McCain tries to play Dems for fools (again)
It makes perfect sense that the McCain campaign would make at least cursory efforts to reach out to Hillary Clinton’s most ardent supporters. John McCain does, after all, have very little to lose. There are some lingering hard feelings after the longest and closest Democratic presidential primary ever, and even though the intra-party factions agree on everything and share a common agenda, McCain hopes to convince a few Dems that his ideas, vision, issue positions, platform, and voting record are completely irrelevant in a presidential campaign.
As far as McCain is concerned, if it works, great — he’ll be the first conservative Republican to succeed with the support of liberal Democrats. If it doesn’t work, McCain might score a few points with independents who appreciate his outreach. Either way, it’s time well spent.
But in his drive to divide Dems, McCain has once again embraced the role of con man.
After his public conference call with Clinton supporters … Saturday, John McCain met privately with some 75 of those supporters in his Virginia headquarters, two people who were there said.
McCain’s staff extended the last-minute invitation to Clinton die-hards, including a founder of a group called “Party Unity, My Ass” (PUMA), and substantial numbers came from Washington, D.C., and New York. They represented passionate campaign volunteers and supporters, but they’re essentially a marginal group in Clinton’s orbit, including no one with a prominent campaign role, public office, or close relationship with the candidate.
“He stayed for a good almost half hour afterwards shaking hands, listening to our concerns, talking to us,” said PUMA founder Will Bower, who said he thought many of the people there would vote for McCain.
McCain, of course, is anxious to stack the federal judiciary with very conservative jurists. Asked about this last night, McCain assured Clinton supporters that “he supported Bill Clinton with both Ginsburg and Breyer.”
Similarly, when asked about marriage equality for gay couples, one attendee said McCain explained that his position is “the same as [John] Kerry’s position.”
In other words, in attempting to divide Democrats, McCain has decided to try blatant deception, and hope Clinton supporters don’t know the difference. There’s no reason on earth to think this will work. Plenty of Clinton supporters are disappointed and resentful, but they’re not crazy.
On judges, McCain thinks voting to confirm Ginsburg and Breyer is evidence of moderation. That’s absurd. Breyer was confirmed with an 87-vote majority. For that matter, 96 senators voted to confirm Ginsburg. Voting with the majority was hardly a bold act of courage for McCain.
Indeed, even pointing to these two votes is a classic red herring. The question isn’t whether McCain voted to confirm qualified judges nominated by a Democratic president, the question is what McCain will do to the judiciary if he’s the president. We already know the answer to that question — because McCain has told us over and over again of his deeply-held desire to make the courts even more conservative than they are now.
Indeed, McCain is telling anyone who will listen that he’d be even further to the right than Bush on this issue, subtly criticizing Griswold, and by extension, the very notion of a right to privacy. McCain did, after all, champion Robert Bork’s nomination. “Might he really be a ‘maverick’ when it comes to the Supreme Court? The answer, almost certainly, is no. The Senator has long touted his opposition to Roe, and has voted for every one of Bush’s judicial appointments; the rhetoric of his speech shows that he is getting his advice on the Court from the most extreme elements of the conservative movement.”
What’s more, McCain will not only replace Supreme Court justices, but also lower-court judges and entire executive-branch bureaucracy with conservative Republican officials.
How conservative is McCain on judges? Even Joe Lieberman has expressed concerns about McCain and the judiciary — and I refuse to believe that resentful Clinton supporters are to Lieberman’s right on this issue.
As for gay rights, for McCain to equate his position with John Kerry’s is utterly ridiculous. Kerry supports civil unions, McCain doesn’t. Kerry supports allowing gay Americans to serve openly in the military, McCain doesn’t. Hell, McCain actively supported and campaigned for an amendment to Arizona’s constitution that would “ban gay marriages and deny government benefits to unmarried couples.” Similar to Kerry? Not so much.
Yesterday, a long-time friend of the blog, who was largely sympathetic to Clinton during the primaries, noted that these hard feelings in Democratic circles are a “personal, emotional thing.” He argued that it’s a mistake to “reason with strong feelings.”
Fair enough. Emotional reactions often don’t make sense; emotions sometimes even lead people to make horrible mistakes that they later regret. I get it.
