Maybe the cheeseball Great Seal of Barack was an attempt to boost fundraising, because Obama barely beat the lowly John McCain in the May numbers.
Obama had his weakest fundraising month of the year, collecting $22 million and ending the month with $43 million cash on hand and $304,000 in debts. But $10 million of his available cash can only be spent in the fall after the party national conventions, leaving $33 million for the summer months. Obama’s decision to bypass the general election’s public finance system allows him to use left over primary money in the fall campaign.
Republican John McCain, who secured his party’s nomination in March, raised $21 million in May and had $31.6 million in the bank. The figures place him virtually on same financial footing as Obama — a level of parity that would have been unimaginable just a few months ago.
Don’t know what to make of this but, at least one site, Clinton Democrats, says it is true.
TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION! Howard Dean is working to remove Hillary from first ballot at the convention! I.E he is trying to have her stricken from the record…the annals of history, and diminish the gravity of her historic place in history. Remember, Obama had Alyce Palmur removed from the ballot here in Chicago so he had no one to challenge him….SEE An PATTERN?
Obama has succeeded in separating the wheat from the chaff in the Democrat party.
We hear about these groups of disaffected Hillary voters who are resolved not to vote for Obama. A full 59% of Hillary voters in the West Virginia primary said that if Obama got the nomination, they would either vote for McCain or not vote at all. Obama and the DNC are desperately trying to unite the party, and though intra-party squabbles are usually ironed out by November, this year is without precedent. One cannot assume, as they say, that past experience is an accurate predictor of future performance.
Many Hillary Democrats seem to be taking a serious, principled stand in opposing Obama. It is not that they like McCain. They just think Obama would be very bad for America. After 8 years of George W. Bush, you would think party loyalty would prevail at all costs. But you would be wrong. Read the rest of this entry »
Let’s not forget to stop and smell the roses. We endured 8 years of Bill Clinton’s lying, philandering, lip-biting, and getting away with it. He sullied the Office of the Presidency (and the office of the president), and made us have to explain to our children what it means for the president to have oral sex; with a 21 year old employee; who is not his wife.
Hillary is also a lying power-monger who will (and may yet) do anything to get elected. From Travelgate to the missing Rose Law Firm billing records, she is cut from the same ragged cloth as her husband. Earlier in the primaries, before Reverend Wright made his sparkling debut, many of us would have preferred Obama over Hillary, just to drive a stake through the heart of the Clinton dynasty once and for all. The idea was to let him do what George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole could not, and we’ll deal with him after that.
But earlier in the primaries, lest we forget, she was the Inevitable Nominee. It was her experience. It was her electibility. She was the heir to the last two-term Democrat President since FDR. Everyone thought we would have to relive and re-litigate the 1990s.
But Barack slew the Dragon. In that, Republicans must rejoice. This is not to say she is gone forever. She could try a third party run. She could work behind the scenes to defeat Obama, prove to the Democrat Party they made a mistake, and run again in 2012. But she will not be the nominee and here’s to that.
She has earned more votes than anyone in the history of the Democratic primaries-more than 17 million. And when the primaries conclude on Tuesday, Hillary will maintain her popular vote advantage.
I don’t surf much in Democrat waters; if they ever caught me they’d make remote Pacific island cannibalism look like a state dinner. But I stumbled across this on a Democrat site, and though you have to read between the lines a bit, I think this Hillary supporter is not happy with Obama’s impending nomination. You be the judge.
On behalf of millions of Clinton supporters who have made it very clear that we will vote for a cockroach before we vote for Barack Obama, I would like you pieces of Obama crap to know that you can kiss our asses. We will collectively do everything in our power to see to it that you and that mysogynist, bigoted, race-baiting pig you worship, the fraud who has already set gender and racial relations back thirty years, goes down in flames in a big way. And there are millions of us. Millions. The kind of millions that brought his type down before from the voting booth.
So kindly don’t bother trying the Nicey-Nicey. We are not your wives you can beat the crap out of and later come back and get back together with. You are so vile you give yourselves away by the third comment, so really it’s a waste of time. You don’t even know you are offensive because it’s in your DNA or something. So really, there’s no sense of stressing yourselves trying to hide your disdain for us. It’s not necessary. We hate you even more than you hate us and all of you only serve to solidify our resolve. And when Barry Obama goes down in November, kindly remember why. Or don’t remember why. Nobody cares.
