NoGoodNamesLeft

do you think Hillary sent the picture in after she had it darkened up a bit. LOL posted 04/12/2008 at 10:28:46

Florida has NEVER done a caucus. posted 04/12/2008 at 10:28:05

i think t hat Obama should have worked with EVERYONE else in the process to get revotes in both of these states. Instead he fought against revotes in every way he could. posted 04/12/2008 at 10:26:04

really? You're a racist because you are bitter about the economy in the mid west? You're an anti-gay bigot because of the economy in the mid west? posted 04/12/2008 at 10:04:30

no doubt they will be seated. the question is whether they will be seated in a way that reflects the voice oft he voters in those two states... posted 04/12/2008 at 10:02:36

I understood what he said. He said the working class people of PA are racists because of the fact that their economic woes have given them an antipathy to those who are different than they are.

It was pretty clear

You notice in his response he didn't repeat the anti-immigration, anti-trade and antipathy to people not like them parts of what he said last Sunday.

But, he did manage to ADD anti-gay because it was maybe the only group he hadn't offended in the original remarks. posted 04/12/2008 at 09:58:07

Today in Indiana, Sen. Obama slammed oil company tax breaks and touting his legislation to repeal them.

Sen. Obama failed to mention that he voted for these tax breaks in the 2005 energy bill. His bill, which he introduced just days before announcing his run for president, would "Repeals provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005," that he voted for

One of his most prominent supporters in Pennsylvania, Sen. Bob Casey said of the bill "I think on the energy bill, I'll just tell you, when I was campaigning, I was very troubled by, in particular, the giveaways to energy interests."

Sen Obama - I was FOR the oil company tax breaks BEFORE I was against them.

As Obama walked away you could hear this sound

Flip/Flop Flip/Flop Flip/Flop posted 04/12/2008 at 09:53:53

Ummm, Texas didn't hold their primary on Super Tuesday... posted 04/11/2008 at 15:00:56

they weren't being paid to advocate it to Hillary. And if they were, they weren't doing a very good job of it since she opposes it.

If you look into the details of Bill Clinotn on this you will see that he talked to the Colombian govt in 2005 and he said he would support the trade deal if they could work out the right FORMULA, meaning the right details in the trade deal. That is EXACTLY what Obama is supporting on NAFTA. He wants to renegotiate it to strengthen the labor and environmental standards. Then he is for it. Obama has not advocated haviing NO trade deals. Just not BAD trade deals. posted 04/11/2008 at 13:02:42

you should probably go read the article closer. The advisor is suggestin g that it will take until the end of 2010 to get down to a level of 60,000 - 80,000 troops in Iraq. And that level would be the residual force to LEAVE in Iraq. posted 04/11/2008 at 12:57:36

so, if Obama can get people to do his dirty work for FREE, you're OK with it? posted 04/11/2008 at 12:53:55

LIAR, the Candian Govt has already stated that Clinton did NOT contact them in any way posted 04/11/2008 at 12:53:06

so as long as the bigots entertain you for free, you're alright with it? posted 04/11/2008 at 12:49:17

A year ago, Griffin invited Obama to speak to employees of his Chicago hedge fund, Citadel Investment Group, and in subsequent months, employees and their families gave the candidate nearly $200,000. Griffin had previously backed Republicans, including Obama's initial U.S. Senate opponent

This is Obama's way to get money from company employees without running it through the company's PAC. That way he can claim he doesn't take PAC money. LOL posted 04/11/2008 at 12:47:25

the Canadian Govt has said the Clinton campaign has NOT contacted them. posted 04/11/2008 at 12:42:01

it wasn't Clinton who brought that to light. IT was a report on Candian TV and then the memo came out that proved that Goolsbee did actually meet with the Canadian rep when Obama said NO MEETING ever took place. posted 04/11/2008 at 12:40:28

this was a way for Obama to take money from a company's employess without having it show up like company PAC money.... tricky posted 04/11/2008 at 12:04:25

from the article

But those with wealth and power also have played a critical role in creating Obama's record-breaking fundraising machine, and their generosity has earned them a prominent voice in shaping his campaign. Seventy-nine "bundlers," five of them billionaires, have tapped their personal networks to raise at least $200,000 each. They have helped the campaign recruit more than 27,000 donors to write checks for $2,300, the maximum allowed. Donors who have given more than $200 account for about half of Obama's total haul, which stands at nearly $240 million.

HALF of his money has come from people who have given OVER $200.