But in this case, McCain is trying to reason with strong feelings by perpetrating a fraud, pretending to be something he’s not. I’m hard pressed to imagine anyone who was smart enough to be a progressive Democrat being foolish enough to fall for such a transparent scam.
Politico also provied a list of former Clinton supporters who now support McCain. The McCain campaign is trying to say the following individuals are prominent HRC supporters. Prominent, what do you think?
Former Phoenix Mayor Paul Johnson (Arizona)
Former Arizona State Legislator Phil Hubbard (Arizona)
Mammoth Mayor Craig Williams (Arizona)
Former Arizona LULAC Director Ray Gans (Arizona)
Democratic 25th Precinct Chair Silverio “Silver” Salazar (Colorado)
Adviser to Democratic Presidential Candidates and Georgetown University Professor Robert Lieber (District of Columbia)
Blogger on HillaryClinton.com Renee Slater (Florida)
Former Sheriff of Highlands County Howard Godwin (Florida)
Jewish Outreach Adviser to Senator Hillary Clinton Rabbi Cheryl Jacobs
Georgia Political Director for Gore-Lieberman ’00 Joseph O’Farrell Jr. (Georgia)
Former Democratic Des Moines County Chair Bruce Shulte (Illinois)
Former State Representative Brian Golden (Massachusetts)
Commander of Newport Memorial-VFW Post 1119 Francis Harding, Jr. (Maine)
Former Palmyra Budget Committee Member Herb Bates (Maine)
Former Lt. Governor and State Supreme Court Justice Alexander “Sandy” Keith (Minnesota)
Former U.S Representative and 2002 Independence Party gubernatorial candidate Tim Penny (Minnesota)
Former State Representative Steve Wenzel (Minnesota)
City Clerk Judi May (Mississippi)
County Supervisor Gary Dearman (Mississippi)
Alderman Bill Mosby (Mississippi)
Former State Representative Jim Gamache (Missouri)
Presiding Commissioner in New Madrid County, Clyde Hawes (Missouri)
Former Concord Mayor Bill Veroneau (New Hampshire)
Former Democratic Mayor of Waterford Township George Fallon (New J ersey)
Former Democratic Committeeman in Warren Township Jeffrey Golkin (New Jersey)
Former State Chair of Environmentalists for Clinton-Gore 1992 Roberta Weisbrod (New York)
Former Majority Leader in the State Senate David Carlin (Rhode Island)
Former Texas Democratic Party Chairman Roy Orr (Texas)
Elected National Delegate for Senator Hillary Clinton Debra Bartoshevich (Wisconsin)
Former Democratic gubernatorial candidate Philip Frye (West Virginia)
Should read Former elected National Delegate for Hilllary Clinton
All a bunch of has-beens like McSame
It’s interesting that in January one of the most common arguments used by Clinton supporters was that we needed someone tough enough to fight the dirty campaign tactics of the Republicans. Then the argument became that Obama doesn’t have “specifics”. Anyone who would switch from Clinton to McCain certanly is beyond reason. But I think it’s also beyond normal emotion. I would have to opt for fundamental insincerity.
Looks like a list of Joe Liberman Republicans. We should be working to find Democratic replacements for the one’s who aren’ “former”.
Is there video of him saying his position on gay marriage is the same as John Kerry? That could kill his campaign right there.
Some of the PUMA’s may have a problem with a black candidate. (There’s more of that out there than I would have imagined).
Other Hillary supporters will come right out and say it: “I want Bill back.”
There are mindless, unthinking Democrats out there, just as there are mindless, unthinking Republicans. (I like to think that there are more of the latter.)
Winning this election means convincing millions of Democrats, Independents, and the more sensible Republicans to turn out for Obama. If a few Hillary supporters can’t be convinced, we’ll just have to let them go while we hope they come to their senses.
I think that a lot of these Clinton supporters do not believe that McCain will win, so they’re going to do the only thing they can to punish the guy who beat their candidate (who they feel was robbed of this year’s opportunity). Bush has set the stage for a huge Democratic year, and these people know that whoever was at the top of the ticket was going to get to enjoy that. They were waiting for their time, and now it looks like it’s not going to come, because 8 yrs from now she’ll be even less electable than she is now.
There will always be quite a few people who will be willing to cut off their noses to spite their faces. It’s completely illogical, so I’m thinking that by November most of them will quietly change their minds, but I’m pretty sure that there will be some for McCain to crow about in November.
