as much as I respect Hillary’s can-do attitude, I think that the time for her to bow out is rapidly approaching. Perhaps after the Pennsylvania primary would be best, hopefully no later than the North Carolina primary. Those two comprise roughly half of the delegates from states who have not yet voted. While her continued involvement may do some further good, the Democratic Party needs more time to rally in support of a candidate and prepare the offensive for the general election.
However, the biggest disappointment if she drops out of the race will be that neither the Republican or Democratic citizens of Montana will have had much of a say in choosing their party’s presidential candidate.
Cedric Jacobson is a senior in cellular and molecular biology.
This story has been viewed 1363 times.
Comments
Why then even bother to schedule primaries in all 50 states? No, she is staying until the end. Every one deserves the chance to vote.
Posted by Ann White on 04/08/2008 at 7:43 am
Senator Hillary Clinton is receiving calls from Senator Patrick Leahy, Senator Chris Dodd and others to drop out of the Presidential Primary even though the difference between the two candidates in both is minimal and neither candidate can win the nomination without the Super Delegates. The question no one is asking is, “If the fortunes of the two candidates were reversed, would there be calls for Senator Obama to withdraw?” Frankly, I doubt it. The DNC would be afraid of alienating the loyal and highly vocal African American base. More than likely any attempt to push Senator Obama out of the race would be met with charges of racism.
Women comprise fifty-one percent of the population and an even greater percentage of the voting electorate. Yet, women are vastly underrepresented in all three branches of government, from the congress to the cabinet, not to mention the Presidency. On a personal level, I am reminded daily of the subtle yet significant government sponsored sexism that permeates my life. Not a single piece of paper currency has a picture of a woman on it and the vast majority of pictures on stamps are of men. Pick up any newspaper and compare the number of photos of men vs. women, and you’ll be astonished by the results. From Wall Street to the White House, we are a nation of “men and girls.” Women are undoubtedly still the second sex earning 77 cents to the dollar when compared to their male counterparts.
Hillary’s candidacy is significant to me as a woman. She knows what it is to be a woman, to be marginalized and sidelined. A woman in the White House is CHANGE, REAL CHANGE and the most significant political event of my lifetime. I am a registered democrat, but if Hillary is pushed out of the race, I will not vote and I urge other women to do the same. Why should I be loyal to a party where a group of men try to shame the first female candidate for the Presidency out of the race?
Lynette Long, Ph.D.
Posted by Lynette Long on 04/08/2008 at 7:47 am
Listen carefully, I am a voter in a so called swing state: I will NOT vote for Obama in a general election. I will change my yard signs to say “ If not Hillary Clinton for President then vote smart fot McCain” you had better read the exit polls. 30% of Hillary voters will not vote democratic in Nov. I can not vote for that canidate for many reasons:
1. He says he is for uniting but in truth he is supressing votes. If he is so sure he will win the primaries legit then don’t punk out and not count Florida and Michigan. Count those votes today. Then lets see if he really wins this contest.
2. I cannot vote for him since he “claims to not be racial but in truth he has placed his two young daughters in an enviroment that teaches to hate whites.” If Hillary attended a church that taught black hate every black person in our country would be screaming she is a racial. When are white people going to stand up and scream you want change it has to start in black homes, churches and schools. I am tired of having to watch what I say or how I look at someone… I am tired of being discriminated by blacks. I am not going to vote for a black man untill they get their race in check and start acting like responsible people in society. There are lots of white people who live with blacks everyday that feel this way. If you didn’t live near them you could think differently or if you lived near educated blacks who acted civilized you wouldn’t feel this way.
If the democrats really want to win in Nov. The superdelegates need to evaluate every aspect of this election. Don’t be afraid to vote for Hillary and upset the black population. Vote what you know needs to happen. Speak up they want a conversation about race remember?
Posted by Valrie Sommerville on 04/08/2008 at 8:36 am
I have a simple question to ask of the voters. Let’s assume that the next President of our country is in negotiations about Peace, Trade, National Interests, etc. As the world stands today that person is going to be dealing with some very tough, relentless and sometimes unsavory characters, many of whom view our country with little more than distain. Do you honestly believe that they would listen respectfully to a leader who relies on non-specific “message” and Gentle rhetoric ? Do you believe that the Respect of the world for America can be reclained by a person who did not even show-up to vote an opinion on the Iran situation and can’t even seem to commit himself to a position about whether we should boycott the China Olympics. I may not be a huge “Fan” of Hillary Clinton. She can be annoying and sometimes embellishes ( as Obama does also but somehow seems to fly under the media radar with it...they are both, after all, politicians) but She is Specific and clear and forceful when necessary, tough when need be and an excellent negotiaor when that situation arises. In the unthinkable possibility of another 9/11 scenario, I am very afraid that Obama’s response would be very much like Bush’s slow response, I think Hillary would get to it and get what needed to be done to make sure we were safe. He did vote not to go to war but questioning her judgement to give authority to the President was one based on facts he was not privy to since he was not even a Senator yet. If we want a measure of judgement as a measure of qualification for this job, let’s just start with the choices he’s made, even dismissing his youthful 4-6yr. drug use lets move straight to his formation of self-identity through his faith found through the teachings and preachings of Pastor Wright. Anti-American, anti-white, Afro-centrist, and Islamic leaning...and he will not disavow himself from it. I wonder how that fits into the perception of other World leaders?...and yes, that is important. Hillary already has the respect of the world, grudging in some cases but there none the less. He’s charming and bright but he doesn’t have her steel and cannot get the job done in the circumstances that this country finds itself in at present.
Posted by Pam Gould on 04/08/2008 at 8:49 am
You ask for Hillary to quit now? Why? Her strength and resolve combined with her intelligence and, yes, experience, are the qualities I want in my leader. I will not vote for someone who’s a “big picture kind of guy.” He only speaks in generalities, he says nothing of substance and I have yet to hear exactly what his “message” is! And, actually, your article points out these same qualities about her. You should be standing by her in her fight and not abandoning her. You should be encouraging to stay in the race. There will be plenty of time for the winning candidate of each party to present their ideas to the people between the convention and the election. There always has been.
Posted by Joan Moore on 04/08/2008 at 9:17 am
There is a lot to be said for a big picture approach. We can definitely say it applies to both candidates. The problem is, when Obama is confronted with unpleasant facts, he dismisses them as details if he addresses them at all. He will be called to answer by the Republicans, and then he will lose. Clinton cannot withdraw if Democrats have any hopes of winning the White House. She’s been through the worst the Republican machinery can do. Obama will be chewed up and spit out and then we will all see the difference in in-party campaigning and a real election with true vetting going on. His ride has inspired and taught us alot, but it’s been a relatively free one thus far, and the Republicans will make him pay his dues.
Posted by yael on 04/08/2008 at 9:54 am
Why should Hillary Clinton step aside when the race is effectively even, and many states have yet to vote? The Superdelegates have a difficult choice and many democrats are going to be disappointed if this race is not seen as being fair to all. I would be devastated if Hillary backed out now - I expect her to stay in and fight - she is the best candidate. I want someone who understands the details and complexity of issues. We already have had 8 years of “big ideas” and “brushing off the details”. We need Hillary!!
Posted by Carrie Gillespie on 04/08/2008 at 10:38 am
Again, you are falling victim to the Obama campaign’s spin. Here are the facts so far:
Obama’s Popular votes: 13,964,924 (47.43%)
Hillary’s Popular votes: 13,858,725 (47.07%)
Obama’s total delegates: 1,703.0 38.57%
Hillary’s total delegates: 1,692.0 38.32%
This is all well within the margin of error, meaning there is no statistical difference.
Montanans must vote, just like the rest of the country. We live in a democracy, don’t we? And that’s what happens in democracies.
