'Bitter' battle, better fundraising

I guess his wife is tired of throwing their good money after bad money! So, now, his lackeys and NeoCons must pull their heads out of their hats and find another source for money. I suggested earlier, he should go to Red China and hold a fundraiser, with all those Neocons, he' s certain to get some moola!!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE. NOW.

Influential Republicans have so little confidence in a successfull John W McCain candidacy this fall that they have been giving him record low fundraising numbers.
http://bloggernista.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/bush-mccain-hug.jpg

Once again Obama is stepping in it by trying to attack Hilary Clinton. No wonder the gobamas on the blogs attack the most literate, the most spell-checked entries here.
Nurses are the downtrodden. They spend their union dues hiring a lobbyist. So, no, unlike Obama who went seeking Abrahamoff (disenfranchise black voters, what else--oh, murder, too, right?) monies, Hilary defended some pacs.
At least her contributers are transparent.
Yet another example that this nationally unvetted candidate cannot be the top of our ticket. HRC is NOT the enemy.
What’s wrong with waiting 8 years, Obama and Gobamas? Wait for LBJ’s 3rd generation of Dixiecrats to kick the bucket.
I used to say that. And I may say that again.
But, give a listen to the audio posted by Mayhill Fowler (the not so pretty girl recently on the bus who savvily recorded the disturbing speech in California).
It’s a disturbing speech and shaking a ‘you are naughty’ finger at Hilary Clinton will not work.
In fact, the whole strategy for ‘dealing’ with his comment disturbs me even more.
Because, there seems to be a pattern emerging from not just the Obama campaign, but from the lips of Obama himself:
Exclude from the ‘movement’ or otherwise silence the non-enthusiastic or
‘offending’ middle aged white or elderly women.
Listen to the audio Mayhill recorded—and be sure to thank her and show your support for her. She will need it, if Tavis Smiley is any example of how people non-conforming to the Obama message of ‘hope’ get treated.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/obama-exclusive-audio-on_b_96333.html
His comments to the crowd that we need ‘new people’ in the Democratic party kind of chilled me to the bone. I find him very intolerant. I find his campaign intolerant. He responded to a question about his ability to really unite the party after such a divisive campaign by saying that “people get their feelings hurt” and they’ll be back (basically).
I don’t think that’s the case. People left his campaign because we felt it was using the wrong strategy and felt (but couldn’t quite put our finger on WHY it was fundamentally wrong-minded.
In his speech last night, in which he mentioned that ‘abstinence” and teaching appropriate behavior would be a good idea—heck—the people he BASHED last night have been speaking about this stuff for years! In fact, the Planned Parenthood crowd in Kalamazoo, Michigan (who later came to Chicago) managed to get a K-12 systematic sex education curriculum passed in the late 1970s. The JOHN BIRCH society worked to get it removed from the schools—and the Planned Parenthood clinic was actually bombed.
Would 70s style peaceful activists be part of the mature crowd Obama now wants replaced with his Gobama crowd? No. Not if he can help it.
That’s what it’s looking like to me.
Particularly when I heard Obama last night say talk about the pro-choice people he said were reluctant to infuse a “moral dimension’ into the abortion issue.
Patently false. Shame on Barack Obama.
Shame on him also for the recent clarification that in fact he DID attend a Muslim school (the public schools in Indonesia were like the community—women didn’t have to wear the veil, but…) seems like he was earlier being less than forthcoming. Even in liberal Islamic settings, women have a back of the bus status. I do NOT think Obama has been honest enough about this.
I think he’s sexist. Not just for the relentless bashing of Geraldine Ferraro, but for something really revealing in his speech last night, he ‘could not remember’ whether he’d had a conversation with his daughters about God. Well, if you’re in a 50’s throwback marriage where mommy is the main person interacting with the kids when they’re not in the expensive, enriching U of C daycare---then you perhaps are leaving a lot of that stuff to the wifey.
And perhaps that’s why Michelle (back when she let reporters cover her fund-raising) cut loose with the “ladies against women” style rant against Hilary (“How can she handle the White House when she ‘can’t manage’ her own house (sic).”)
The problem with sexism or any ‘ism’ is the elitism at its heart.
But there’s another reason why the Obamas must mature more before they’re at the top of the ticket.
They’ve let the newfound celebrity go to their heads.
Call it the ‘diva factor’.
Bonnie Raitt (you might remember she and Jackson Browne played a New Hampshire benefit for John Edwards’ superior approach—since adopted by Hilary Clinton—regarding nuclear power, greenhouse gases, and whatnot) chafed at being called a diva on a blues show last night. She said it reminded her of the old saw “Don’t look Miss Ross in the eye as she heads on stage.”
Barack Obama as diva.
Annie Oakley at least was a class act.