But there will be a lot more people for us to talk about, who have always voted Republican and will now, for the first time, be voting for our team.
Of course, I had to skip over to Puma and take a quick look. Check out their credo…if anyone, in their right mind, thinks that Mcbush represents that credo, then I’ve got some lake front property in the Sahara for sale, cheap…I don’t know if these are people just licking their wounds cause 18 million people didn’t agree with them and the candidate they supported did not gain the necessary delegate count or if in fact they’ve been drinking some bad kool-aid and are desperately in need of medical attention but either way at this point they just need to take a deep breath and figure out what is really important to them in their everyday life and the lives of those they love. If all they want is to wallow in their personal misery and bemoan the “unfairness” of life, well I guess that’s their right, but they shouldn’t project their personal problems on the whole Democratic Party. Are there problems?, sure, is a vote for Mcant the correct way to deal with that problem…no f-in way….
Why am I guessing that members of PUMA would see sexism if someone were to see viscious cattiness in the name.
There’s a word for Hillary supporters who would vote for McCorpse. it starts with an “R”.
Plenty are not, but plenty are too, especially the ones who’d rather slit their wrists than vote for Obama.
I think they left Beauford Co. (SC) Anti-Cruelty Officer Davis B. Davis off of that list. 🙂
Perfect example of people happy to cut off their own noses to spite their faces. If this is the kind of person Hillary attracted – it is one more reason we can be relieved that she did not get the nomination.
Are we supposed to forgive Obama’s gang rape of Hillary for months? Are we supposed to forgive Obama for his sexist campaign?
If Hillary is not the Dem nominee, my family and I will be voting for Mccain!
It is evident that the black voter has voted based on race and will overwhelmingly vote lockstep for obama. But, the question to me is why would anyone else vote for obama? They are obviously not putting country before party. They seem not to have reasoning ability. Most will never personally know the person they vote for. The way most people decide if they would vote for a particular candidate is to review all information available on said candidate. Millions of democrats have reviewed said information and who, like me, have came to the conclusion that obama is not the person to lead America. His resume / history is far to left of center, his deep roots, and lengthy associations with those who espouse, black power racism, socialism, marxism, and some of which are involved either by perception or have been convicted of corruption. Obams history makes one think of the old saying, “birds of a feather always flock together.” These associations are very weighty to many in the electorate as obamas legislative resume lacks substance and or accomplishments. Obama is not the quality of candidate that the aforementioned democrats are looking for in a President. They will always vote for what they believe to be in the best interest of America. Accordingly, my vote will go for MCCain, no matter if Clinton should be on the democrat ticket as VP. Obama is wrong for America.
used2bdemocrat , I am a lifelong Democrat who reads positions and decides his choice based on facts. I’ve read McCain’s positions, and Clinton’s positions and Obama’s positions and decided that Obama speaks for me. Clinton would have gotten my vote had she secured the nomination. Full disclosure: my favorite was Kucinich.
I read and research both the Democratic and Republican positions and come to a conclusion based on reasearch, not Fox News. Your disjointed screed is obviously the product of too much cable television and right wing radio. You repeat talking points. You don’t come accross as very informed.
Open your mind and research, not regurgitate.
Do others see a real line of McCarthyistic redbaiting in #s 14 & 15 above? Themes like this have run through the whole campaign, coming from some in the Clinton camp and directed at other Democrats, alternating with complaints of “sexism” directed at them. Where, for example, was or is the sexism in Obama’s campaign, which, whether you supported him or not (and I didn’t) has gone out of its way to be evenhanded, uplifting and inspiring?
Many, though not all, supposed sexist remarks (some have mentioned the trio of Matthews, Barnicle and Carlson — only question there is why anybody would listen to them at all) have come from Democrats and commentators like Olbermann frustrated at Clinton’s inability to concede the obvious: the race was statistically over after Super Tuesday, and stringing it out for three months cost us dearly in time, money and unity. That’s not sexist, and to pretend it was is, yes, sexist, as are the actions of those who’d rather lose a Presidency than a debating point.
So the PUMA acronym may have some unintentional validity after all.
Those who are now switcing from being a democrat to Maccain, are not in anyway or by any reason going to vote for Obama from the onset. Hillary losing the nomination is just a coverup. There are some so called democrats, who will rather forgo the democrats principles and values than voting for a black guy as a president.
