Oh please, TARP was passed before the 2008 election and signed into law by Bush. Calling it "Obama's bailout" shows such complete disregard of the facts, the content of the entire post loses its credibility. 

In many cases state law allows you to vote one last time in your previous precinct if you have moved. The link mydailydrunk posted above describes Michigan (60 days). In Florida, you can vote in your new precinct if you've moved recently and if you show an ID and a document with your address, even if you haven't filed an address change for your new address. You can also vote in your old precinct one last time if you've moved within 30 days.

The U.S. Voting Rights Act says you have the right to vote if you are on the rolls in the last 90 days before the election, but I'm not familiar enough with the laws and which takes precedent to say stopping victims of foreclosure would be against federal law. Someone should look into that though.

Wow that stands out...10 mil plus on hand and 12k donated. What a cheapskate!

Obama was a law professor

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index. html

Absolutely, here's an article from Wisconsin, where voter registration and get-out the vote efforts by Fair Wisconsin (opposed to the amendment) ended up contributing to the Democratic takeover of the state legislature:

...

Buy a link here

But the measure clearly had an unintended consequence by sparking a larger-than-expected turnout, especially among left-leaning college students, who flooded their campus polling places.

The result: Dems scored some unexpected gains in the Statehouse.

"We're very happy," said Rep. Mark Pocan, an openly gay Madison Democrat, "and we definitely saw this as a product of the turnout on the college campuses."

...

Wiley said he witnessed this firsthand at UW-Milwaukee on election day. Some 30 UWM students waited in line to register to vote while he was there, he said, and more than 1,000 ended up signing up to cast ballots Tuesday.

According to the left-leaning Wisconsin Public Interest Research Group, 16,837 people voted this week in the 10 wards in and around the UW-Madison campus, compared with 10,140 in the same wards in 2002 - a whopping 66% increase.

...

Here's an article by a Log Cabin Republican for the politico who makes an interesting point:

...

In 2006, the five Republicans who used marriage most prominently as a wedge issue all lost. Sens. Rick Santorum (Pa.) and George Allen (Va.), Reps. John Hostetler (Ind.) and Anne Northup (Ky.), and Ken Blackwell (in his race for Ohio governor) tried to win with anti-gay campaign tactics. They didn't necessarily lose because of their tactics, but these tactics didn't prevent them from losing, as they might have a decade ago.

...

Also the exit polls from the defeated Arizona proposition 107 provide nice goalposts for future opposition campaigns.

As a member of my local Young Democrats chapter here in Florida, we are actively working against the amendment. Attacking gay Americans is becoming a double-edge sword for Republicans, while they may increase turnout for conservatives slightly, they are  also activating the youth vote and pushing the young pro-equality generation more solidly in the Democratic direction.

There is ample evidence to suggest that the anti-gay constitutional amendments in 2006 brought more young Democrats to the polls.

How is splitting the uncommitted vote 50-50 fair? That's absolutely ridiculous. Michigan was an unfair election, but the voters who chose uncommitted had the option of choosing Hillary Clinton. They didn't. They did not have the option of voting for Senator Obama. How is it fair to allocate half those delegates to her when all those uncommitted voters had the choice to vote for her but didn't?

For what its worth, most of the Florida Dem delegation are Clinton supporters (Wexler and Castor are the only Obama supporters I know of). They are against a revote because they want the Jan 29 results to stand, not because they don't want representation at all.

I agree with him on many things, I just don't understand why he has to be so inflammatory. Todd Beton is a Clinton supporter, and I like almost everything he writes. He's fair and honest and calls both candidates out when they say something wrong.

Jerome seems fixated on the Presidential primary (when has he last posted about something else? and how often?) and he's always offering criticism of Obama, never a positive evaluation of Clinton.

"It's our view that the state parties and the DNC need to work this out,'' Burton added. "Whatever the resolution,' we are looking forward to building a winning campaign in Michigan in the general election.''

Yeah, they're totally punting? I don't see anything other than an opposition to seating the delegates in the two states as currently allocated.

Obviously, both states have the right to have contests that comply with DNC rules. The "firehouse" primary in Michigan or caucuses sound good to me. I think a mail-in primary in Florida is the way to go. If the Obama campaign seriously opposed that, I'd disagree.

I see no indication that they do. Hell, a recent poll shows Obama tied with Clinton in Michigan and a "firehouse" primary or caucus could only benefit him there (certainly better than a 80=1 delegate split).  

Jerome is simply demagoguing and going hysterical on this issue.

Even if Clinton wins PA, Obama can win IN and NC. Obama might have to win PA to stop this from going until May or June (or the convention), but it wouldn't be a deathblow to his campaign. And like it or not, a delegate in WY or MS is just as good as a delegate in TX or OH. Stop acting like this is a winner take all contest. Winning by 4% in a large state is just not the same as winning by 17-20% in three medium states.

What I find hilarious is that you're using the fact that Obama won 12 contests in a row as a negative against him. He won 12 in a row and only closed 10 or 16 of a 20 point gap in two states in two weeks. He's surely a goner!

I think Obama can forgo the angry Republican troll vote without ill effect.

I don't do alcohol, but something tells me my liver would have a tougher time processing the uranium.

Okay, nevermind. Barhu is obviously a troll, but please don't ban him, he's too entertaining!

I hope you continue to post here, Barhu. Please do. Because while you waste your time here somehow thinking you're helping your buddy McCain, other people are out knocking on doors, making phone calls, and working long shifts to make small donations that, combined together, will put a Democrat in the White House and change this country.

By the way, good luck with the anger management problem!

But seriously, he should be banned.

I don't do alcohol, but something tells me my liver would have a tougher time processing the uranium.

Okay, nevermind. Barhu is obviously a troll, but please don't ban him, he's too entertaining!

I hope you continue to post here, Barhu. Please do. Because while you waste your time here somehow thinking you're helping your buddy McCain, other people are out knocking on doors, making phone calls, and working long shifts to make small donations that, combined together, will put a Democrat in the White House and change this country.

By the way, good luck with the anger management problem!

But seriously, he should be banned.

Thanks for your "concern." It's noted.

By the way, can you point to a single instance where you've actually promoted Hillary Clinton, you know, argued for why we should vote for her? There are plenty of positive reasons to support Hillary Clinton, but you don't seem to have expressed any.  Have you ever posted a single diary or comment that is not specifically trashing Barack Obama?

A review of your diary and comment history suggests you have not. You haven't even been here a month. You are here for the express purpose of tearing down a Democratic candidate.

By the way, for our curious readers, here's Barhu in one of his first diaries:

"What the rest of the country will see is a Big City Urban Liberal Machine Politician who wants to surrender to Al-Qaeda, raise your taxes through the roof and take all your guns away. Democrats would know this if they actually looked at this moron's record before voting. Democrats will never do that because they are Democrats. Meaning, they are idiots of the highest order. So the idiot liberals nominate someone who makes them feel good, but who cannot, should not and will not win.

Typical, typical Democrats."

(emphasis mine)

I seriously doubt you are even a Democrat.