- - - - - - - - -

They’ve let the newfound celebrity go to their heads.
Call it the ‘diva factor’.
Bonnie Raitt (you might remember she and Jackson Browne played a New Hampshire benefit for John Edwards’ superior approach—since adopted by Hilary Clinton—regarding nuclear power, greenhouse gases, and whatnot) chafed at being called a diva on a blues show last night. She said it reminded her of the old saw “Don’t look Miss Ross in the eye as she heads on stage.”
Barack Obama as diva.
Annie Oakley at least was a class act.

Posted by: citizentompaine | April 14, 2008 4:49 PM

HEY SWAMP!!!

QUIT LETTING THIS IDIOT SPAM YOUR BLOG WITH THE SAME CUT AND PASTE CRAP POST!!!!!

THANKYOU!!!

Hillary misleads voters. Hillary Clinton has made statements unequivocally trumpeting NAFTA as the greatest thing since sliced bread. The Buffalo News reports that back in 1998, Clinton attended the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, and praised corporations for mounting "a very effective business effort in the U.S. on behalf of NAFTA." Yes, you read that right: She traveled to Davos to thank corporate interests for their campaign ramming NAFTA through Congress. On November 1, 1996, United Press International reported that on a trip to Brownsville, Texas, Clinton "touted the president's support for the North American Free Trade Agreement, saying it would reap widespread benefits in the region." The Associated Press followed up the next day noting that Hillary Clinton touted the fact that "the president would continue to support economic growth in South Texas through initiatives such as the North American Free Trade Agreement." In her memoir, Clinton wrote, "Senator Dole was genuinely interested in health care reform but wanted to run for president in 1996. He couldn't hand incumbent Bill Clinton any more legislative victories, particularly after Bill's successes on the budget, the Brady bill and NAFTA."

Who is the elitist? Hillary cares more about the health care industry than the health of people. Nobody can argue that the biggest problem with health care in the United States are pharmaceuticals and insurers. Hillary Clinton became the second largest recipient in the Senate of health care industry contributions. "As she runs for re-election to the Senate from New York this year and lays the groundwork for a possible presidential bid in 2008, Mrs. Clinton is receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from doctors, hospitals, drug manufacturers and insurers. Nationwide, she is the No. 2 recipient of donations from the industry, trailing only Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, a member of the Republican leadership." Raymond Hernandez and Robert Pear, "Once an Enemy, Health Industry Warms to Clinton," New York Times, July 12, 2006. Lastly, her vote for the Iraq war was the greatest error in judgement for the health of thousands of U.S. men and women in uniform. Not to mention the health of millions of Iraqis.

In an attempt to paint Barack Obama as Elitest Hillary Clinton has made a miss-statement of her own that has got herself into hot waters. The problem though is you have to remember Hillary Clinton is only human. When she makes mis-statements we are suppose to forgive and forget not like Obama. Those are the Clinton rules!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/12/hillary-becomes-a-gun-lov_n_96396.html

"You know, my dad took me out behind the cottage that my grandfather built on a little lake called Lake Winola outside of Scranton and taught be how to shoot when I was a little girl," she said.

"You know, some people now continue to teach their children and their grandchildren. It's part of culture. It's part of a way of life. People enjoy hunting and shooting because it's an important part of who they are. Not because they are bitter."