What baffles me, is seen people making much ado about nothing.
Facts are facts, They are even good folks for having the confidence of coming to the open and let there intention be known rather than lying to the pollsters.
Take it or leave it…….. “Race is still a factor”
In general, democrats are idiots. How else do you explain there nomination of a morally corrupt ex-muslim marxist for president?
At least this has given us a name for ‘deranged Hillary supporters planning to vote for McCain.’ PUMAs. Saves typing and awkwardness.
Now to our current PUMA, Denise. (I have comments on the whole post – but later.)
I am going to break the ‘no troll feeding’ rule, because we’ve been getting so much of this that when I open posts here, one of my cats — the milk lover — starts sniffing the screen, knowing there has to be a cow in there somewhere.
“Gang rape”? I will only shake my head at the reaction of those women (and men) who, sadly, have learned by direct experience what the term means — or those relatives, friends, or lovers who have seen the results second hand, and have also suffered as the victim’s personality and look on life has been changed by the trauma.
But let’s see what actually occurred.
Last December, eight people were actively competing for the Democratic nomination, four sitting Senators (Biden, Clinton, Dodd and Obama), two ex-Senators (Edwards and Gravel, one Representative (Kucinich) and one Governor(Richardson). At the time, the ‘obvious choice’ was Clinton. She had, by far, the most money. Only Edwards came close to matching her for name recognition. She represented a ‘big state.’ If she had considerably less experience than Richardson, and had been a Senator for far less time than Dodd — whose father had also been a Senator — though a disgraced one — or Biden, her time as First Lady added to her resume.
She was the Front Runner — but she should have had enough knowledge of recent times to know that ‘front runners’ and ‘the most experienced’ didn’t win very often — in either Party, but especially among Democrats. Her own husband had not started out as the front runner — but his hard work and skill at campaigning brought him the nod.
Okay, so the primaries started, and to everybody’s surprise, her main opponent proved to be Sen. Barack Obama. (I still recall the cartoon after Iowa that showed her, donning royal robes and preparing for her ‘coronation’ only to discover Obama standing on her train giving a speech.)
There were a lot of people who worried about her as a candidate. She had a lot of baggage — both real and imagined. Whitewater had been a hoax on the public, and nobody gave any credence to the Vince Foster rumors, and rightly so. And opinion was split as to whether she had done the right thing during the Lewinsky mess, but no one could really use this against her. But there were a lot of problems that were real, David Hsu’s criminal problems, the Lincoln bedroom story, the pardon of Frank Rich. And quite a few of us were worried that her nomination would bring the whole ‘right-wing conspiracy’ — which had existed — back into play, and would be the one thing that could unite the Republicans, whose fragmentation was already visible.
Much of her appeal was due to her husband’s presidency, but if she were to claim that, she would have to accept blame for DADT, for DOMA, and for other actions that were questionable.
Above all, her vote for AUFI and her refusal to take the lead against the war, against the abuses of the Constitution, and against the corruption of the Bush
errorera was a serious problem for her. (A late conversion wouldn’t have hurt her. People forget, when they think of RFK, that it took him until 1968 to come out against the war, and that many people criticized him for it. But she ducked and bobbed instead of simply saying “I made a mistake. I regret it. And I am going to work like hell to make sure that my mistake will be corrected” — much as Sen. Fullbright had done.)Whatever, she was a Democrat, she was the front runner, and she certainly was better in every way than any of the Republicans. There is no doubt that had she won, every one of us would have worked our hearts out to get her elected. Many of us even looked forward with glee to what was expected to be a Clinton v Giuliani race.
But it was an election, not a coronation, and very soon everyone but Obama, Edwards and Clinton had dropped out. And yes, there were a lot of us who supported Obama — or Edwards — because we were afraid of her ability to unify Republicans against her, and because we really didn’t want the sort of slime-filled campaign that her candidacy would have brought. (Others said she was the best candidate to fight back against the slime, that she’d shown she could return dirty for dirty. But we weren’t sure that out-Republicaning the Republicans was the best way to go even if it would work.)
