>>"Obama ... challenged the validity of Palmer's signatures and the signatures of his other prospective opponents. Many were ruled fake, and in one fell swoop Obama knocked every rival out of the race."
I question the validity of this statement from the Globe. How do we know that the signatures were "ruled" fake? My understanding of the petition challenge process is that you just challenge a bunch of them, and hope your opponent doesn't have the funds to prove that the signatures AREN'T fake. The burden of proof is on the petitioner, and maybe Palmer didn't have the money to face the challenge.
There were three other candidates in the primary, and they were banned from the ballot by the same tactic used by Obama.
His "luck" extended to two situations in the 2004 race for the U.S. Senate, also. His only viable opponent in the primary, Blair Hull, lost credibility when his divorce records were revealed. His first opponent in the general election, Jack Ryan, had to drop out of the race when HIS divorce records were revealed.
His much-touted 2002 speech wasn't as anti-war as he'd like you to believe. In the speech, he never said "Do not attack Iraq", or "If I were in the Senate right now, I'd vote against any resolution that could in any way be construed as giving the President the authority to send troops to Iraq." That gave him deniability, in case the war went well. http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/re
"[T]hose looking to the Obama campaign as a means of ending American militarism will be sorely disappointed. The Illinois Senator has vowed not to reduce the ballooning US military budget--which consumes an estimated $700 billion annually--but rather to increase it. He has called for the recruitment of another 65,000 soldiers for the Army as well as 27,000 more Marines. He has vowed to put 'more boots on the ground' in the 'war on terror,' the pretext invented by the Bush administration to justify 'preemptive war,' i.e., military aggression aimed at asserting US hegemony over the oil-rich regions of the Middle East and Central Asia.
"As for Iraq itself, his promises to end the war are belied by his pledge to keep American forces in Iraq to defend 'US interests' and conduct 'counterterrorism operations,' a formula that would see tens of thousands of US soldiers and Marines continuing to occupy Iraq and repress its population for many years to come." http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/feb200
PMO: Officials only got briefing from Obama campaign (The Canadian Press)
OTTAWA -- Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton never gave Canada any secret assurances about the future of NAFTA such as those allegedly offered by Barack Obama's campaign, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's office said Friday. With the NAFTA affair swirling over the U.S. election and Canadian officials skittish about saying anything else that might influence the race, it took the PMO two days to deliver the information. After being asked whether Canadian officials asked for -- or received -- any briefings from a Clinton campaign representative outlining her plans on NAFTA, a spokeswoman for the prime minister offered a response Friday. "The answer is no, they did not," said Harper spokeswoman Sandra Buckler.
GE is a big builder of nuclear power plants, and Obama won't take nuclear energy off the table in discussions about energy sources.
GE is also a big weapons manufacturer, and Obama doesn't want to cut military expenditures very much.
GE owns NBC. MSNBC has been viciously critical of Hillary Clinton during the primary, and has pumped up Obama. Chris Matthews even claims that a thrill goes up his leg (I am not making this up) when he hears Obama speak.