“I Bing'd looking for a petition and if there wasn't one was going to start one. Search results brought me to HuffPo article where I searched through the comments until I found your post. Blessings and thank you! Passing this far and wide.”
trixee belden on Aug 18, 2012 at 23:37:27
“Glad you found it and are passing it around. Thank you!”
“Obama requested his named be removed from the Michigan ballot.
It was Obama's choice to remove his name. Obama did not have his name removed from the Florida Ballot because to do so he would have had to drop out of the race. Obama believed that Michagan and Florida were states he wouldn’t do well in so when MI and FL otherwise known as the rule breakers, were stripped of their delegates by the DNC, all candidates agreed not to campaign there.
Obama initiated the political power play to have the candidates agree to remove their names from the Michigan ballot in order to remove focus from those elections. Obama essentially catered to traditional early voting states like Iowa, N.H in deference to their historical role in the primaries and at the same time ensured that no attention would be paid to those Primaries where Clinton was favored. Why not make that power move? Obama loses nothing but has everything to gain at the time. The DNC already stripped the delegates. Obama also would enable himself to cry foul or unfairness in the event of a close race by claiming that he wasn’t even on the ballot. But why wasn’t he? He wasn’t on the ballot because he chose not to be on the ballot.”
TheRagingModerate on Mar 31, 2008 at 18:43:47
“Zeph -- do you have any facts or sources to support this theory of yours? And are you seriously suggesting that back in 2007 when these decisions were made by the DNC, Barack Obama held greater sway over the Party than the Clintons? The Clintons all but own the Democratic Party machinery. I would be shocked beyond belief to find that the DNC's position on MI/FL was reached over the Clintons' objections. Unless you can cite some sources for your theory, I'll have to conclude this is just another Clintonian talking point and that you, like the rest of Hillary's camp, feel no allegiance to the truth for truth's sake.
It seems the only rules the Clintons will follow when it comes to campaign tactics are (1) don't breeak the law (this is pretty much all that separates the Clinton Gang from Rove, Bush, Cheney, et al - although, admittedly, it is a very substantial difference); and (2) make sure you always have a "plausible deniability" escape hatch whenever engaging in dishonesty or sliminess (here, the Clintons and the GOP are simpatico).
Besides, even if Obama did factor his own political strengths and weaknesses into his position on the DNC's handling of MI's and FL's deliberate rule-breaking, who cares? If that were all Hillary had done, I wouldn't have a problem with it. It's the fact that she CHANGES her position on the DNC's handling of the situation to evolve with her evolving politcal needs that is the problem!”
Aleka on Mar 31, 2008 at 17:27:31
“Do you have some kind of proof of this, or is it a tin foil hat theory that you thought you would share? After all, in the Clinton camp the motto is: Why rely on facts and proof when you can just make shit up.”
biglover on Mar 31, 2008 at 17:20:10
“Wow!!! This is the biggest bag of lies I have heard since Hillary's account of landing in Tuzla Airport. Where do you come up with this.
Obama followed the rules - Hillary didn't. That's the big difference here.”
Toerag on Mar 31, 2008 at 16:54:34
“As a Democrat, I think it's a bit of a slap in the face and disrespect by Sen. Clinton that she kept her name on the ballot in Michigan. The other front-runners agreed to stand by the DNC decision to not have the vote count and have their names taken off of the ballot. Clinton leaves her name on and then later, once it looks like the delegates might matter, cries foul? That's not how things work.
As for the bit in the article about the 2000 vote difference in Wyoming cancelling out the 300,000 or so that Clinton won by on Super Tuesday: that's smart campaign management on Obama's part. The point is to get the most delegates, and he takes every opportunity to do so, where Clinton thinks most of the states don't matter (traditional red states, caucus states, lower population states, states with a high AA population...).”
“This is not true. I challenge you to show any evidence that anyone signed a pledge to not have their names on the MI ballot.
Five individuals connected to five different campaigns have confirmed -- but only under condition of anonymity -- that the situation that developed in connection with the Michigan ballot is not at all as it appears on the surface. The campaign for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, arguably fearing a poor showing in Michigan, reached out to the others with a desire of leaving New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as the only candidate on the ballot. The hope was that such a move would provide one more political obstacle for the Clinton campaign to overcome in Iowa....
..."The belief that this would somehow hurt front-running Clinton in Iowa was icing on an already sweet cake," he said. "The real meal, however, is the good will the move generates not only in Iowa, but in all the states who are playing by the DNC rules and that don't appreciate all of this jumping and chaos."