Did Hillary Clinton just pull a Nick Romney out of her pocket?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/nra-lobbyist-de.html

Will Clinton be able to sell this new self to gun rights enthusiasts and hunters?

"Her name is synonymous with gun control, like Rosie O'Donnell," says Cox, so she will have "a very, very tough time."

Hillary Clinton a life long member of the NRA who has a gun in one hand and a bible in the next!Hillary Clinton Because only God can save us from seeing images of Hillary Clinton with a gun!

I didn't have to wait to get a letter from Obama. As soon as Clinton started exploiting a discussion about American's widespread discontent, I went over to his Web site and donated what little I could afford. It's sure not lattes that I have to skip.

I will support the democratic nominee whoever that may be. But this negative BS from both sides needs to stop. People are smarter than this crap. Turn your focus on the real problem. The GOP!

Hey==gobamas and Obama HQ===you have nothing ORIGINAL to say, and can't even come up with an original handle.
Can't you just address what's on the blog or the discussions?
Why must you attack the PEOPLE who say things. Why not just stick to the content?
This is McCarthism.

I suggest:

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/12/carl-bernstein-what-a-hillary-clinton-presidency-look-like/

Well, once again, McCain and HRC have not substance and are reduced to slinging mud at an absurd point to boot. If there were not a lot of pissed off people in this country, I don't think these blogs would be so lively. Are the two boosom buddies, HRC and McCain, trying to say that eveyone is "happy" with how the ecomonomy is; the war; the trade deficit; the low dollar value; the recession, etc. etc. etc.? I'd say that Obama hit it straight on the head, and YES many people are pissed off at the way things are going. If you are not, you must be one of the sheeple.

It is sad to say that should Barack get the nomination, the Democrats will lose their bid for the White House. There is still too much animosity and suspicion among white Americans who will vote with McCain or sit it out rather than have Barack and Michelle Obama in the White House. We're not there yet folks; a Black President is not going to make it this time until he proves his worth beforehand, and I am afraid that Barack has not proved anything other than he is eloquent with the spoken word and the "comeback rhetoric."
So, it would behoove Democrats supporting Obama to consider supporting Hillary because it is crucial that the Republicans do not win this November, and they will because Obama would be the weaker candidate in the general election. Egos aside, the middle class needs a strong winner in November, and Obama is not it! At least not yet - maybe in 2016.

McCains Fund Raising just got more interesting. The DNC is suing the FEC to take action against McCain on campaign finance irregularities. The Courts may rule that the FEC may not be obligated to go against McCain, at which time the DNC will be free to sue McCain directly. McCain would be forced to produce bank loan documents connected to questionable campaign activities. This may well doom McCain as the Republican candidate if the process moves along in a timely fashion before November. The RNC and Republicans in general are not too happy with McCain as their candidate in the first place. If they are to bring Mitt on board, McCain would have to be gone sooner than later. If the DNC Lawsuit gets traction look for McCain's nominee hopes come to a unceremonious and speedy end. I don't why his wife just didn't loan him $5M like Bill did Hillary to get him over the hump. Billary's money is inextricably entwined; whereas,Cindy's inheritance is pre nuped out of McCain's access. Kinda like the Iraqi's, all that money and can't access it. The FEC has 70 days to act on the DNC law suit if at all. They could put McCain in a similar class as Florida and Michigan and nullify his candidacy for not following RNC Rules, which is a real possibility if they want to allow Mitt enough time to campaign. Look for Mitt to make more campaign appearances with McCain.

No attacks?
Must be dinner time in the dorms for the gobamas.

Barack implied people go to or need church because government failed them. There must be something in the bible about who is to be first.

Clinton's already broke fundraising machine is going to have even more problems when this story gets out in the next few days.

We know the Clinton's have a penchant for lying. The MSM should be well aware of this by know, yet they seem to ignore the Clinton's Peter Paul fiasco. This is Hillary's biggest lie of all.

Yet, the media is more concerned about parsing a few words Obama spoke. I don't think any rational person can believe the Clinton's couldn't have known about Peter Paul's past.