Okay, now we (finally) get to the supposed ‘gang rape.’ Here was Obama, subtly, evilly declaring “before this campaign Sen. Clinton and I were friends, and after it is over I expect we will still be friends.” Here was Obama, obviously using some Machivellian plot, refusing to use any of that massive baggage against her, except her votes on the War. Here was Obama insisting that whichever candidate won, they would be light-years better than McCain, by now the likely Republican nominee, and arguing the primaries should be about who was better to fight him. (How awful of him!) He even ‘masked his true intent’ by firing a high-level staffer who insulted her.
(And certainly someone on his staff had heard about McAuliffe’s Tancredo-like comments on immigration on NPR. But even when he saw that he was trailing among Hispanics, and when he knew that reprinting that quote — and pointing out that McAuliffe was still a prominent member of Hillary’s staff — would swing many Hispanics, the monster actually refused to mention it. What incredible evil must have led to this!)
And even after her comments praising McCain at Obama’s expense had angered the entire blogosphere, had caused many people who had previously said they would support either candidate to turn against her, there was Obama subtly repeating the ‘friends’ line.
When the math had turned irretreivably in Obama’s favor, when her only chance for the nomination was to attack Obama so seriously that she would wound his chances in the GE, and swing Superdelegates — and pledged delegates — into her column — when bloggers and mainstream politicians were begging her to drop out because she was hurting the party, Obama — how dare he — insisted that there was nothing wrong in the race continuing until the end, and refusing to call for her withdrawal. (Of course, by saying this, he was really trying to ‘push her out.’)
And when the nomination had been settled, when Obama had clinched, and she still had a meeting — in which the McAuliffe announced her as ‘the next President.’ — continuing her campaign and ‘spoiling’ a night that should have been a triumph for Obama and the whole party — there was Obama still nefariously saying ‘give her and her supporters time to heal.’
Then throw in the number of times when Obama argued that ‘as a woman she was unqualified to be president’ (what was the number? oh yes, zero.) Throw in the number of speeches in which Obama played the ‘racial card.’ (Same number.)
Some ‘gang rape.’
I think if anything the undecided vote is practically most of the electorate.I cast my first vote for president 32 years ago and have been active in every campaign since.I don’t believe I’ve ever encountered more people in both parties contemplating abandoning the nominee.The polls in June are now and historically useless.Most people are frankly not locked in yet.The choice of vice-presidential candidates,the conventions and the debates can change everything.I hear this confident talk of another 1932…please knock it off…we Democrats have had Congress since 2006 and we’re not much more popular than the Republicans.We have seen nothing of the paid media campaign,not to mention the 527 buys.Both candidates are vulnerable to negative plays.Sorry,people,the Reverend Wright is an ongoing disaster…but of course there is McCain’s 100 years in Iraq quip.Finally,the so-called money gap between the candates is more apparent than real.Think more in terms of Republican vs. Democrat and there is no gap.The anti-Obama message will be lucratively financed;McCain will make McCain noises but he’s going to benefit anyway.There is a long long way to go.
They represented passionate campaign volunteers and supporters, but they’re essentially a marginal group in Clinton’s orbit, including no one with a prominent campaign role, public office, or close relationship with the candidate. — Ben Smith, @ Politico
Always suspected that, but it’s good to have my guess confirmed: “a little (small?) dog yaps the most”, as we used to say in Poland.
I didn’t read the whole article so thanks, Micheline @1, for the list of the “prominent” defectors. Has anyone else been struck (and amused) by the gender gap? Of the 30 names listed, only 5 are female and, of those females one — Debra Bartoshevich (dumb Polack) — has already been rendered toothless, as Anonymous, @2 has pointed out.
Very Republican; the ladies need Daddy to tell them what to think.