Candidates who remain on the Michigan ballot are Clinton, Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd, former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel and (not by his own choosing) Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich. A person close to the Dodd campaign said the push to make Clinton look bad in Iowa and the feeling of being played "like a political pawn" were items discussed by the campaign. But, standing on principle isn't always a comfortable position...”
TheRealMacDaddy on Mar 31, 2008 at 19:09:48
“Okay, this is the agreement that I am speaking of, signed on Sept. 1, 2007...
“Don't believe the hype. Read the article at Black Agenda Report from March 5, 2008. Obama uses a loophole wherein he can accept bundled donations from individuals within lobbying firms, without it being technically labeled as donations from lobbyists. Obama is nothing more and nothing less than a slick, marketed, ambitious politician. Sorry.”
“...Additionally, looking at Public Citizen's list of bundlers for the Obama campaign (people soliciting donations from others), 27 are employed by law firms registered as federal lobbyists. The total sum raised February 16-29, 2008 by bundlers for Obama from these 27 firms: $2,650,000. (There are also dozens of high powered bundlers from Wall Street working the Armani-suit and red-suspenders cocktail circuits, like Bruce Heyman, managing director at Goldman Sachs; J. Michael Schell, vice chairman of Global Banking at Citigroup; Louis Susman, managing director, Citigroup; Robert Wolf, CEO, UBS Americas. Each raised over $200,000 for the Obama campaign.)
Senator Obama's premise and credibility of not taking money from federal lobbyists hangs on a carefully crafted distinction: he is taking money, lots of it, from owners and employees of firms registered as federal lobbyists but not the actual individual lobbyists. But is that dealing honestly with the American people? According to the website of Akin Gump, it takes a village to deliver a capital to the corporations: ...
...When queried about this, Massie Ritsch, communications director at the Center for Responsive Politics, says: "The wall between a firm's legal practice and its lobbying shop can be low - the work of an attorney and a lobbyist trying to influence regulations and laws can be so intertwined. So, if anything, the influence of the lobbying industry in presidential campaigns is undercounted."...
From: Black Agenda Report, March 5. The guy is no different than any other ambitious politician.”
Oldtt on Mar 29, 2008 at 01:05:31
“Give it up zeph, you're preaching to a deaf choir. John Adams said that facts are stubborn things, but I'm sure he also was aware of the old maxim "there are none so blind as those that will not see."”
midknightryder13 on Mar 28, 2008 at 19:34:51
“So you are saying that the employees and owners SHOULD NOT be allowed to exercise their right to contribute to the candidate of their choice simply because of who they work for?”
jhoffman on Mar 28, 2008 at 19:24:17
“So following your logic the Obama campaign has to return any donation from an individual that "works" for a corporation? That simply does not make much sense to me. The problem with the American campaign finance system is that it gives more access and leverage to narrow special interests. Well placed PAC contributions from corporate interests can net millions of dollars worth of tax breaks for specific industries or even a handful of companies.
I must admit that the best way to squash special interests' influence in politics is to change to a publicly financed campaign. Short of this, however, building a campaign based on grassroots donations, as Obama's has, seems the best solution.”
“Dear Mr. Eskow,
Time to connect the dots that you've been laying out the past 3 1/2 years. Obama's choices of advisers makes it kind of easy, yet because he is a 1/2 black, cool guy with a "D" after his name, too many liberals and Dems refuse to see that his words do not match his actions. Thus the title "the more effective evil," as Glen Ford of Black Agenda Report dubbed him.”
“Why is it so hard for liberals to get that this is all by design? Can you say Shock Doctrine? I thought you could. Did no one hear those of us screaming out that Obama was nothing but a slickly marketed corporate tool? I guess not.”
Dnietz on Jun 12, 2011 at 04:32:11
“Liberals? Do you realize that the author of the "Shock Doctrine" (Naomi Klein) is a liberal?
The only way your comment would make any sense is if you are a leftist and you consider "liberals" to be pro-establishment. But then you don't make that clear.”
“Liberals and progressives need to realize we're dealing with the equivalent of the schoolyard bully who does not respond to compassion or reason. People like Profitt are psychopaths and are most likely laughing their heads off at Valle's response as they prepare to up the violence and hate on anyone who thinks differently from them. I don't have any answers in how to deal with these people. I mostly avoid them.”
Patriot86 on Oct 30, 2010 at 01:25:55
“I think it may be worse then that...these guys are brown shirts.”
ESerafina42 on Oct 30, 2010 at 00:37:37
“On the other hand, there are the people in the middle, and some on the edge of the craziness who are hopefully still responsive to both reason and compassion.”
th am on Oct 30, 2010 at 00:22:44
“A sociopath, actually.