Posted by Veronica in CA on 04/08/2008 at 10:58 am
We have had eight years of a President who expounded about the big picture and vague policy. I for one, do not want another President who has no firm understanding of the problems America faces. A superficial speech that makes us feel good does not qualify Obama for my vote.
Posted by Alice Floss on 04/08/2008 at 11:24 am
Why don’t the media quite running Hillary down and let the people vote.If you all would give her the chance she will make America a great president.
Posted by marsha schorer on 04/08/2008 at 12:06 pm
Last I heard, it was MORE than 30% of Hillary supporters who would not vote for Obama. Some would stay home, some would write-in Hillary. 20-30% sounds more like those who would vote for McCain.
Posted by F. Steele on 04/08/2008 at 12:22 pm
Past political campaigns have left us with memories – sometimes bad memories. In 2000 it was Al Gore winning the popular vote and losing the presidency after a Supreme Court decision. In 2004 it was the Bush campaign Swift Boating Senator Kerry. In that instance they conducted a campaign to discredit Kerry’s heroic actions in Vietnam to save a man’s life. In this campaign it is the crafted effort by the Obama campaign to suggest that Senator Clinton cannot win the Democratic nomination. The reality is that Barack has excelled at caucuses. However, Hillary has excelled at all the primaries where individual voters casting one ballot in a true election make the decision - not party regulars meeting in a room at only a certain time. The Democratic Party process for choosing a presidential candidate is frankly a mess. Some states use caucuses, some primaries and some use both. Some use additional Conventions after caucuses. If a candidates precinct level caucus chosen delegates fail to show up for the Convention their vote on behalf of a candidate is lost. The only part of any Democratic Party presidential choosing process that has any potential mapping to the actual November national election is a primary – where individual voters go to the poll. Barack has won 14 of 17 caucuses – the meetings held in a few locations held at specific times most often attended party regulars. Even with that performance, this race is very close – why? How about the primaries? There have been 30 primaries held so far. These are the elements of the decision process that are closest to the general election. Hillary Clinton has dominated those. For instance, 8 of the ten most populous states have already held ‘primaries’. Hillary has won 6 of those 8 including states such as California, Ohio, and Texas. States and territories representing approximately 84.5% of the population of America have had a primary or caucus. The breakdown of the wins is interesting. Barack has won the states representing 32% of the population of America (Il, 4.2%, GA 3.12%, VA 2.52% and etc). Hillary has won the states representing 52.5% of the population of America CA 11.95%, TX 7.81%, NY 6.31% and etc), This distribution would show if the Democratic Party chose a presidential candidate using a process that mimicked the National Election.
If you were to apply the performance of Barack and Hillary to the Electoral College technique used for our national election the result is surprising. If you gave each candidate electoral votes for each state they have won to date the result is truly surprising. Remember the more populous states receive more electoral votes. For example California will have 55 electoral votes, Texas 34, and Ohio 20. These are the states Hillary Clinton has been winning. Barack on the other hand has excelled at the less populous states that tend to hold caucuses. States like Kansas with 5 votes, Mississippi with 6 and Alabama with 9. If the Democratic process was being held to mimic the November National Election Barack would have 202 electoral votes and Hillary would have 263.
The Democratic Party has struggled to win presidencies. Could the process for choosing a candidate be one of the weaknesses? The Republican Party also uses a mix of techniques. However, a number of states use a winner take all for the Republican selection process. Those states are often the determining states. These states led to the McCain win.
Over the past few years we have had impassioned national debates about voting – proof of residency requirements, accuracy of electronic voting machines, chads and more. The message of all of that debate is that everyone wants an opportunity to vote and wants their vote to count.
The diversity of this Democratic presidential campaign is history making – a Hispanic, an African American and a woman all serious candidates. Barriers have been broken and hopefully kicked aside. The decision will and should involve all Democrats – to the very last two states of South Dakota and Montana. Every candidate and every vote is important. It is possible that in the end Super Delegates may make the final decision.
Our country is struggling right now. The economy is in tatters, people are losing homes and life savings, we have environmental challenges that must be addressed, we have lost respect and allies around the world, the valuation of the dollar is dropping daily, and sadly we have many thousands of troops fighting and dying in a war that most question. We need change. I think we all agree that either Barack or Hillary will bring change – a new direction for our country.
We have two candidates that have energized the country. Democratic Party registrations are up, voter turn outs are up and more. What is most critical, to facilitate this change is to win the national election. It is worth while to look at the underpinnings of what has brought Barack and Hillary to this point where the election can go either way. Do you want the candidate carrying the Democratic banner to be the one that excelled at caucus performance or the candidate that excelled in primary performance which is most similar to the national election? Barack, the candidate that currently would have 202 electoral votes or Hilary the candidate that would currently have 263 electoral votes.
Posted by M Coleman on 04/08/2008 at 12:23 pm
If FL and MI were in this election as they SHOULD BE, we made the rules, WE CAN CHANGE THEM, the only thing agreed by all the candidates, was that no one would CAMPAIGN in the two states (which BO breeched)-----
The DNC will fall apart ignoring the 2.5 million voters who came to voice their choice.
In the End, WE ALL LOSE, McCain will win, and our country will be doomed.
Posted by michelina on 04/08/2008 at 12:31 pm
Great idea to tell Clinton to get out of the race! When she’s the only one who will beat McCain in November. That’s music to the ears of the Republicans who have bankrolled Obama. Let’s stop kidding ourselves: a guy who could only win Republican dominant Red States before people realized he had an anvil the size of a church on his foot is doomed.
A new Quinnipiac poll shows Hillary beating McCain in key swing states. In Florida, she leads McCain 44-42 while Obama trails McCain by 9 points. In Ohio, Hillary leads McCain 48-39 while Obama is only ahead of McCain by 1. The GE goes through tthe Electoral College, and only HHillary can win the states Dems nneed to carry the electoral ccollege.
Posted by fumiste on 04/08/2008 at 1:20 pm
An earlier poster is quite right, that the DNC mess can be changed easily even now, if Dean and Brazile et al will stop trying to help Obama and just play fair. Stripping all delegates was a specially harsh punishment done at Brazile’s personal discretion—after she personally ruled that the FL Dems hadn’t ‘tried hard enough’ to fight the GOP legislature that had set the January date.
The DNC rules are complicated but there is plenty of room for Brazile’s sentence to be changed or dropped. Certainly at the convention the rest of the delegates can overrule her. BEfore that, two committee meetings are coming up that can reverse her decision. If Dean wants to settle the FL/MI thing, he can do it right now, by having a special meeting to change the ‘punishment’ to something that does not impact the voters or the candidates.
Here is more background on how it all happened:
http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/4/7/18269/66456/118#118
Posted by F. Steele on 04/08/2008 at 1:56 pm
HERE IS A RESPONSE TO “M COLEMAN”. I chose to add my commentary in the middle of that posters earlier comment. Look for the ‘:::’ at the beginning and end of my comments. THANKS
Past political campaigns have left us with memories – sometimes bad memories. In 2000 it was Al Gore winning the popular vote and losing the presidency after a Supreme Court decision. In 2004 it was the Bush campaign Swift Boating Senator Kerry. In that instance they conducted a campaign to discredit Kerry’s heroic actions in Vietnam to save a man’s life. In this campaign it is the crafted effort by the Obama campaign to suggest that Senator Clinton cannot win the Democratic nomination.
:::Either one of them could win this nomination and too could win the presidency. They both however are guilty of saying that they would be the best person to win the nomination and inversely that their opponent wouldn’t.
CLINTON on OBAMA: http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/03/clinton-strateg.html :::
The reality is that Barack has excelled at caucuses. However, Hillary has excelled at all the primaries where individual voters casting one ballot in a true election make the decision - not party regulars meeting in a room at only a certain time.