Thank you Jim Benton, I agree wholeheartedly with your defense of Obama’s supposed “gang rape.” I can understand HRC supporters being angry with some of the pundits in MSM, but I am baffled by their anger towards Obama. He defended Hillary and Bill every time they were accused of race baiting, heck he even tried to calm the ire when people became outraged by her comments about RFK’s assassination. Taking it even further, he even accepted Huckabee’s apology for his horrible joke. He accepted all of the Clinton apologies, whereas they did not accept any of his. He continuously attempts to lift the discussion away from smear tactics. He did not return tit-for-tat when Hillary said that McCain was more qualified to be Commander in Chief, he never said she could not win the general election… Obama did not initiate swift boat tactics such as Hill’s NAFTA hypocrisies, he did not return her Rev. Wright comments with insinuations about the Clinton connections to Billy Graham, Louis Farrakhan, Black Panthers, Mark Rich, etc. He did not bring up Bill’s Impeachment and the sex scandals, his connections to Columbia and Middle Eastern contributors, etc. I find it ridiculous when HRC or MCCain supporters deride Obama for his connections when they have many more than him, simply because they have been in the political game longer and have forged more alliances that inevitably have ties to foreign governments and “radical” groups. He did not deride HRC supporters, whereas she discounted Caucus and “Red” States, acted as if all of his followers were cultish or naive, derided progressive activists… Obama supporters were incensed by Hillary and her campaign’s attacks, but were much more willing to forgive her and to say that they would indeed vote for her in the General than her supporters were of him. HRC supporters defecting to McCain tout his experience, discounting some of our more admired Presidents who had no more experience than Obama. Abraham Lincoln for one, had an almost identical record (he had the same experience in Illinois and two years in Congress before his nomination) and he is widely considered to be one of our most beloved Presidents.
Leaders are chosen for their ability to inspire and unite, not for their experience in Washington. Why is it that experience in organizing people, empowering the disenfranchised, lending voice to the unheard, and running a nearly impeccable campaign disrespected? Even if some don’t like Barack Obama, they should at least admit that he ran a tough race and revolutionized campaign fund raising. Hillary and her legislative followers stand to benefit from the change that Barack has already brought to elections. Us little people who contributed less than $100 will be more than happy to contribute the little that we can to Hillary, et al in the future. The least they can do is be respectful of us.
I know those two small towns in Maine-Newport and Palmyra–both are little country towns. I am certain those men are great Clinton supporters but they can’t be all that many Democrats in there. So not so prominent.
Let’s see McCain do this! Or Bush for that matter!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARt-OJKKfQY&eurl=http://www.jedreport.com/2008/06/mccain-2005-vs.html?disqus_reply=679611
Good job Jim Benton. Denise, you should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting that Obama “gang raped” Hilliary. That is not only offensive to women who have been raped, but what a bunch of crap! I’m a woman and I support Obama because he does support womens issue, and McCain does not. Educate yourself, read, stop listening to Fox proganda and get a back bone. McCain is the anit-Hilliary. You would seriously vote for McCain because Obama won thedemocratic nomination, and Hilliary didn’t? Vote McSame and you vote for the continuation of the Iraq war (a war they lied about and was preemptive) with another possible Iranian war for the GOP’s call for imperialism, corporations influencing american policy, continued government secrecy and hidden agendas (which is unpatriotic), corruption, continued decrease in civil liberties, a continued war against science and stell cell research, decrease in women’s right, particularly their right to choose abortion (if necessary), enviromental policies that continue to hurt our world, stonewalling and stonewalling the stonewalling. The list goes on. You, democratic traitors, need to get over yourself. Hilliary will be involved in the Obama presidency. Vote for McSame and know that you will go down in history as a person who supported a George Bushes third presidency. Historians will not be kind when the truth be told and people realize what they did because of their collective stupidity. Good Day!
Looks like a lot of hate in here. You all wonder why nothing gets done when all you want all or nothing. McCain is the only one running who has worked with both sides. It is just too funny when McCain was a thorn in the side of W and republicans the lefty’s love him and now that he is running for president he is worse then W. I know you ladies want it both ways but you are going to have a hard time.
Kabookey, or whatever your name is, you are once again ignoring facts and talking about emotions. I don’t know how can can speak for what “lefty’s” love or don’t love about McSame. You are presumptous to speak for a large group of people you don’t even seem to be affiliated with. You would be a good Repuglican news commentator by stonewalling the facts and not addressing the issues at hand of the American people. Another repuglican idiot on the Carpetbagger.
On June 15th, 2008 at 10:08 pm, Getalife said:
Kabookey, or whatever your name is, you are once again ignoring facts and talking about emotions. I don’t know how can can speak for what “lefty’s” love or don’t love about McSame. You are presumptous to speak for a large group of people you don’t even seem to be affiliated with. You would be a good Repuglican news commentator by stonewalling the facts and not addressing the issues at hand of the American people. Another repuglican idiot on the Carpetbagger.