While pundits are parsing Obama's words and pontificating on whether he's electable or not because of them, they ignore the biggest electability question out there.

How close were the Clinton's to Peter Paul, a convicted felon?

Mrs. Clinton's entanglement with a thrice-convicted felon named Peter Paul is proof of how long campaign-finance problems can haunt a public official. Mr. Paul became a problem for Mrs. Clinton when his criminal past became public shortly after he helped organize and finance a gala Hollywood fund-raiser for her in August 2000.

Mr. Paul accuses Mrs. Clinton and former President Bill Clinton of deceiving him into spending well over $1 million on the fund-raiser for her Senate campaign. Mr. Paul contends the Clintons obtained the money by falsely promising that Mr. Clinton would become Mr. Paul's business associate after leaving the White House in January 2001. Mr. Paul also maintains that Mrs. Clinton and her campaign violated federal election law in connection with the fund-raiser.

Mr. Paul continues to produce evidence. His attorneys have submitted a recently obtained tape recording of a 2000 conversation involving Mr. Paul and Mrs. Clinton discussing plans for the fund-raiser, which they contend bolsters the argument she was involved in campaign misdeeds.

Even if Mr. Paul fails to pull Mrs. Clinton back in as a defendant, he vows to depose her in the case against Mr. Clinton. "We will still require her to testify under oath," Mr. Paul said in a recent interview.

Mr. Paul had two federal felony convictions in the 1970s -- which he says were for cocaine possession and for conspiracy in a financial swindle aimed at the Cuban government -- for which he spent about three years in prison.

The Clinton campaign has indicated it knew nothing about Mr. Paul's criminal past until a few days after the Aug. 12, 2000, Hollywood gala, when the Washington Post reported on his two felony convictions.

In a court filing earlier this year, Mr. Paul said it was "impossible" for the Clinton team to have not known about his felony convictions because he was thoroughly vetted by Secret Service and Democratic Party officials. He also claims he was asked to lie about his role in the Hollywood fund-raiser by Edward Rendell, then chairman of the Democratic National Committee and now governor of Pennsylvania.

A judge in Los Angeles yesterday allowed Hollywood mogul Peter F. Paul to begin taking sworn testimony in his $17 million fraud suit against former President Bill Clinton, but a technicality delayed establishment of a trial date.

California Superior Court Judge Aurelio N. Munoz ruled Paul's legal team can begin seeking depositions from a host of big names – including Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton – that allegedly were witnesses to an effort by the Clintons and top Democratic leaders to extract millions of dollars from Paul in illegal donations and then cover it up.

Munoz is expected to set the trial date at an April 25 hearing. He said yesterday in court he could not set the date, because defendant Jim Levin, an aide to President Clinton, must be served notice again. Levin did not respond to the original complaint, and Paul's legal counsel at the time – the Washington watchdog Judicial Watch – did not file a notice of default to verify that fact before filing an amended complaint.

The complaint says Bill Clinton promised to promote Paul's Internet entertainment company, Stan Lee Media, in exchange for stock, cash options and massive contributions to his wife's 2000 Senate campaign.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq8aopATYyw

I don’t know why everyone is getting excited about Barak stating that middleclass Pennsylvanians are ‘clinging’ to their religion and are, thus, impeded from having a clear understanding of the issues as he does. He agrees that he misspoke. What he really wanted to say is that he believes that ‘religion is the opiate of the masses’; however, since it was already quoted by someone with similar philosophical leanings as Barak’s, he didn’t want to use it and be accused of plagiarism.

In a similar manner, Barak stated in his famous race speech, “Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze - a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many.” His point here is similar to his ‘bitterness’ comment. Those people are letting their perceived resentments about school bussing, affirmative set-asides and high urban crime rate – along with their ‘clinging’ to religion impeded their understanding of the real evil – capitalism.