:::Lets see the numbers – OBAMA: 17 Primaries – 12 Caucus, CLINTON: 12 Primaries -3 Caucuses. So it appears that they both do pretty well in both. However to try to pin Sen. Obama down as the “Caucus Guy” is unfair seeing that he has won more primaries and caucuses than Sen. Clinton.:::
The Democratic Party process for choosing a presidential candidate is frankly a mess. Some states use caucuses, some primaries and some use both. Some use additional Conventions after caucuses.
:::Even in primary states there is a convention after the election to determine who goes to the DNC Convention in Colorado. This is not a factor of conventions.:::
If a candidates precinct level caucus chosen delegates fail to show up for the Convention their vote on behalf of a candidate is lost. The only part of any Democratic Party presidential choosing process that has any potential mapping to the actual November national election is a primary – where individual voters go to the poll. Barack has won 14 of 17 caucuses – the meetings held in a few locations held at specific times most often attended party regulars. Even with that performance, this race is very close – why? How about the primaries? There have been 30 primaries held so far. These are the elements of the decision process that are closest to the general election. Hillary Clinton has dominated those. For instance, 8 of the ten most populous states have already held ‘primaries’. Hillary has won 6 of those 8 including states such as California, Ohio, and Texas.
:::And Obama has won inconsequential states to the electoral map like Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Colorado, Minnesota, Lousiana, Washington, Virginia, and Wisconsin. How is it that he doesn’t get credit for taking these swing states (which texas is not.)?:::
States and territories representing approximately 84.5% of the population of America have had a primary or caucus. The breakdown of the wins is interesting. Barack has won the states representing 32% of the population of America (Il, 4.2%, GA 3.12%, VA 2.52% and etc). Hillary has won the states representing 52.5% of the population of America CA 11.95%, TX 7.81%, NY 6.31% and etc), This distribution would show if the Democratic Party chose a presidential candidate using a process that mimicked the National Election.
If you were to apply the performance of Barack and Hillary to the Electoral College technique used for our national election the result is surprising. If you gave each candidate electoral votes for each state they have won to date the result is truly surprising. Remember the more populous states receive more electoral votes. For example California will have 55 electoral votes, Texas 34, and Ohio 20. These are the states Hillary Clinton has been winning. Barack on the other hand has excelled at the less populous states that tend to hold caucuses.
::: The lest populace states hold a mix of caucuses and primaries. It is essentially an event split.:::
States like Kansas with 5 votes, Mississippi with 6 and Alabama with 9. If the Democratic process was being held to mimic the November National Election Barack would have 202 electoral votes and Hillary would have 263.
::: How does a Democratic primary have anything to do with electoral votes? You’re assuming that because Barack won Illinois Hillary can’t or because Hillary won California Barack can’t. This is not a logical way to access success as it will translate to the fall election.:::
The Democratic Party has struggled to win presidencies. Could the process for choosing a candidate be one of the weaknesses? The Republican Party also uses a mix of techniques. However, a number of states use a winner take all for the Republican selection process. Those states are often the determining states. These states led to the McCain win.
:::The Democrats use…”gasp!”.. representative democracy. That is a good thing. It fits right in with our ideas as a part to represent every vote and not silence the minority. This race is not continuing because of the process. It is continuing because we have such excellent candidates which makes the decision tough.:::
Over the past few years we have had impassioned national debates about voting – proof of residency requirements, accuracy of electronic voting machines, chads and more. The message of all of that debate is that everyone wants an opportunity to vote and wants their vote to count.
The diversity of this Democratic presidential campaign is history making – a Hispanic, an African American and a woman all serious candidates. Barriers have been broken and hopefully kicked aside. The decision will and should involve all Democrats – to the very last two states of South Dakota and Montana. Every candidate and every vote is important. It is possible that in the end Super Delegates may make the final decision.
::: Neither candidate can win without super delegate support.:::
Our country is struggling right now. The economy is in tatters, people are losing homes and life savings, we have environmental challenges that must be addressed, we have lost respect and allies around the world, the valuation of the dollar is dropping daily, and sadly we have many thousands of troops fighting and dying in a war that most question. We need change. I think we all agree that either Barack or Hillary will bring change – a new direction for our country.
:::Damn good point:::
We have two candidates that have energized the country. Democratic Party registrations are up, voter turn outs are up and more. What is most critical, to facilitate this change is to win the national election. It is worth while to look at the underpinnings of what has brought Barack and Hillary to this point where the election can go either way. Do you want the candidate carrying the Democratic banner to be the one that excelled at caucus performance or the candidate that excelled in primary performance which is most similar to the national election? Barack, the candidate that currently would have 202 electoral votes or Hilary the candidate that would currently have 263 electoral votes.
::: Barack is the candidate who has excelled at caucuses AND primaries. Not to mention delegates, the popular vote, and national polling. But I’m just saying:::
Posted by M Coleman on 04/08/2008 at 12:23 pm
Posted by Brady Edwards on 04/08/2008 at 3:07 pm
I want to weigh in on caucuses…
I grew up in Missoula and currently live in Texas. In Texas we held an election on March 4th which Sen. Clinton won. However, headlines will probably soon come out about how Obama won Texas. And how did he do that?...through a caucus process. In Texas we have an election and then a caucus to select another 1/3 of the national delegates.
The ultimate travesty to Texans is that the popular vote from the March 4th election may be overturned by this bully process which will give Sen. Obama enough delegates to possibly overtake Sen. Clinton’s election won delegates. Let me describe my experience with the caucus process and you judge whether this is a fair process and whether states which Sen. Obama has won through caucuses might well have had a different outcome if people had been allowed to vote rather than caucus.
Before this year few in Texas understood what a caucus was, let alone how they should run or how one should participate in them. As a result there were many irregularities in the running of these caucuses. It began with who took initial charge of the proceedings. In Texas, anyone can act as the temporary chair, so many precinct chairs, who would be expected to know how to run the caucus, were pushed aside to let “Obama trained” supporters take over. They controlled the sign-in process which is where the irregularities began.
My precinct was located with two others in an elementary school cafeteria and combined there were over 650 people in attendance. In this environment, I witnessed that no one confirmed that people in fact had voted in the precinct (required by law) and sign-in sheets were passed around (so you could sign in for your friends and family, evidenced by same hand writing on many of the forms); no ids were required; and, I know for a fact that the man elected to run our caucus proceedings actually signed in with another precinct. How many other duplicate sign-ins there were, I do not know. Later I heard from friends in other precincts that people were denied access to the sign-in sheets, were locked out of buildings and encountered general intimidation.
The irregularities in this whole process were not limited to what happened that evening but extended to how the Democratic county office handled the results in the days following. There was a total lack of control and accountability of documents. There were no process controls in the office; results came in for weeks (3 days is the law); no one had to sign the packets in; there was no inventorying of packet contents; no control over who had access to the packets; materials were added with no date/time stamp; materials may very well have disappeared.
Now at my core, I’m a Montanan and believe in the goodness of people and that even though the Democratic county executive board was overwhelmed with the turnout, they would make things right. Boy was I naive.
Party officials were so excited with the turnout in our Republican controlled county, that they did not want any bad news to get out and had no intention of “making things right.” Further, I was to later learn that most of the board and office workers supported Obama which explains the favorable rulings and bias I have observed over the past several weeks.
As an elected precinct delegate I was asked if I would serve on the credentials committee for the county convention. Was that an eye opening experience. The heads of the rules committee and credentials committee let everything go...no voter validation of caucus attendees, hap hazard voter validation of the delegates selected for the county convention, precincts were allowed to change delegates right up to the convention even though the law says they must be elected in the caucus on election day, as long as people voted somewhere they were allowed to caucus anywhere, and the good people who were brave enough to submit challenges to point out irregularities and election law violations were summarily dismissed on technicalities… the biggest fraud I’ve ever witnessed.
