U.S. Presidential Election 2008

[Strangelet]

Awesome!! we may see a john edwards endorsement of Obama within days

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...up-with-obama/

[BeautifulBurnout]

Originally Posted by Strangelet

Awesome!! we may see a john edwards endorsement of Obama within days

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...up-with-obama/

Well that's encouraging. I had to turn the radio off this morning when Hillz came on. I am disappointed that, once again, sharp tactics seem to be winning over sincerity.

I really do have a bad feeling about all this now. Meh.

[Jason Roth]

Originally Posted by Strangelet

Awesome!! we may see a john edwards endorsement of Obama within days

This should have happened 2 months and $100,000,000 ago.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by BeautifulBurnout

Well that's encouraging. I had to turn the radio off this morning when Hillz came on. I am disappointed that, once again, sharp tactics seem to be winning over sincerity.

I really do have a bad feeling about all this now. Meh.

Don't have a bad feeling. Hillary's tactics are working with older voters who are less inclined towards the idea of "change". Pennsylvania has the second largest population of people who are 65+ in the country - that's largely what was behind her win there. It'll be spun by Clinton's camp as much more than it is, because it's absolutely too little too late for her. She's still behind on all fronts, and has no logical way to catch up. She even needs two thirds of the remaining superdelegates, her last hope, to overtake Obama, and in the past couple months, he's been getting around 80% of the superdelegates who decide to support one candidate or the other. Hell, he got another one this morning - edit - ...and a second superdelegate this afternoon.

Fear not, young Janie.

[Strangelet]

Actually I'm not too confident either. Cllinton seems to have both the media and the GOP firmly behind her. All of a sudden North Carolina is completely uninteresting to the media and Indiana is the new tie breaker, all based on Clinton logic. The GOP is also running anti obama ads featuring Rev Wright, even against the wishes of McCain.

I really don't think I'm being paranoid to suggest there are some very powerful people who have decided they've had enough of the Obama movement.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Originally Posted by Strangelet

I really don't think I'm being paranoid to suggest there are some very powerful people who have decided they've had enough of the Obama movement.

As well as very powerful spin c*xsters.

I prefer to be optimistic and view this as The Democratic Party having two very influential figures who have a desire to lead.

[Deckard]

Originally Posted by Strangelet

I think these videos are fairly well done, although too heavy handed towards fox news whereas it seems all news networks are complicit in this political narration.

Anyhoo, this is what the american voting audience is subjected to.

Oh good god, I've just got around to watching these.

I had no idea it had become this bad! Seriously, words can't express how much anger I feel about the level of stupidity swishing around here.

In the richest nation on earth... what is going wrong???

(and no, we're not hugely better over here either, in fact we're headed point blank in the same direction as you if our broadcasting codes of conduct/media ownership rules are further "liberalized" as is planned by the Tories in the name of "opportunity", but that's another topic.)

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Originally Posted by Deckard

Oh good god, I've just got around to watching these.

I had no idea it had become this bad! Seriously, words can't express how much anger I feel about the level of stupidity swishing around here.

In the richest nation on earth... what is going wrong???

(and no, we're not hugely better over here either, in fact we're headed point blank in the same direction as you if our broadcasting codes of conduct/media ownership rules are further "liberalized" as is planned by the Tories in the name of "opportunity", but that's another topic.)

Last I checked, it's a thing called greed.

[BeautifulBurnout]

Something the law geek in me stumbled over while looking at links and comments in relation to Hillz... linky to legal pleadings. (Starts to get interesting at around para 70)

Why is no-one talking about this lawsuit taken out against the Clintons and their fundraisers by Peter F. Paul, the guy who organised the Hollywood Tribute to the Clintons in 2000 costing him more than £1.9 million as well as donating to Hillz' campaign in NY, on the basis that Bill would be an ambassador for his company when he left office? When The Washington Post revealed that Paul had a criminal record from the 70s, Hillz was very quick to lie her ass off regarding his contributions. (Paras 79 et seq.)

If his complaint is to be believed, he was further coerced that his plans to work with the President wouldn't "work out" unless he made a further contribution that he had pledged, of $150.000 in stock. (para 87)

These are just highlights, but needless to say Clinton never kept his promise of a working relationship with Paul on leaving office. And Hillz never declared his £1.9 million "in-kind" contribution to the Federal Election committee, although she did declare a fictitious £366k or so from Stan Lee Inc, Paul's associate company, which never happened. (Para 106 & 107)

This is the first time I have ever heard about this at all during the Presidential campaign. I can understand the Obama camp not wanting to get into the ole mud slinging contest, but McCain is going to have this woman on toast for breakfast if the Democrats are stupid enough to select her. Seriously.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by BeautifulBurnout

Something the law geek in me stumbled over while looking at links and comments in relation to Hillz... linky to legal pleadings. (Starts to get interesting at around para 70)

Why is no-one talking about this lawsuit taken out against the Clintons and their fundraisers by Peter F. Paul, the guy who organised the Hollywood Tribute to the Clintons in 2000 costing him more than £1.9 million as well as donating to Hillz' campaign in NY, on the basis that Bill would be an ambassador for his company when he left office? When The Washington Post revealed that Paul had a criminal record from the 70s, Hillz was very quick to lie her ass off regarding his contributions. (Paras 79 et seq.)

If his complaint is to be believed, he was further coerced that his plans to work with the President wouldn't "work out" unless he made a further contribution that he had pledged, of $150.000 in stock. (para 87)

These are just highlights, but needless to say Clinton never kept his promise of a working relationship with Paul on leaving office. And Hillz never declared his £1.9 million "in-kind" contribution to the Federal Election committee, although she did declare a fictitious £366k or so from Stan Lee Inc, Paul's associate company, which never happened. (Para 106 & 107)

This is the first time I have ever heard about this at all during the Presidential campaign. I can understand the Obama camp not wanting to get into the ole mud slinging contest, but McCain is going to have this woman on toast for breakfast if the Democrats are stupid enough to select her. Seriously.

Yeah, I've heard about this stuff. This is why it's clear to those of us who are informed that Obama has been showing restraint in how he goes after Hillary while she has shown none of the same in return. Meanwhile, Clinton supporters continue to claim that Clinton is running a clean campaign and that it's Obama who's playing dirty politics. Insane.