—————————————————————————————–
I think you proved my point with that obvious hate you have for anyone that does not agree with you. Are you interested in moving the country forward or just an endless back and forth that solves nothing and does nothing. Saint O has done nothing to let anyone think he is willing to work with anyone but Teddy K or Dickie Durbin. Now maybe you can or can’t see the fact that a leader is someone who is not afraid to work with anyone in order to move the country forward. Saint O is a go along to get along. Perfect example was his 20 years of hanging in Rev Wright’s hood without ever saying a word. The same stuff caught on tape is the same person Rev Wright is and Saint O knew that and tried to buffalo the country into thinking otherwise and when that didn’t work he tossed Rev Wrong like yesterday’s tacos.
. On June 15th, 2008 at 1:23 pm, Antony said:
Those who are now switcing from being a democrat to Maccain, are not in anyway or by any reason going to vote for Obama from the onset. Hillary losing the nomination is just a coverup. There are some so called democrats, who will rather forgo the democrats principles and values than voting for a black guy as a president.
What baffles me, is seen people making much ado about nothing.
Facts are facts, They are even good folks for having the confidence of coming to the open and let there intention be known rather than lying to the pollsters.
Take it or leave it…….. “Race is still a factor
————————————————————————–
Yes “race is a factor” hence the 92 % of black people voting for Saint O without him ever going to a black neighborhood or town hall meeting to campaign for those votes. Yes “race is a factort” and will be in November
Kobookey, I actually laugh at your nonsense. I may feel pity for your uneducated views, but I don’t hate you kobookey. P.S. read a book, preferably not one by Anne Coultier.
Kabookey: YOU are throwing around Jeremiah Wright and have the gall to accuse OTHERS of obvous hate? Look in the miror and remove your white hood and robes.
32. On June 15th, 2008 at 11:19 pm, Mandy said:
Kabookey: YOU are throwing around Jeremiah Wright and have the gall to accuse OTHERS of obvous hate? Look in the miror and remove your white hood and robes.
———————————————–
awww yes must be a racist to actually use the name of a racist like Rev Wright. I know you pulled that one from the O playbook. Too funny, come one share the hate ladies.
#14 might as well say I’m voting for Bush again. Forget the people involved, it’s the country we are trying to save and voting McCain is to vote for continuing this disaster.
#15 you are deluded. Many black people voted for Hillary. Saying something as stupid as Black people vote lockstep for their race is as dumb as saying white people only vote for whites. Your generalizations have no validity in reality but act as justification for your deluded behavior. I feel sorry for you if you truly believe what you’ve written.
McCain spoke to 75 Clinton supporters and this is somehow a big deal. I’m sure at least 75 Romney or Huckabee supporters will vote Obama too. Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill for the sake of journalistic discussion…Shame on you Steve. 75 people??…that should really affect the election. Most people are voting on the issues and not the personalities.
Obama stands for everything Clinton stood for so apparently these people are not really Hillary supporters as she now supports Obama who stands for what she believes in. Their bitterness has nothing to do with the campaigns but stem from personality disorders. Example…” I stand for everything this man stands for and because I lost the primary race I now support him so if you supported me then you’ll still support me by supporting him. How can you claim to be a Hillary supporter and not support her decision to support Obama. Answer: You never were a Hillary supporter you were just anti Obama.
So Steve, McCain addressed people who are anti-Obama…not Hillary supporters…who are trying to determine not who they support but who they hate the most. Like I said…personality disorders.
Dawning a military uniform does not make one an expert on the military or foreign affairs.
30 yrs of making the same mistakes over and over again is not “experience” …it is a reputation.
McCain has never been a thorn in Bush’s side and there is even video of him saying that he is lock step with Bush on all the issues.
And you have yet to google or explain the USS Forestal incident involving McCain’s hot headed show off trick that got so many Americans killed. His physical scars are not from torture but from his plane crash.
And did I mention that he is 100% disabled and collecting $58,000 in disability from the military despite the fact that he earns over $150K from working as a senator and is married to a very wealthy wife. Talk about manipulating the system.
Also McCain never worked both sides of the isle, he merely manipulated the isles. A condescending phony hypocrite who will lie and do or say anything to be president. You just don’t know the real McCain…he really voted against a MLK day too.
On June 16th, 2008 at 12:56 am, joey said:
Dawning a military uniform does not make one an expert on the military or foreign affairs.