Hey, would you consider putting out a yard sign for the guy?
Fred Seigel writes an excellent piece to accompany the below video of Obama supporters. The man has done nothing, not one accomplishment to point to which would give people pause and say “hey, the man would be a great leader of the free world.”
Obama’s achievements in reaching out to moderate voters are largely proleptic: words aren’t deeds. And while he has few concrete achievements to his name, he does have a voting record that hardly suggests an ability to rise above Left and Right. In 2005, his first year in the Senate, the man who made a specialty of voting “present” in the Illinois State Senate refused—despite repeated entreaties—to join a bipartisan agreement among 14 senators not to filibuster President Bush’s judicial nominees. After his first two years in the Senate, National Journal’s analysis of roll call votes found that he was more liberal than 86 percent of his colleagues, and his voting record has only grown more liberal since then. The liberal Americans for Democratic Action now gives him a 97.5 percent rating, while National Journal ranks him the most liberal member of the Senate. By comparison, Hillary Clinton, who occasionally votes with the GOP, ranks 16th. Obama is such a down-the-line partisan that, according to Congressional Quarterly, he voted more often with the Democrats than did the party’s majority leader, Harry Reid.
The other night at the Florida Republican debate Mitt Romney made a great statement:
“What an audacious and arrogant thing for the Democrats to say as Hillary Clinton did that they are responsible for the progress that the surge has seen by virtue that they are trying to pull out so quickly. Look, the success over there is due to the blood and courage of service men and women and to General Petraeus and to President Bush and not to “General” Hillary Clinton.”
Undoubtedly, at the forthcoming State Of The Union address, President Bush will mention the success of the new direction in Iraq which he started a year ago. That new direction was a new SecDef, a new CENTOM commander, a new Iraq commander, new forces sent to Iraq, a new strategy in Iraq focusing on counter-insurgency and counter-Al Queda operations. This new direction has led to a dramatic decline in violence in Iraq, a decline in American casualties, a rise in American prestige around the world, and in well over half of the arbitrary political benchmarks that the Democratic Congress imposed. When they are told of this successful effort on the part of American troops, will Democrats applaud? Will they rise up in appreciation of the men and women of our armed forces, the efforts they’ve made, their heroism, and their sacrifice? OR will the Democrats sit quietly? Will they boo? It will be interesting to see how much they physically support the troops by merely standing or sitting, by clapping or hissing.
The hypocrisy is this story is quite telling, and amusing. We have highlighted the rampant hypocrisy from the Democrats for years but this story is just so….whats the word, hilarious….seeing as it was only a few days ago the Democrats were before the Supreme Court arguing how unfair the Voter ID law was:
Nevada allies of Hillary Clinton have just sued to shut down several caucus sites inside casinos along the Las Vegas Strip, potentially disenfranchising thousands of Hispanic or black shift workers who couldn’t otherwise attend the 11:30 a.m. caucus this coming Saturday.
D. Taylor, the president of the Culinary Workers Union that represents many casino workers, notes that legal complaint was filed just two days after his union endorsed Barack Obama. He says the state teachers union, most of whose leadership backs Mrs. Clinton, realized that the Culinary union would be able to use the casino caucuses to better exercise its clout on behalf of Mr. Obama, and used a law firm with Clinton ties to file the suit.
Mr. Taylor exploded after Bill Clinton came out in favor of the lawsuit on Monday, and Hillary Clinton refused to take a stand. “This is the Clinton campaign,” he said. “They tried to disenfranchise students in Iowa. Now they’re trying to disenfranchise people here in Nevada.” He later told the Journal’s June Kronholz, “You’d think the Democratic Party elite would disavow this, but the silence has been deafening.” (Late Tuesday the Democratic National Committee quietly filed a motion supporting the Nevada party’s rules.)
What did Bubba explode about? Take a look at the video:
He’s upset that supposed the workers votes would be counted with “5 times more caucus weight”, but as the reporter notes, this is not likely.