Actually, there is no difference between Barak’s viewpoint and that which was stated in Thomas Frank’s book “What’s the Matter with Kansas”. Frank’s believed that the great unwashed masses have a clear misunderstanding of their major interests and that’s why they are like they are. I urge you to review an opinion on this book in RealClearPolitics.com. It can be found at:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/blog_7_9_04_0723.html

"FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSIONER SPEAKS"

JOHN JOHN, YOU ARE NO "JOHN JOHN"

YOU SPENT YOUR 58 MILLION DOLLARS. YOU "TAPPED" INTO PUBLIC FINANCING ALREADY.

YOU RICK RE NZI, AND THE CHOCTOW INDIANS SPENT YOUR BINGO MONEY!

YOU BORROWED MONEY FOR THIS FOR THAT. YOU BOUGHT A 4 MILLION DOLLAR CONDO, YOU'RE NO "ELITIST" YOU'RE THE "304 MILLION DOLLAR MAN" WE GET THAT.

BUT YOU'RE NO JOHN JOHN
AND CINDY IS NO "BISSET"

YOU SPENT THE MONEY!
YOU SPENT THE MONEY!

"THE PROOF IS ON EBAY"

"THE PROOF IS IN EVERY TELECOMMUNICATION DEALS BY FLIGHT IN THE NIGHT"

SO KEEP YOUR COURAGE
SO KEEP YOUR FAITH
SO KEEP YOUR LIBERTY

BUT CAN YOU KEEP YOUR WORD! CAN YOU KEEP YOUR "OATH"

SO AT A TIME WHEN THE GOP IS SPENDING THEIR TIME PROTECTING THE COMPANIES THAT PROTECT THEM.

JUST NOT QWEST OR IT'S "PORTALS"

BE SELF-EVIDENT! BE RICK RENZI!

Posted by: Xcellentform | April 14, 2008 6:00 PM

That's funny. Reading your post-- you'd think that if you are bitter you are a sheeple, and if you're not bitter you are the black sheep.

As to McCain-- It seems that McCain's image is one of an independent thinker, but his record is more conservative than people think. I don't think the Republican party is as irreparably fractured as some believe just because the evangelicals are suspicious of McCain over his Pat Robertsonesque slams. Or that they won't mobilize regardless of the candidate. Maybe his independent will to rattle his own party at times, or at least image wise, is why people from both Democratic camps can see themselves voting for McCain. I also gather that if he runs against Obama he gets to play the experienced conservative image, and if he runs against Hillary he gets to play the change maker maverick. As funny as I think the Reps. take all primary is-- I know, who's laughing now, right?-- I think they managed a good strategy because it has given them a good candidate to run up against the Democrats. It's given them options of how'd they like to play. I've always wondered, since the Republicans saw Hillary being the likely nominee, at the beginning of this process, if they thought Rudy would be a good match up. Once it became clear Obama had a chance they felt they'd go with McCain. Haven't thought it through completely but I have entertained the thought.

I agree with Hillary and McCain over the "non-issue." Bitterness is one thing, poor representation of others is another. Everyone will play it up to their advantage, including Obama. No use crying over spilled milk.

I didn't have to wait to get a letter from Obama. As soon as Clinton started exploiting a discussion about American's widespread discontent, I went over to his Web site and donated what little I could afford. It's sure not lattes that I have to skip.

Senator John McCain has retreated from his longtime commitment to public financing of campaigns since he started planning his 2008 bid for the presidency, according to nonpartisan advocates who had hoped McCain would be a strong voice for reform during the most expensive presidential campaign in history.

McCain, who angered conservatives when he coauthored a bipartisan law aimed at taking big money out of politics, in 2003 cosponsored legislation to expand the federal matching system to help fund presidential campaigns, but failed to add his name to similar measures in 2006 and 2007. And while McCain once supported a law in his home state of Arizona providing full public financing of campaigns, he now says he opposes that idea at the federal level.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/30/mccains_commitment_to_public_financing_questioned/

Citizenpainlesstom is certainly entitled to bring up irrelevant crap which the Clintons will no doubt refute (and make themselves even more popular in so doing--that's what makes them seasoned, vetted politicians who still help Americans in so doing).
But why can't you pick an original 'handle'?