30 yrs of making the same mistakes over and over again is not “experience” …it is a reputation.
McCain has never been a thorn in Bush’s side and there is even video of him saying that he is lock step with Bush on all the issues.
And you have yet to google or explain the USS Forestal incident involving McCain’s hot headed show off trick that got so many Americans killed. His physical scars are not from torture but from his plane crash.
And did I mention that he is 100% disabled and collecting $58,000 in disability from the military despite the fact that he earns over $150K from working as a senator and is married to a very wealthy wife. Talk about manipulating the system.
Also McCain never worked both sides of the isle, he merely manipulated the isles. A condescending phony hypocrite who will lie and do or say anything to be president. You just don’t know the real McCain…he really voted against a MLK day too
———————————————-
LOL, now the O supporters want to claim McCain-Fiengold and McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Leiberman and every other bill was a fake, Man you are drinking the water there now. I guess Saint O has a list of bills working across the aisle? Yea I thought so.
Kabookey:
I would always rather hit people with facts than names, so just to wipe away one of your claims, it was Obama who joined with Tom Coburn, one of the most conservative Republicans in the Senate on the Coburn-Obama Open Government Act (not the name, it’s too late tonight to get it exact). He did it not by ‘triangulating’ but by recognizing that Coburn and he were agreed on this if on nothing else. (In one debate, after the Wright thing came out, he even referred to this, and to how it didn’t mean he agreed with Coburn’s more absurd positions.
In the Illinois Legislature, he worked on a bill to guarantee the video taping of all police interrogations. Of course he was opposed by a lot of Republicans at first — and ‘downstate’ rural Illinois legislators are frequently extremely conservative ‘support your local police’ types.
He could have passed the bill easily against their opposition, with the Democrats and a few Republicans voting “Aye.” And think of the political advantage he could have gained if he’d done just that, and used the ‘Nay” votes against not just the opponents but Republicans in general.
But the bill was more important than the politics to him, and he knew the more votes it got, the stronger it would be. So he was patient, talked, argued, bargained — but didn’t ‘soften’ the bill to widen the support. He stood his ground, and held back on bringing the bill up until he knew what the result would be.
When the bill came to a vote — just as strong as it had been in the beginning — the vote was unanimous. He had managed to bring every one of the Republicans around to supporting it.
That’s bipartisanship. Got a McCain story to match it?
On June 16th, 2008 at 1:48 am, Prup (aka Jim Benton) said:
Kabookey:
I would always rather hit people with facts than names, so just to wipe away one of your claims, it was Obama who joined with Tom Coburn, one of the most conservative Republicans in the Senate on the Coburn-Obama Open Government Act (not the name, it’s too late tonight to get it exact). He did it not by ‘triangulating’ but by recognizing that Coburn and he were agreed on this if on nothing else. (In one debate, after the Wright thing came out, he even referred to this, and to how it didn’t mean he agreed with Coburn’s more absurd positions.
In the Illinois Legislature, he worked on a bill to guarantee the video taping of all police interrogations. Of course he was opposed by a lot of Republicans at first — and ‘downstate’ rural Illinois legislators are frequently extremely conservative ’support your local police’ types.
He could have passed the bill easily against their opposition, with the Democrats and a few Republicans voting “Aye.” And think of the political advantage he could have gained if he’d done just that, and used the ‘Nay” votes against not just the opponents but Republicans in general.
But the bill was more important than the politics to him, and he knew the more votes it got, the stronger it would be. So he was patient, talked, argued, bargained — but didn’t ’soften’ the bill to widen the support. He stood his ground, and held back on bringing the bill up until he knew what the result would be.
When the bill came to a vote — just as strong as it had been in the beginning — the vote was unanimous. He had managed to bring every one of the Republicans around to supporting it.
That’s bipartisanship. Got a McCain story to match it?
—————————————————————————
LOL, that Colborn deal, Now tell me who voted against trying to reduce nukes? That took real bi-partisanship there. That is such a joke that O throws out there to prove his bi-partisanship. Can you tell us who voted against reducing nukes. Which party was fighting that bill tooth and nail? Where was Saint O when the gang of 14 wanted to restore some civility to the sentate to move things along? Yea hanging with Teddy K trying to block judges. Yea he is a real bi-partisan Senator there, that is why he votes with the dems more then any other senator. He is a real trail blazer there.