• Beautiful diary, Tom Rinaldo.

    What is continuously baffling to me is how so many the progressive blogs don't seem to see that the Republics and Corpress are once again setting us up for a loss.

    How can the same people who have been fighting Corpress and the radical regressives for so long, now think they are being genuine in their praise and support of a Democrat? Fool me once and all that thrown out the window because those same slimeballs now seem to have seen the light and all thanks to the wondrous rhetoric of Senator Obama.

    Spare me. I see through their crap and we can rest assured if Obama wins the nomination, their ugly, dark hearts will show who's side they're still on. Unfortunately for both those who are willing to buy the crap, as well as those of us who see what's coming, it'll be too late.

    I can only hope there are enough people who remember who our enemy is, and don't fall for it. Again.

  • Hi Kevin!

    Yeah, it was the combo of RFK, Jr and Wes Clark's endorsement of Hillary that forced me to take a closer look at her. With the help of some wonderful bloggers, I didn't have to look far. Did you ever see eriposte's 3 part series titled "Is Hillary Clinton a Corporate Democrat?" Very enlightening, thorough, and eye-opening.

    Good luck with your decision. I remember how we all felt when Wes dropped out of the race in '04, and I feel so bad for all you Edwards supporters. Heart-breaking, I know. ;(

  • It blows my mind that you are the only one on this thread that bothered to watch the clip.

    There were others who said a question was cut from the video, but they were merely posters on blogs. Now a Congressman confirms this was the case, and no one seems to care that this whole thing was a media set-up against Bill.

    I thought we were supposed to be exposing media lies, but everyone seems perfectly comfortable taking them at their word.

  • I posted right above you. Bill was responding to a question that was cut from the video/transcript.

  • comment on a post Jesse Jackson speaks about Clinton's comments over 6 years ago

    who was on CNN today. He was there with Clinton when he made the Jesse Jackson comment. Meeks says there was a question cut from the video, asking Clinton about historic voting in South Carolina, and that's what he was responding to.

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/200 8/01/28/rep-meek-listen-to-what-hillarys -saying/

    If he's true, something very bad is going on, because Jake Tapper at Political Punch posted the transcript of the "entire" interview, and that question is not there. Someone needs to get their hands on the original video of the interview, but I have no clue how...

  • I heard he was on MSNBC but when I searched for the relevant clip, it turned up on CNN. He does indeed say he was there with Bill Clinton and says he was asked a question about historic voting in South Carolina.

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/200 8/01/28/rep-meek-listen-to-what-hillarys -saying/

    Unfortunately, you have to get through the ads before the piece starts. Only a few seconds, though.

  • It's strange that Meeks would bring it up, when no one except those who read about it yesterday in the comment section at Political Punch would even know there was a question asked before the one shown in the video.

    If you listen to Bill's answer to the question shown on the video, it makes no sense. When you consider it was first asked "Can Barack Obama win as a Black candidate" it makes perfect sense why he would say

    "Well, that's just bait, too. Jesse Jackson won South Caroline in '84 and '88..."

    If it turns out Jake Tapper of ABC News/Political Punch deleted info from the transcript, I'd say that's pretty huge.

  • If the poster at TPM is correct, there were 2 questions, which makes more sense because why would Bill bring up Jesse Jackson out of the blue if the question was merely (as shown):  "What does it say about Barack Obama that it takes 2 of you to beat him?" It really doesn't make sense.

    If you watch the clip up at YouTube, Bill starts out  with a laugh and says, "That's just bait, too, Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice..."

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qqd2dfjl2 pw&eurl=http://andrewsullivan.theatl antic.com/

  • http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/ro ll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?con gress=109&session=1&vote=00245

  • Actually, Obama was considering a YEA vote for Roberts but was talked out of it in 2005 by his chief of staff Pete Rouse who reminded him it could cripple a future presidential run. (which shows caving for personal political ambitions but we won't go there)

    Note the irony here though--

    Keeping within the famous Obama themes of "CHANGE" "Out with the Old DC Status Quo, and In with the NEW" - He hires as his number one guy, the insider's insider, Pete Rouse to be his chief of staff....  Rouse is known for his three decades as a Washington DC insider, beginning in 1971 when he worked as an aide to Senator Tom Daschle, later with Dick Durbin, etc. Hardly someone you'd glom onto to craft a spanking new image of freshness and departure from the "Same Old Same Old" style of beltway politics. Yet Obama selects him out of a slew of other younger less experienced offerees (per the article)  And puts him in the Decider's seat, the driver's seat --of his career.

