16 Comments
Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Published Thursday, Jan. 17, 2008 | 1:31 p.m.
Updated Thursday, Oct. 30, 2008 | 2:14 p.m.
Illinois Sen. Barrack Obama’s campaign gloated some after a federal judge’s decision this morning to throw out an attempt to shut down at-large caucus sites on the Strip.
Interestingly, the Obama campaign also used the opportunity to downplay expectations about his performance in Nevada’s caucus Saturday and to note the erosion of New York Sen. Hillary Clinton’s support.
“While the Clinton camp clearly believed the voices of workers should be silenced in service of their perceived political interest, they enjoyed a 25-point lead two months ago and have much of the party establishment in their camp. So, despite their inherent advantages we are pleased this should be a close and competitive contest Saturday," Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement.
Not exactly a rousing statement of confidence.
The campaign downplayed expectations Wednesday, too. Check it out here.
My colleague Jon Ralston is also reporting in his Flash that a new Las Vegas Review-Journal poll will show Clinton up 9 over Obama. Not sure what that’s worth. Predicting a winner here is a precarious undertaking.
Yes We Can!
OBAMA IS IN THE POCKET OF THE CULINARY UNION'S LEADERSHIP - POLITICS AS USUAL.
ACCORDING TO OBAMA - WORDS MATTER, PEOPLE DON'T.
Yesterday, Bill Clinton said that Hillary Clinton is the Insurgent and Obama represents the Establishment. Yes, he actually said that yesterday. Do you think the Clintons are the Insurgents in this presidential election or part of the established Democratic Party? I suspect that the Clintons are part of the establishment.
The establishment at large, including the mass media, wants to see a Clinton versus McCain presidential election. The reason is that both of these candidates are part of the establishment as well. This means
business as usual, the business of making money, not for you or me, but for themselves.
The establishment has been trying influence these elections on many levels, not just through the media.
The Democratic Party on a national level has super delegates consisting of high level Democrats who are part of the Democratic Party establishment who get an entire delegate vote all to themselves. Its very unfair, anti-democratic, yet not against the law. According to CNN right now, Hillary Clinton has 166 super delegates committed to her, more than twice her nearest competitor, Obama. Bill Clinton
himself is a super delegate.
In a similar manner, at the local level in Nevada the Democratic Party establishment weighted the newly created casino caucuses to help the establishment nominee, in this case Clinton, win. Unfortunately for
her this backfired when the Culinary Workers endorsed Obama. The establishment quickly filed suit through their proxy the teachers union. Bill Clinton has spoken out against the casino caucuses as
being unfair. I agree. It is very unfair, anti-democratic, but it is not against the law.
I would love to ask the Clintons, "Now that you know super delegates aren't fair just like the casino caucuses, will Bill give up his super delegate vote?" or will both of you remain firmly entrenched in the
establishment, playing politics, business as usual, making money, not for you or me, but for the establishment.
This is a race between the establishment Clintons and the candidates for change Obama and Edwards. Which do you want?
I am so tired of the "Obama Hillary Show".
They are both corporate sponsored. I wish they were forced to wear stickers or better yet tattoos of all their corporate lobbyists. They both represent business as usual.
We all know how divisive Hillary Clinton is, since the Republicans do better against her one on one that any other Democratic candidate. How can you say Obama is the great uniter, when 60% or more of those polled are against him? Wouldn't everyone be convinced to vote for him now if he was going to be the country's messiah?
We need a real leader. Not one interested in fighting over race or gender.
John Edwards is the only candidate that can bring about change in our corrupt system.
Despite protests to the contrary, Saint Obama the Uniter has actively sought an opportunity to inject race into the 2008 campaign leading into Nevada and South Carolina. He couldn't find it, so they first went with "fairy tale" being racist to describe one of Obama's positions. Hardly racist. Then his campaign picked up on Clinton’s MLK comment and misinterpreted it. He needed to trick and incite African Americans, while distancing himself enough personally so as not to be obvious to whites, Hispanics and others.
Obama is a con man.
He needs to keep in mind, however, that if race is held out as a valid reason to vote FOR someone, it must also be a valid reason to vote AGAINST someone. He can't have it both ways. I hope his disgusting race games ultimately crash his campaign.
Barack Hussein Obama gets a free pass with the media because they are afraid he will throw the race card at them too.
Get real people.
When did "youthful drug use" become a positive phrase??
Selling drugs and using drugs no matter what age is a crime. Elect an addict - choose Barack Hussein Obama
Our children deserve better then this is correct.
So why vote for an addict?
Yes we can is the slogan for a childrens show.
Youthful drug users should not use that slogan.
From Obama’s church website (www. tucc.org/about.htm): “We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian. Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization.”
______________
Call me foolish, call me racist, call me whatever but I want the President of the United States to believe in and be “true” to America – not Africa.
footballfan --
who are your favorite players??
The New York Times
January 17, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/17/opinio...
"After watching the subject of race intrude on the primaries last week, and become even more prominent this week, we were relieved that Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama called a truce Tuesday night.
It was clearly her side that first stoked the race and gender issue."
Hillary is betting on the fact that white women can be made to fear black men in softer tones than yelling for help from the sisterhood. And Hillary is also hoping Latino voters won't understand what her campaign is trying to pull in Nevada by Saturday.
A favorite quote of this morning so far...
"You know, if someone was married to a surgeon for years, would you consider them qualified to cut you open? Then why does she think being married to a president makes her presidential material?"
Yep Girly_Girl- you represent the Clinton viewpoint pretty well.
I agree with Obama's take on leadership qualities. A manager and a leader are two different people. A strong leader uses judgment to guide a group of competent managers. This man is not 'God' nor is he a 'Rock Star' .... he's a smart person with a strong ability to follow through on sound judgment.
He will be good for America.
Go Barack !
And the Santa Barbara Independent....
http://www.independent.com/news/2008/jan...
"What impresses us most about Obama is his ability to inspire hope in those who’ve learned to dismiss the political process as a cynical joke. And his gift goes beyond speechifying, which he does with uncommon grace. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has charged that he is short on experience. We disagree. He has had more years of legislative experience than Clinton, with three years in the U.S. Senate and eight years in that rough-and-tumble body known as the Illinois Legislature. During those 11 years, he successfully brought together Democrats and Republicans to pass legislation benefitting ordinary people — from tax credits for children to ethics reform in Congress."