The ultimate fix came in at the county convention. A friend who was on the rules committee responsible for tabulating the count of attendees at the convention (which determines how many of which candidate’s delegates go on to state) said they were asked to confirm an attendance count. They were led to believe it was one thing and then found out later it was something different. A whole group of attendees weren’t counted. The result was a 2 to 1 attendance count for Obama, something not born out by visual examination of people’s credentials on the convention floor.
Now I can’t charge that all caucuses everywhere in the country were similarly run, but I believe my experience is closer to the norm. We’ve had years to perfect and improve our elections, enforced by election law. We have “early voting” and absentee balloting so that everyone who wishes to has an opportunity to vote. But now it appears that a candidate may be selected through a process which disenfranchises those who work a shift job, have child/elder care issues, are elderly or have a disability limiting their participation. And most importantly, given we are “at war”, it doesn’t allow for those who are away in service to our country to participate in the most important decision in their lives, the selection of who will be their commander-in-chief.
Again it is a travesty to Texans that their will expressed in the March 4th election “popular vote” may be overturned by this unnecessary process. I would ask Montanans to consider who really is the best candidate for the high office of president. I would hope the conclusion you come to is Sen. Clinton. However, please do insist that the media explore what really went on in the caucus states and insist that your super-delegates do the same and not just rubber stamp a fraudulent system in the interest of party unity.
Lastly, it was exciting to be in Texas and to witness the voter turnout on March 4. I’m sure there is growing excitement in Montana. It’s been a long time since candidates have paid attention to states with late primaries because the race is usually over in February. One of the last times I remember excitement like this in Montana, Sen. Humphrey visited Missoula and walked down Broadway in front of St. Pat’s Hospital. Before that it was a much younger Ted Kennedy, who while campaigning for his brother John, visited St. Francis Grade School where I was a student. Those were exciting times and it’s that way again. So, I don’t understand the calls for Sen. Clinton to step aside. Since March 4 she has won “elections” in Texas and Ohio. Sen. Obama won the “caucus” in Wyoming. Looks to me that she’s on a roll with the voters. So hush up party officials and let the voters “vote’.
Posted by mary opitz on 04/08/2008 at 3:49 pm
For Hillary, the primary has been laying the groundwork for November. She chose to bring out the traditional blue-collar Dem base in the big swing states. Once registered and active, they will come out again in Nov and in future.
Obama has focused on trying to sabotage Hillary. Most of his won states will never go for us in Nov. His voters elsewhere include “DEmocrat for a Day” or
“Stop Hillary now” crossovers. One of his web pages admitted that 20% of his supporters were Republicans.
He is running out of the kind of states he does well in: red, caucus, etc. Hillary will win PA and more.
She already has the popular vote of Democrats, of all 50 states—and soon will have the total popular vote even counting Obama’s non-Democrats.
The superdelegates’ job is to look at the whole picture and choose the best candidate for November—the one who works toward November.
Posted by F. Steele on 04/08/2008 at 8:20 pm
I’m going to change the drumbeat-
Obama won’t win...Obama won’t win...Obama won’t win
Posted by DEBORAH BARR STEVENS on 04/08/2008 at 9:37 pm
To MBRADY:
YOUR KEEPING MI and FL out of the numbers, and that is the ISSUE
Pretend as you will, Those votes will count before this is all over
Posted by michelina on 04/09/2008 at 7:19 am
michelina is right. The FL/MI votes already count in the minds of the superdelegates. They know what the voters there said.
As the Superdelegates decide who is the best candidate, they will know who the voters chose, and who is blocking those delegates, and blocking a re-vote when offered.
They will also know that Obama took his own name off the MI ballot ... then his camp campaigned for the “Uncommitted” slate ... then he called for a re-vote ... then he tried to block the re-vote ... now he wants a 50-50 split.
And now he’s talking double talk about “seating the delegates” (but only after the nomination is settled or their votes have been changed to 50-50). This is deceptive, bamboozle!
It’s the superdelegates’ job to watch for system-gaming shenanagins like this—and to penalize the side that tries it!
Posted by F. Steele on 04/09/2008 at 4:03 pm
I’m surprised that as opposed to gentle rhetoric, you’d all prefer a candidate who has consistently exaggerated the truth during her campaign and has spent so much money as to bankrupt and be unable to afford the health benefits of her staff employees. I know another president who liked exaggerate the truth, if you want to make comparisons. Furthermore, it’s a little hard to believe in Hillary’s universal health care plan when she can’t manage employee health care for her political campaign.
As to Floria and Michigan, both states approved the very same party election laws they later violated, and did so fully aware of the repercussions. The primary and caucus race is not democratic in one sense; states who vote first usually carry more weight. I know because my state (Montana) always votes last. If every state did what Florida and Michigan did, the whole part primary/caucus system would fall apart due to a mad rush-to-the-top. We can’t possibly count those two states at this point. I concede that Hillary would win Florida, but I’m willing to bet in a fair election race, Obama would sweep Michigan (my second home).
But the last thing I would like to say is… it’s ridiculous for someone to not vote for Obama vs. McCain just because their bitter over a primary election. That’s the sort of attitude that got George W Bush re-elected a second term. And I say that with sincerity, because I was at the Mansfield-Metcalf dinner in Butte, respectively waving Obama and Hillary signs when they spoke. This isn’t just about a single candidate, it’s the direction of our country.
Posted by Sean Morrison on 04/10/2008 at 9:20 am
I am completely amazed at the naievete of so many people.
Somehow, its supposed to be “progressive” to vote for a woman just because she is a woman- people advocating this idea often seem to imply one is misogynist simply by not casting a vote towards some token rebuke of the sins of the patriarchy. Token affirmations are not “progressive”. Was Margaret Thatcher coming into power a “progressive” development? No.
Is it “progressive” for two families to keep a stranglehold on the executive branch for (if Hil is elected) at least 24 years? I don’t think so.
I don’t speak for Obama or McCain here- they do that well enough on their own. This is my two cents.
Posted by Charles Copeland on 04/10/2008 at 10:25 am
REVEREND WRIGHT REVISTED
As I watched the Compassion Forum last night on CNN, I wondered why no one asked Senator Obama how he could sit in a pew of Trinity United Church of Christ for twenty years and listen to the racist and radical teachings of Rev. Wright? Wright’s sermons are full of tales of oppression and hatred not compassion and love. I find it impossible to envision myself in Obama’s seat listening to those same sermons week after week, year after year. The only possible explanation is that Obama had to believe or come to believe what Rev. Wright said. How can I be so sure? Obama claims to disavow himself from Rev. Wright’s teachings- yet he repeatedly chose to go to Trinity United Church of Christ and expose his daughters to Rev. Wright’s angry sermons even though there were other churches available. In fact, Obama visited several churches on the South Side of Chicago before he picked Trinity which espouses Black Liberation Theology.
If Obama is a post-racial candidate who didn’t agree with Rev. Wright’s picture of Black and White America, attending Rev. Wright’s Pro-African Church would caused him tremendous cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is the psychological discomfort that occurs when how you behave is psychologically incompatible to what you believe. To reduce cognitive dissonance Obama would have had to have “left the church” and joined another church that was more in line with his beliefs. Since he did not leave Trinity Church he most likely believed Rev. Wright’s teachings when he joined the church or changed his belief system to match Rev. Wright’s beliefs.
I also wonder how did sitting in a pew at Trinity United Church of Christ impact Obama’s views on America and being Black in America? After twenty-years of hearing his mentor rant about injustice and discrimination in America, what did Obama internalize? Only Senator Obama can answer that question, but no one can willingly not listen to a preacher week after week for twenty years and not be influenced.