    With that in mind, look how Obama applauds the senior old time codger who's helping him form some of the most important career decisions of his life.


    "Pete's very good at looking around the corners of decisions and playing out the implications of them," Obama said an interview.

    KEY PHRASES HERE -----> "He's been around long enough that he can recognize problems and pitfalls a lot quicker than others can."  "His familiarity with Washington makes him somebody whose judgment I trust," Obama said.


    So,' been around long enough' had real value in Obama's book when picking his leader -- And longtime familiarity with Washington DC equates with 'judgment you can trust'.  Sure sounds like Obama wants experience running his world instead of all that change/hope stuff that's supposed to be good enough for the rest of us.  The guy reminds me of those really smooth talking salesmen that place you momentarily into a semi - trance, next thing you know you've bought a car you don't like.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2007/08/26/AR2007082601446. html?nav=hcmodule

  • in 2006. Jane Hamsher at FDL has been quite vocal about NOT supporting NARAL and PP. (Link goes to google search results for FDL posts about NARAL and PP.)

    It's official -- NARAL has endorsed Joe "short ride" Lieberman.  According to Ned Lamont's campaign manager Tom Swan, Ned was not even asked to take part in the process.

    Am I the only one who is horrified by the sad state of the pro-choice movement in this country?  The one bright spot is NOW, who seems to actually care about the cause they ostensibly support with their bizarre insistence that candidates they endorse actually be pro-choice.  NARAL and Planned Parenthood just keep giving Democrats license to abandon their issues and still retain the pro-choice stamp of approval, and people who care and donate are being deluded into thinking that people like Lincoln Chafee, Maria Cantwell and Joe Lieberman -- who all voted for cloture on Alito -- are doing anything positive that isn't completely symbolic while actively participating in taking a wrecking ball to women's rights.

    http://firedoglake.com/2006/07/11/naral- endorses-lieberman/

  • comment on a post LA Times: Obama says he bungled Illinois votes over 6 years ago

    Imagine for a moment if Hillary had said and done this! LOL!! Oh my...

  • on a comment on Not On My Shift over 6 years ago

    Please stop with the misinformation. What you wrote is not true, and I suspect you know it.

  • all the information we have on Obama that contradicts what he says and what people believe about him?

    If he was scrutinized even a fraction as much as the Clintons have been, this stuff would be common knowledge. It's not. It's not like this stuff will be kept secret if he's our nominee. Better it comes out now.

  • comment on a post Obama, His Lobbyists and His Cronies over 6 years ago

    A friend who is a master googlist was curious about one of the top contributors to Obama's campaign  that she saw on Open Secrets. The company is National Amusements, Inc. and they've given a total of $220,950 to his campaign.

    What she came up with was quite surprising:

    Owner [of National Amusements, Inc] is Sumner Redstone and his daughter -- same as Viacom/ CBS. They're the ones who disabled any and all Barack Obama comments from their online news sites, in case someone might say something racist. No other candidate enjoys the disabled comment feature. In case someone might say something... sexist.

    From Wiki:

    National Amusements, Inc. is a privately owned media and entertainment company based in Dedham, Massachusetts, USA. The company was founded in 1936 as the Northeast Theatre Corporation by Michael Redstone.

    National Amusements is now owned by Michael Redstone's son, Sumner Redstone, who holds 80% of the company, and Sumner's daughter Shari Redstone who owns the remaining 20%.[1] It holds controlling voting interests in CBS Corporation, Viacom, and Midway Games. It is an equal partner in the online ticketing service MovieTickets.com and operates more than 1,500 movie screens across the United States, the United Kingdom, Latin America, and Russia under its Showcase Cinemas, Multiplex Cinemas, Cinema de Lux, and KinoStar brands. It also controls the former Paramount theaters that were disbanded in the 1948 Paramount decision.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Am usements

    (Sorry for not including all the links in the Wiki article. There are tons)


Advertise Blogads