Bullies have psychological problems, and significantly, often severe feelings of insufficiency. The result is anti-social behavior, including violence. When they are still kids there is some chance of turning them around. Unfortunately, once they are older (and more dangerous) it's virtually impossible. Profitt will have to make the choice for himself, and that will say much about his psychological health.”
JesusGlock9OilBaron on Oct 30, 2010 at 00:14:31
“Dollars to donuts, Profitt was totally the kid at school that was easily marginalized and ate boogers.”
“Thanks to this article I've now joined the PCCC. $3. mo to support and elect progressive Dems. The establishment Dem groups have failed us too many times throwing their influence and $ behind faux Dems. I had quit giving anything to the Dems but PCCC deserves our support.”
“If we had a Democratic president and Democratic majorities in congress, this would happen. Despite the D after their names, we don't. The so called Blue Dogs are nothing but moderate Repubs, and those who weren't bamboozled by the marketing of Obama understood exactly what we were getting.”
1murillo on Feb 20, 2010 at 18:56:36
“You're right that there are conservative Democrats (Bayh for example), so that's what we presently have. "Bipartisanship" is code for "working with your party." Obama has never claimed to be anything but a centrist, we should not be disappointed if he's not a progressive.”
I guess I shouldn't be looking back, but I recall about 1/2 the Dems warning the other 1/2 about this guy back during the primaries. But alas, the Clinton hatred was so intense, they were blind to the reality of Mr. Two Biographies By The Time He Was 40-Something. They were willingly bamboozled by the slick marketing campaign selling a bright, shiny, new, hopey, changey cool black guy. Wish it felt good to say "told ya so."”
truthmachine on Sep 30, 2009 at 17:44:08
“Yeah, "about" 1/2 the Dems warning that he was black, and an "empty suit". Fortunately that "about" was distinctly less than half.”
ladyfractal on Sep 30, 2009 at 17:26:35
Actually, I think that the problem is not with Obama per se. If Clinton were President we'd be in *exactly* the same position because Clinton is STILL a Democrat and the problem that the Democratic party has is deeper, far deeper, than any one person. The Democrats are too cowardly to stand up and be *hated* for what they are going to be *hated* for anyway. If we are liberals, we're going to be hated for being liberals--full stop. Nothing we do, no matter how we try to camoflage it, no matter how many times we apologize or back down we will *still* be hated by conservatives for being liberals.
At some point you just have to shrug your shoulders, realize that no matter what you do they will spit on you and curse your name, have the further epiphany that what they eat doesn't make *you* fat, and that you have solid majorities and a mandate and then go the hell forth and *govern*. The Democrats won't do that until they put their big girl panties on and decide that they would rather do the right thing and be despised for it, than do the wrong thing and despised *still*.
If any Democratic thinker reads HuffPo, get your bloody act together. Stop pretending the GOP isn't a party of machiavellian bullies. They are. Deal with them as what they are, not what you wish they were.
rick91 on Sep 30, 2009 at 16:47:26
“Really, you can't say that.
Hillary has already failed to deliver health care reform. To suggest that she would be doing any better if she were prez is just not credible.”
“Thank you. You get it, and I think as time goes on more and more will wake up to the reality of Obama. Whoever decided to thrust this guy into the national spotlight was brilliant. To see so many so called progressives and liberals stand behind him, trust him, believe in him, has baffled me from the get go. Almost 1/2 the Dem Party was trying to tell the O supporters they were being bamboozled, but they couldn't see it and instead lashed out in anger and hate. Slowly but surely they will figure it out on their own. Unfortunately, it's too late.”
“Wow. I find that an incredibly weak excuse to allow a man to sit in prison for even one day when it's so clear he was railroaded by Rove & Assoc. But it fits in with the president's wish to only look forward and allow war criminals to walk away from their crimes. Meet the old boss...”
Chumleysmom on May 23, 2009 at 04:03:12
“Who could have imagined that we were voting for Bush's third term?”
“Yeah, those qualities will work real well up against the radical regressives. Uh huh. They'll all realize unity is the ticket and help Obama bring us all together. Oh what a wonderful world it will be! GMAFB. Repubs do not compromise. They get their way or fight tooth and nail until they do. Obama seems more and more clueless as time goes on.
Obama should go back to community organizing. That's where his skills are suited, NOT the highest office in the land.”
LeftLeanWing on Jul 12, 2008 at 12:15:38
“Sounds like the Republicans are the Borg....”
Fabienne on Jul 12, 2008 at 11:59:27
“Because polarization has work so well in getting things done in this country?”
PadrePio on Jul 12, 2008 at 11:51:06
“Amen zeph. Throwing progressive values under the bus is not compromise or creating unity it is selling out plain and simple”