Reporter – The rules say that the casino caucus voters will be tallied based on turnout. If there is a low turnout and a very big turnout in the rural areas of Nevada then its possible that casino voters would be more powerful vote for vote but that same rule applies in lots of states. In parceling out delegates parties routinely give more weight to voters in rural areas as a way to get candidates out to campaign in those areas. In any case the casino caucuses will nominate no more then 6% of the total number of delegates, no matter what the turnout. Not 5 times more then anyone else.
Backers of the suit also say they didn’t learn about this rule until a few days ago, but the rule had been agreed on nine months ago. Do they really think that people will buy this?
Oh, and even better then all this is the fact that Democrats at these caucas sites will REQUIRE identification from those voting!
Oh the irony.
John Fund notes the thick irony even from the Obama side:
In 1995, Barack Obama sued Illinois over its voter registration rolls on behalf of the radical group ACORN, and he now rails against Clintonista attempts to shut down Nevada caucus sites and photo ID laws. But just last September, Oprah Winfrey held a lavish fundraiser for Mr. Obama at her California estate. None of the 1,500 guests could enter until they presented a government-issued photo ID that could be compared to a guest list. When asked about this, the Obama campaign had no comment.
Either way you look at this story you have to chuckle.
Democrats: “We oppose requiring people to have ID cards to vote.”
Democrats: “We require people to have ID cards to vote.”
It seems they flip-flop positions based on which side of the issue will help them the most at any given moment.
Funny how Democrats who made false accusations that Republicans wanted to disenfranchise poor and minority voters are doing just that in Nevada!
Remember all the brouhaha about the Bush campaign trying to disenfranchise Black voters in Florida? Yet, when the U.S. Civil Rights Commission issued it’s otherwise scathing report, it could find NOT ONE person denied the right to vote.
If anyone disagrees, then name Black voter who was intentionally refused the right to vote due to a Bush conspiracy to deny their rights.
You might think that Democrats would be especially sensitive to the issue since they routinely demonstrate such concern on the matter. If you thought that, you would be wrong:
…On Meet the Press on Sunday, Hillary Clinton said her campaign had nothing to do with a lawsuit–written about by Nation Editor Katrina vanden Heuvel–that threatens to prevent thousands of workers from voting in the Nevada caucus on Saturday.
Back in March, the Nevada Democratic Party agreed to set up caucus locations on the Vegas strip for low-income shift workers, many of them members of the state’s influential Culinary Union, who commute long distances to work and wouldn’t be able to get home in time to caucus. It was an uncontroversial idea until the Culinary Union endorsed Barack Obama and the Nevada State Education Association, whose top officials support Clinton, sued to shut down the caucus sites. The Clinton camp played dumb until yesterday, when President Clinton came out in favor of the lawsuit.
Clinton’s comments drew a heated response from D. Taylor, the head of Nevada’s Culinary Union, on MSNBC’s Hardball. “He is in support of disenfranchising thousands upon thousands of workers, not even just our members,” Taylor said of Clinton. “The teachers union is just being used here. We understand that. This is the Clinton campaign. They tried to disenfranchise students in Iowa. Now they’re trying to disenfranchise people here in Nevada, who are union members and people of color and women.”
Rank-and-file members of Nevada’s teachers union also come out against the lawsuit filed by their leadership. “We never thought our union and Senator Clinton would put politics ahead of what’s right for our students, but that’s exactly what they’re doing,” the letter stated. “As teachers, and proud Democrats, we hope they will drop this undemocratic lawsuit and help all Nevadans caucus, no matter which candidate they support.”
The lawsuit’s opponents make a persuasive point. Creating obstacles to voting is what the GOP does to Democrats, not what Democrats should be doing to other Democrats.
Will we see a media firestorm over this blatant attempt to disenfranchise the poor and minority voters in Nevada? Will we see an investigation by the U.S. Justice Department and U.S. Civil Rights Commission?
You know the answer: NO!
But mark my words. Next time a Republican poll worker asks a Democrat to provide identification before voting (just as they do with all voters in many states), the Dem will scream “I’m being DISENFRANCHISED!”
Voting rights and truth aren’t important here. The big lie works and the Clintons will do whatever it takes to win.