My Grandmother used to say, “Actions speak louder than words.” Obama says he finds many of the preaching’s of Rev. Wright objectionable, yet his actions tell a different story. Obama’s continued church attendance, his large monetary donations to his church and the NAACP, and his exposure of his daughters to Rev. Wright, say he does agree with Rev. Wright. Do you believe Obama’s words or his actions? I agree with my Grandmother
Posted by Lynette Long on 04/14/2008 at 8:12 am
I find it laughable to call Obama supporters naive in thinking he can win in November against John McCain. What makes that claim laughable? It comes from CLINTON supporters. Are we supposed to believe that the vitriole for the Clintons long harbored on the right is going to just fade by November? Lets also keep in mind that while the Obama’s lead in the Democratic primary race may be “small,” it is also insurmountable short of overturning the will of the voters and destroying what little there is of the Democratic Party. Clinton is behind not in one, but four factors: states won, money raised, popular vote, and the most important, deciding factor: pledged delegates from the voters themselves. In addition, the Republicans and John McCain himself would prefer to run against Hilary Clinton in the general, and it’s not because they’re pals.
I also find it interesting that Clinton supporters feel that by electing Hilary Clinton to the Presidency they are somehow changing something. Changing what, exactly? It’s still the same family, one of two, that has been running this country since 1988. Only the sex has changed, and voting for someone because of sex is something I thought Democrats opposed.
Let’s not forget the Clintons have been in Washington for a long, long time, and they would love nothing better than to move back into the White House. Their personal ambition for power is what is driving this election, not a desire to get America back on track. This has been clear time and time again as Hilary continously joins in with McCain on criticising Obama. The recent “gaff” about bitterness is a perfect example. Instead of recognizing that Obama was on to something, i.e., this whole idea of voters being bitter about where their country is headed, she calls him elitist. Now that’s irony folks, coming from someone who makes 260 times the average American, someone who’s been in Washington since the early ‘90s. And for supporters opposed to big ideas and pretty speeches, I find it ridiculous that they support someone who routinely exaggerates her past, and distorts her record. Sniper fire in Bosnia? Makin’ peace in Ireland? Please.
A reporter recently asked Mrs. Clinton whether her husband’s $800,000 thousand dollar paycheck to promote the same Columbian Free Trade deal that she supposedly opposes was a conflict of interest. Her response? The ol’ Hilary laugh.
Wake up. The Clintons are laughing at you. And they’ll be laughing all the way into the White House if they can.
Posted by torinjensen on 04/14/2008 at 11:10 am
Very good point about the religion forum and Rev. Wright. Here was a chance to find out just where Obama DID draw the line.
But as usual they just offered him pillows. Maybe he had a pillow in his pew and slept through everything?
Posted by F. Steele on 04/14/2008 at 12:09 pm
Hillary Clinton is winning the election and has been leading in the vote total almost all the way since New Hampshire. None of the tallies include Florida or Michigan where she won convincingly. By the time the convention rolls around, Obama will still have fewer total votes than Hillary Clinton, translating to fewer electoral votes than Clinton. Brownshirting caucuses can only get you so far.
Posted by Ross Nicholson on 04/15/2008 at 2:37 pm
Even without FL/MI, Hillary is leading in the votes of real Democrats (not “Democrts for a Day"). Since the Wright and the ‘small town’ things have become news, Obama is losing a lot of Independent support in the polls. Also I’ve heard that some very large portion of his votes came from Chicago. He endorsed Daley there. Not representative of the national November electorate.
Posted by F. Steele on 04/15/2008 at 8:41 pm
Obama’s ‘Democrats for a Day’ (26% of his vote at last I heard) are the ones who won’t be voting for HIllary in November--Of course, they never planned to vote for Obama either!
Posted by Ross Nicholson on 04/15/2008 at 10:04 pm
Where did you get that figure of 26%? The “Democrat for a Day” web page in Florida April 2007 claimed 20% of Obama’s supporters were Republicans, but I figured they were fantasizing.
Posted by F. Steele on 04/15/2008 at 10:39 pm
Gallop, I think. Google it. (At the MSNBC.com website, Iowa democratic exit polls, Obama’s acknowledged republican support was either 40% or 44%). Even more of Hillary’s supporters won’t vote for Obama in a general election though. They probably think it would be way too dangerous to have a complete neophyte extremist running the country, but after Bush who could be worse?
Posted by Ross Nicholson on 04/15/2008 at 11:02 pm
After the Bush administration, who ever wins will have to exceptional to better than our Great President Bush. No one
in the current crowd of candidates is even close to as honest, patriotic, honorable and capable as President Bush. We
have been very lucky to have perhaps the greatest President, maybe outside of Regean, in the last 200 years. I only wish
Bush & Cheney could get one more term. I personally am going to do a write in for Bush & Cheney since none of the 3 possible candidates are worth crap. Obama is a racist, liar. Hillary is totally corrupt. McCain is way to Liberal. All 3 are worthless. We need more Bush & Cheney. The war is going great, hard working people, not lazy parasites, are
doing financially good, More blacks own their own homes than ever before, unemployment is at a lower rate than at any time during the horrible Clinton years. Things are good for all. One more Bush & Cheney term is exactly what we need.
Posted by D san on 04/15/2008 at 11:38 pm
I’d be surprised if the figures were that high nationwide, or even statewide.
But as a strong Hillary supporter, I’m probably just going to write her in if Obaam gets the nomination. Four more years of GOP is not good, but McCain seems like a sane person. Bush was sort of a loose puppet but all the strings were being pulled by the same group. Obama is a nut who would be pulled in too many directions by too many sides, and his backers are too nasty.
Posted by F. Steele on 04/15/2008 at 11:39 pm
Hey, D san! Don’t give up yet! I’m one of the, no, I’m about the only person to know both George W. Bush and Hillary Diana Rodham Clinton when they were in their twenties. I loved George W. Bush when I was 17 and I worked for Hillary when I was 18. Neither were corrupt then, and neither were racist, especially George W. Bush (who liked African American girls--Condi Rice was a ‘girlfriend’ in young republicans). You might want to reconsider if you look at fresher statistics, but the country is still here at least. The Clinton era was the most prosperous in American history up to that time. Democratic presidents have always meant a better stock market, too.
While Bush is indeed, honest (to a point), patriotic, honorable (again to a point) and capable (eh?) I’ll grant you, he was not very nice as a young man as everybody knows. I won’t go into it, but he was wilder than wild--and a barrel of laughs, too. I have to agree with you that Obama does seem to be a racist though. I wouldn’t vote for him anyway on account of the way his supporters might act up if, God forbid, he was shot. 100 cities burned for MLK, and at least that number would follow an assassinated president Obama onto the pyre.
I’m glad you’re doing good. Buy a house in Florida, will ya! Homes down here have dropped like a rock and they’re headed lower.
Posted by Ross Nicholson on 04/16/2008 at 12:10 am
Weren’t we all wild in our 20’s? I know I was back in the 70’s.
I, like President Bush, sowed my wild oats, learned from doing so and like President bush, straightened my act out and went on to bigger and better things. I’m glad to hear President Bush was a wild man in his youth like me and pleased he learned from it and went on to be one of our best Presidents.
The problem with Hillary is, she has always been a very corrupt liar, was a socialist/Communist in her youth and still is.
The problem with Obama is pretty much the same, plus way to much Islamic influence in his youth, and with Pastor Wright, way to much Anti American sentiment in his present. And, of course, we can’t forget what a liar he is.
I’ betting the only reason he doesn’t put his foot in his mouth more often than he does is because his head is so far up his butt most of the time he can’t reach it with his foot.
I guess the old saying is true. “If you are a young conservative you have no heart, if you are an old liberal you have no brain”.
I am very happy to know President Bush learned from his youth. It is sad that Obama and Clinton did not.
Posted by D San on 04/16/2008 at 12:45 am
Hillary Clinton was a young republican. She attended the Republican National Convention in 1968 and worked in the office of New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller at the convention. She was a young republican club member and a Goldwater girl in 1964. She worked on the staff of a republican congressman, too. When I knew her in 1972, she wore white gloves to Methodist church on Sunday. I remember because she slapped at me with them for not going to church myself. She also hated communists and socialists with passion. She hated me for being too liberal and I was a Southern Democrat! I don’t know where you got your information, but I can set you straight about that. I knew the lady personally. She also kept her own place and had her own telephone number in Dallas when she was there and never left or arrived with Clinton except at lunch time.
My vote doesn’t count down here in Florida, so I’d appreciate it if you’d let me turn you around and do right by her. You can take my word for it, she’ll be the best dang president this country’s ever had if you just give her a chance and quit believing silly lies about her. Of all the people I’ve ever known in my life, Hillary Clinton is the best.
Posted by Ross Nicholson on 04/16/2008 at 1:45 am
Wow Ross .. don’t take this wrong, but I don’t believe a word of it. Hillary is NOT a nice person, she is a vicious
shrew. She is totally corrupt, and most of all She is a total and complete liar. Hillary is one vile bit ch. You should stay
as far away from her as possible. It sounds like she has infected you. Way to much of her young work was done in an
extremely socialistic/Marxist way. You must have missed allot of the 70’s if you think she was ever anything but a
socialist/communist. She even volunteered to find loop holes for appeals for the black panthers rather than working on
something like drunk driving or another worth while cause. Hillary is the scum one scrapes off the bottom of a septic
tank when you have it cleaned.
PS, I thought the Democrats and Hillary all signed on about the Florida vote situation. That is why Obama didn’t even go on the ballot. NOW that Hillary is losing, she wants to cheat. I guess that is normal for her. I hope to shout that Hillary could do better than a guy who wasn’t even on the ballot.
Posted by D San on 04/16/2008 at 2:15 am
Check with any republican in New York about her being a Goldwater girl and Nelson Rockefeller staffer.
You’re certainly right about her not being nice in terms of manners because she was a little dictator when she was 24, but she was nice morally. I saw that myself.
Lawyers often work on cases/projects for evil people. John Adams defended redcoats after the Boston Massacre, for goodness sake. That didn’t make him a traitor. Lawyers are often seen as the scum one scrapes off the bottom of a septic tank, so I agree with you there, too.
Obama wasn’t on the ballot in Michigan because he withdrew his name so he could get support that would have gone to Hillary in three other states. Hillary’s not losing, either. She’s been ahead all along pretty much, but only when you actually count the votes (secret ballots, regular polling places, absentee ballots, registered voters, you know, an election.)
Posted by Ross Nicholson on 04/16/2008 at 2:26 am
Ross ... Hillary chose to do her work for the Black panthers, rather than a variety of other good choices, because she chose what she believed in. She could have chosen other things to work on, but she didn’t.
As for being a young Republican, I have no doubt that when she was trying to learn the intricacies of politics, she had no qualms about going undercover to infiltrate and sabotage from within and leak inside information.
Like they say, “keep your friends close and your enemies closer”.
Go back and read the papers she wrote as a young lady, if you can call her that, and you will see a Marxist if there ever was one.
Hillary is not to be trusted, running anything. The missing papers from Fosters office, file gate, insider trading, failed health care, the list is to long to type when dealing with Bill and Hillary.
Bill and Hillary are two big time con people. The are the scum one scrapes off the bottom of a septic tank.
Posted by D San on 04/16/2008 at 3:24 am
Not all defense lawyers believe their clients are innocent, only the good ones.
She was 16 and a life-long republican, so YOU think she was undercover?
OK, I knew Mr. Foster. GHW Bush, with his isoflourane-based concoction was the real culprit. File gate? That was Bush complaining about Hillary’s people trying to keep some Bush people out of the White House after they’d lost and after the Democrats took office. She did make an obscene profit from one future’s trade with a trumped up conflict of interest that no prosecutor would prosecute, even Ken Starr. She failed to set up a health care system like Germany, Japan, England, Canada, Taiwan, & Switzerland, because of republican opposition and because she didn’t anticipate the ferocity of it. We’re both early risers, I got all day. Bring it on.
Let me tell you something, too. People go to hell when they slander people they don’t even know. I know you’re just repeating what you’ve been told, but how much difference that will make to God will be up to Him. We’re all just trying to do the best we can here, but at least cut out the stuff you’re just making up as you go.
Posted by Ross Nicholson on 04/16/2008 at 3:41 am
Ross,
OK, I knew Mr. Foster. GHW Bush, with his isoflourane-based concoction was the real culprit.
ANSWER: Bill and Hillary the real culprits, having their people sweep the office and remove evidence before ALL the damning evidence against them could be taken by the Feds.
She did make an obscene profit from one future’s trade with a trumped up conflict of interest that no prosecutor would prosecute, even Ken Starr.
ANSWER: They set up two accounts for her, one long, one short. They gave her the one that made money as pay off as a bribe for favors and future favors, and ate the one that lost money accepting he loss as just nother part of the bribe money.
She failed to set up a health care system like Germany, Japan, England, Canada, Taiwan, & Switzerland, because of republican opposition and because she didn’t anticipate the ferocity of it.
ANSWER: Thank heaven she so dim and failed!! What person in their right mind would want a Socialistic Health Care that is as BIG of a FAILURE as those in Germany, Japan, England, Canada, Taiwan, & Switzerland. That’s why people from those countries come to America for their health care problems.
how much difference that will make to God will be up to Him
ANSWER: I’m not religious, but from what I hear, God loves it when we speak the truth, so I am not worried, where as you may be in big trouble.
Posted by D San on 04/16/2008 at 5:27 pm
Don’t you think if Hillary Clinton had ever done anything illegal in her entire life, she would have been charged and convicted? You repeat these proven false charges like they’re real, but you’re just echoing what you’ve been duped to believe. Lies repeated are just that and no more.
And you’re so quick to judge Hillary’s ‘failure’. Did you ever stop to think that she figured we weren’t ready for it and let her staff come up with something that wouldn’t pass? You don’t know how extremely smart Hillary is. Why don’t we let God just take care of us both, OK?
Posted by Ross Nicholson on 04/17/2008 at 12:31 am
QUESTION: Don’t you think if Hillary Clinton had ever done anything illegal in her entire life, she would have been charged and convicted?
ANSWER: NO, not when you are powerful, and have other rich and very powerful people willing to let you slide.
Al Capone was a really nice guy with a little tax problem. He must have been, because there was never evidence and conviction of anything but tax evasion.
Just because people like Capone and the Clinton’s are very good criminals that don’t leave allot
of evidence lying around, especially when they can have their people sweep a room before the Feds get there, doesn’t
mean they are not criminals.
If you believe otherwise, then you must believe Al Capone was always falsely accused and
was really a nice guy with a tax problem.
Posted by D San on 04/17/2008 at 1:16 am
I may never understand how some people can forget God watches us. Hillary Clinton is not equivalent to Al Capone, that’s absurd and irrational.
Posted by Ross Nicholson on 04/17/2008 at 2:21 am
TO BORROW A PHRASE FROM YOU. --- Don’t you think if AL CAPONE had ever done anything illegal in HIS entire life, HE would have been charged and convicted? __________ WHAT???? IT ONLY WORKS FOR YOU?
Posted by D San on 04/17/2008 at 2:31 am
Al Capone WAS charged and convicted. Of course there’s no way I can convince you of that though, is there?
Posted by Ross Nicholson on 04/17/2008 at 3:29 am
So Capone really WAS innocent of the Valentines day Massacre. I like your theory of, ONLY If one is really guilty they get convicted, and ONLY if not guilty do they get off. I knew O.J. and Robert Blake were innocent. It sure is nice to know that only the guilty get convicted and the innocent ALWAYS get off. I was always worried about that. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
Posted by D San on 04/17/2008 at 3:38 am
Look. I just told you I knew her personally and she was a nice young woman. You thought she was some kind of marxist for goodness sake when everybody knows she was a young republican/Goldwater girl/Rockefeller secretary/republican congressional aide as a youngster. Compare that to George W. who drugged and raped hundreds of girls (including Condi Rice) and is now president of the country. Hillary had a lot more going for her than he did, surely. I don’t know why you’re arguing with me. Hillary’s going to be the Democratic nominee and the next president, too. God wants it that way.
Posted by Ross Nicholson on 04/17/2008 at 3:50 am
Wow, Hillary was so nice when she was young. I wonder what happened on her way to becoming an old lady that turned her into the corrupt, liar and socialist, she is today. GW sowed his wild oats, learned from it, and went on
to become one of the best Presidents the nation has ever had, and Hillary just turned into a lying, cheating scumbag that
married a rapist and sexual predator of young girls his daughters age. I bet Chelsea was afraid to bring high school and
college girlfriends to her house for a visit. Wow ... what a wonderful family.
Posted by D San on 04/17/2008 at 4:16 am
Capone was busted for tax evasion. I guess, other than some tax problems he was probably a nice young republican/Goldwater boy/Rockefeller secretary/republican congressional aide too. Like we were saying before, Don’t you think if AL CAPONE had ever done anything illegal in HIS entire life, HE would have been charged and convicted? Of course I mean, other than some tax issues.
Posted by D San on 04/17/2008 at 4:43 am
Hillary Clinton was nice morally. She was still really hard to work for because you were always walking on eggshells around her. She was never the free and easy type.
The republicans pimped Lewinski in and even stopped the government twice to get her under Clinton’s nose/um desk. I’d say that was worse, but it’s true that Clinton’s no saint. He’s just no criminal, either. I’ll bet if somebody put 1000 lawyers and private detectives on your life-records they’d find something, too, to impeach you with. He was tried on that and found not guilty. Not innocent, but not guilty.
Wait until the republicans get wind of Obama’s ‘Al Qaeda training trip’ to Pakistan during the Russian incursion back when he was a college student.
Posted by Ross Nicholson on 04/17/2008 at 4:57 am
That’s a new one for me. Clinton’s BJ from Monica was the Republicans fault.
I suppose bill raping Wanita Brodrick was Rove or Cheney’s fault. Whose fault was Paula Jones and Kathleen Willy?
Oh...wait… I bet those were Rummy’s fault. Me thinks you are REALLY stretching now Ross.
Posted by D San on 04/17/2008 at 5:16 am
Ross, I will give you this: Hillary and Bill both probably started out as nice young people just as does everyone. My
big wonder is why, as Bill and Hillary grew up, did each year they became more and more power hungry, greedy,
deceitful and corrupt. Now all that is left of them is this angry, festering blob of deceptive, selfish, corruption. It is a
shame what can happen to a nice young couple when they turn bad. As grown ups Bill and Hillary are just a couple of disgusting slugs.
The only light at the end of the tunnel for Hillary is Obama is just as corrupt, maybe even more, than Hillary, and it takes allot to be more corrupt than Hillary the despicable pig.
Posted by D SAN on 04/17/2008 at 1:24 pm
I am somewhat amused by the smokescreen D San puts up in accusing Hillary of socialism...his own statements betray his own loyalties. Read ‘em for yourself:
“QUESTION: Don’t you think if Hillary Clinton had ever done anything illegal in her entire life, she would have been charged and convicted?
ANSWER: NO, not when you are powerful, and have other rich and very powerful people willing to let you slide.”
This statement smacks of typical commie class-resentment, and I think its my duty as an American to report you to HUAC, D San.
Posted by Charles Copeland on 04/17/2008 at 2:34 pm
Charlie ... way cooooool !!!
PS, Hillary and Obama are totally corrupt liars and thieves, as are ALL LEFT WING LIBERALS.
Posted by D San on 04/17/2008 at 3:11 pm
You’re not fooling anybody, red.
Posted by Charles Copeland on 04/17/2008 at 3:22 pm
Boys, y’all can call me Bubba. Actually, that’s Mr. Clinton’s name too that everybody uses and how we fell in together way back when in 1972.
I was the young pumpkin who came up with the HOPE Scholarship Program down in Georgia for Zell Miller. It’s been copied in 23 states. Does Montana have it? It’s named after Bubba Clinton’s home town of Hope, Arkansas cause I pitched it to him first. (He said he’d rather have Americorps instead where everybody’s got to work for the government of charity for 2-4 years after graduation--yuck! There are millions of HOPE people who went to college who could not have gone and barely 400,000 Americorps veterans.)
That probably qualifies as socialism, but republicans have lauded my idea to the skies, that fella Alexander down in TN in particular. Well, guess who inspired the HOPE Scholarship Program? Hardbottom Hillary Rodham, that’s who! If you ever wanted a steady hand on the tiller, she’s the one. Hillary Clinton will be the greatest president we’ve ever had. Mark my words.
Posted by Ross Nicholson on 04/17/2008 at 3:44 pm
Charlie, Charlie, Charlie .... You are a silly little fellow, aren’t ya?
Posted by D San on 04/18/2008 at 12:17 am
Charlie & Ross,
In the 1980’s Hillary’s ties to terrorism: Hillary on the board of the New World Foundation that gave money to the PLO., a known terrorist group. When Hillary went to the White House, Hillary had a conference that was hosted by the American Muslim Alliance which contributed $50,000.00 to her Senate race. The American Muslim Alliance has sanctioned terrorism, published anti Semitic statements, and repeatedly hosted conferences that were forums to denounced Jews and exhortations to wage Jhad. These are Hillary’s Pals. Wow, Hillary, what a dirt bag you are.
Posted by D San on 04/18/2008 at 12:51 am
Charlie… you goof ball.
you say: This statement smacks of typical commie class-resentment, and I think its my duty as an American to report
you to HUAC, D San.
I am proud to say, I am one of the rich guys. I do NOT want redistribution of my wealth to some free loading parasite.
The QUESTIONS were not mine, they were from Ross, but the answers were mine.
I am happy to say, I like the fact that rich guys get the breaks. My hope is it may be incentive for the lazy leeches to
do something other than suck the government tit I pay way to much to keep full for them to suck on.
Posted by D San on 04/18/2008 at 1:31 am
The Clinton’s made 109 million and 50 G’s would turn her into an anti-Semite robot? Gimme a break. Lieberman got the same support she did.
ABC said she said:
‘Screw ‘em’ she said, ‘you don’t owe ‘em a thing, Bill ...’ supposedly about White people in Dixie--their voters where they lived most of their lives?
This is a distortion at best and probably an outright lie. Hillary Clinton never called Bill Clinton, ‘Bill’ when I knew them years ago. She always called him by the name that his friends use, ‘Bubba’ not ‘Bill’. If she said it at all, she was acting as a foil for a point Bubba wanted to make, which seems clear from the context. So why would ABC distort her statement like that?
Posted by Ross Nicholson on 04/18/2008 at 3:12 am
No one, not even the pig Hillary, calls a high level politician “Bubba”, in public/interwiews/ETC…
As for the distortion -----
It’s simple, ABC didn’t distort, YOU DID.
Hillary is a whore that would throw Chelsea under a bus for $50,000.00, let alone attend an anti Semetic conference since she leans that way anyhow.
Posted by D San on 04/18/2008 at 1:13 pm
George W. “Bubba” Bush was called “Bubba” by his mother when he was a baby boy back in Texas.
Bubba is what Bill Clinton’s family and friends call him, too. Bubba is my nickname and I wasn’t a linebacker. It’s a common first name just like yours.
Hillary was never a pig, quite the opposite. She was miss prim and proper when I knew her, she went to church, dressed well and modestly and has never been unfaithful. We allow George W. Bush hundreds of underage girls without insult to him, but you print something like that about the next president of the United States--a person you don’t even know? Come on! Give your immortal soul some chance for glorious reward in heaven! Straight is the way and narrow is the gate and it’s easier for a hawser to be drawn through a needle than it is for a republican to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Don’t go that way! Just don’t!
Posted by Ross Nicholson on 04/19/2008 at 12:50 am
Ross,
For being such a nice girl when Hillary was a kid, she sure turned into the complete opposite person as an adult.
Maybe you haven’t seen or talked to her for many years, hence your lack of knowledge on what a corrupt, despicable, lying pig she turned into.
Posted by D San on 04/19/2008 at 3:45 am
Ross,
If I go to Hell for speaking the truth about Hillary, I’m sure when I get there I will see Hillary.
Hillary will be sitting behind Satan, hanging onto his coat tail, trying to give him suggestions on how to mess up the world.
All her suggestions will, of course, be miserable failures like usual, but she will just keep on babbling away.
Posted by D San on 04/19/2008 at 3:57 am
May God heal your mind of this evil and keep you safe from any harm.
Posted by Ross Nicholson on 04/19/2008 at 2:48 pm
I think God tried to heal the evil in the world, but it must not be working. The proof is, evil Hillary is still here. Hillary isn’t listening, she is still trying to get the Dumocrat nomination. I guess it’s like they say, “God can’t control the evil in the world”, if God could control evil, Hillary wouldn’t even be running
Posted by D San on 04/20/2008 at 1:17 am
Narrow is the way, straight is the gate.
Good words that I take to heart. We all should. It must be tempting to lash out at strangers like Hillary Clinton or other celebrities, but they’re people, too. God Almighty is with Hillary Clinton, just as He was with both the Bubbas before her and with G.H.W. Bush, JFK’s assassin according to George W. when I knew him. If God can look past that evil act of treachery and find good in America’s worst serial killer and make him president, Hillary has a lock. So it really just doesn’t matter much to her or to the country what you say.
Try to control yourself, trying is probably important, and heartily and genuinely ask God for His forgiveness as soon after every heinous slander of people you don’t know as you can. Maybe you can get by with it. Ask God. See what He thinks. Go ahead. Pray.
Posted by Ross Nicholson on 04/20/2008 at 1:39 am
God listens to every thought and reads every word you write here.
Posted by Ross Nicholson on 04/20/2008 at 1:42 am
Just because God made America’s worst serial killer & child sexual predator Bill Clinton President, doesn’t mean he wants to screw up that bad again by allowing America’s biggest, lying, corrupt, two bit whore, Hillary Clinton, to become President. If there is a God ... God ain’t that stupid.
Posted by D San on 04/20/2008 at 2:46 pm
God hears everything you think.
Posted by Ross Nicholson on 04/21/2008 at 1:50 am
Ross says: God hears everything you think.
I guess Ross, maybe you won’t get in trouble with God.
I of course mean ... since you NEVER actually think, you probably won’t get in trouble with God.
Posted by D San on 04/21/2008 at 2:45 am
This is improvement!
Insulting my thinking is fine (by the way, I’m in Mensa and a genius of extremely high I.Q. but you wouldn’t know it, huh?), since you’ve interacted with me. It means you’re pulling back from el slanderoso, the bad guy with those red horns, pitchfork and pointy tail--or whatever passes for satan for you. You’re pulling back from the abyss.
If I didn’t know better I’d say you’d had a good discussion with Almighty God. Prayer does work, it just necessarily work the way you want it to work.
Posted by Ross Nicholson on 04/21/2008 at 3:27 am
Ross says: Insulting my thinking is fine
I didn’t insult your thinking? How could I insult something you have never done.
Posted by D San on 04/21/2008 at 4:12 am
Ross, This was fun, but getting kind of boring. How about ... You take the con Hillary position for a while and I take the pro Hillary position for a while?
You surf the web for her corrupt acts and all the things she has failed at, and I will surf to see if I can find anything she didn’t fail at.
I realize you will have a much easier time finding many, many items. I will have to probably have to surf for hours and hours and hours to see if I can find anything she did that wasn’t a complete failure or completely corrupt.
Posted by D San on 04/22/2008 at 12:55 am
Con: Hillary was way, way, way too good looking to be president when she was 24. She was always mean to me back then.
If she had just stayed out of his room when they shared a house near Yale U., she wouldn’t have found herself forced to fly all over the country after him like she did. She chased him down like a rat. Then she toyed with him--made goo-goo eyes at him every day for a week before she even thought about lifting a finger. Then she took over.
It would have driven me nuts and I don’t know how he stood it. (Of course Clinton might have married my 18 year old girlfriend after I dumped her.(Or worse.) He said he wanted to date her and if Hillary hadn’t been there I’d have said “sure.” He would have had her in common with “W” since I dumped her because of him and his gang of reprobates.)
All this is very unlikely sounding, but I had a vision from God for George W. Bush and when I told him about it, he said it was the first time ANYBODY had ever thought he could do anything. I told him he had to lift people up (Condi Rice, Harriet Miers) instead of just using them for sex like he was doing at the time. He didn’t think much of himself back then, deservedly so. The next summer it was the Clinton’s turns and Steven Spielberg, Ron Kirk, Ann Richards, Rob Reich, Strobe Talbot, David Kendall--an army guy.
So if you want to separate God and American government (Church/state) don’t vote for Hillary Clinton, God’s choice.
Posted by Ross Nicholson on 04/22/2008 at 4:09 am
Oh, when she rented the room in Clinton’s house, she didn’t fall in love with him. She fell in love with his bedsheets. Bedsheet fetish? Something. Clinton’s mom, Virginia, told me she liked to study in his bigger room with more reference books and had his permission, but found herself drawn back to it again and again while he was at his classes because she “like the smell of his sheets.” Imagine?
Posted by Ross Nicholson on 04/22/2008 at 4:15 am
Ron, I guess I would have to agree with your assessment that, Hillary is one sick puppy. Maybe some time in an asylum for the mentally ill would help poor sick little Hillary.
Posted by D San on 04/22/2008 at 3:10 pm
It makes sense to you that Hillary Clinton, leader of the Democratic Party, keeper of the flame of freedom in America and the world, is a ‘sick puppy’?
Sick, no. Determined to lead us away from stupidity? yes.
Posted by Ross Nicholson on 04/23/2008 at 2:17 am
Hillary Clinton, leader of the Democratic Party, keeper of the flame of freedom in America and the world ---------------------------------
Ross, If you really believe that statement, some extended time in the asylum for the mentally ill might also help you.
Posted by D San on 04/23/2008 at 1:00 pm
The Democratic Party WROTE the Bill of Rights. We wrote the 1st amendment. We wrote the second amendment, the entire first ten amendments to the US Constitution. Getting that passed among the states was the genesis of our party in America. We are the keepers of the flame of freedom. Why? Because we tolerate republicans. Besides killing a hundred innocent witnesses, George H.W. Bush and his Cuban plumbers have murdered our leaders (JFK--W’s real daddie, MLK, RFK, Wallace, LBJ) and shot at Ford, wounded Reagan, shot Vince Foster, framed Wilber Mills and framed Ted and Patrick J. Kennedy, and even framed Teddy for murder.
You try living under the same roof as people like that. It’s not easy.
Posted by Ross Nicholson on 04/24/2008 at 3:08 am