You aren't considered a small donor any more if you give less than $100 per donation but then you donate multiple times. An individual can only contribute $2300 in total. If you donate $100 23 times, you can't still claim you are a small donor posted 04/11/2008 at 12:02:21

you forgot

Hillary proposes poverty czar cabinet post at event honoring MLK on anniversy of his murder in Memphis. Obama spend that day campaigning in Indiana... posted 04/11/2008 at 11:10:49

This is how much Obama doesn't like lobbyists

bundlers are responsible for most of Obama's campaign war chest

Among the group are businessmen such as Kenneth Griffin, a famously private 39-year-old billionaire who threw his support behind Obama's presidential campaign just as he hired a team of lobbyists to urge Congress to preserve a lucrative tax loophole.

A year ago, Griffin invited Obama to speak to employees of his Chicago hedge fund, Citadel Investment Group, and in subsequent months, employees and their families gave the candidate nearly $200,000. Griffin had previously backed Republicans, including Obama's initial U.S. Senate opponent

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/10/AR2008041004045.html?hpid=topnews posted 04/11/2008 at 11:08:40

yes, and we remember what your response to her answer about Rev Wright was too.... posted 04/11/2008 at 11:07:09

why didn't Obama fire Rev Donnie McClurkin, the anti-gay bigot, from his Gospel Tour?

Oh that's right, he was pandering to the religious voters in SC then..... posted 04/11/2008 at 11:04:56

Obama knows how to deal with racial bigotry. But, when it comes to anti-gay bigotry it's a different story. For anti-gay bigots, he invites them into the big tent to discuss their differences and come to a compromise..... posted 04/11/2008 at 11:01:32

That's right. Obama hired Davi Axlerod, the consultant who specializes in using race-baiting techniques to get balck candidates elected posted 04/11/2008 at 10:59:55

Has Obama fired this guy yet?

A KEY ADVISOR to Senator Obama's campaign is recommending in a confidential paper that America keep between 60,000 and 80,000 troops in Iraq as of late 2010, a plan at odds with the public pledge of the Illinois senator to withdraw combat forces from Iraq within 16 months of taking office. posted 04/11/2008 at 10:47:20

Oh please, Obama did community organiing work as a way to start his political career. the same reason he joined his church, because it was filled with the local political high rollers. posted 04/12/2008 at 08:34:26

it's interseting that you say this since in his response in Indiana he conveniently forgot to mention his own words of anti-immigration, anti-trade and antipathy to people not like them. He didn't address the most inflamatory words he used in CA. posted 04/12/2008 at 07:39:47

Rendell was called a racist as soon as he said that posted 04/12/2008 at 00:52:18

LBJ did sign civil rights legislation into law, what did Hillary say that was untrue? But, I bet you called her a racist for saying it. posted 04/11/2008 at 22:50:22

Obama's response to this was rather rich...

In his explanation to the voters of Indiana tonight he conveniently forgot to mention the parts where he said the bitter people of PA have become anti-immigration, anti-trade and have an antipathy for people not like them (meaning they are racist)

Then he had the nerver to attack Clinton for her vote on the bankruptcy bill. This after the recent talk about his vote on the Cheney energy bill which gave HUGE tax breaks to the oil companies.

He explains his vote on the energy bill by saying it contained some good environmental policies. But, did he bother tonote that the bankruptcy bill contained limits on the interest rates that could be charged on credit cards?

In Indiana he also talked about the price of gas while at the same time he voted for HUGE tax breaks for the oil companies.

I don't think this will play in PA posted 04/11/2008 at 22:28:55

so, it's not possible that voters who don't support Obama just prefer Clinton's policies. IT makes more sense to you that anyone who doesn't support Obama just doesn't understand what's good for them? Nearly 50% of those who have voted so far just don't get it, right? posted 04/11/2008 at 21:43:36

gee, i think it was the "antipathy to peoplw who aren't like them" part... posted 04/11/2008 at 21:34:58

that's right. He's saying I need you rich people in San Francisco to give me more money because it is so hard for me to convince those gun toting racists in PA to support me. posted 04/11/2008 at 21:21:36

their first line of defense would be that Obama was just trying to explain the over population of unwanted pets to us by talking to us like adults.

And, if that didn't work, they would claim it was really Hillary dressed up in an Obama costume. posted 04/11/2008 at 21:17:25

there's another one up thread that claims the author was bribed by the republicans to publish this story.

I think they really believe that no one can ever possibly have a legitimate reason to not support Obama.

And, I think they really believe that Obama could never do or say anything wrong. posted 04/11/2008 at 21:07:54

his explanation for why white people in PA won't support him because their econmic woes have made them bitter and they have antipathy for people wh aren't like them.... This sounds sensible to you? posted 04/11/2008 at 20:37:46

But, you're fine when they take Clinton's comments out of context, right? posted 04/11/2008 at 20:34:35

Oh, I heard the typical white person comment word for word. Don't dare tell me what i did or didn't hear.

Anytime Obama says anything that has a negative connotation to it his supporters go through all kinds of contortions to excuse it or explain it. These same Obama supporters immediately jump on anything Clinton says and find the worst possible interpretatiion they can come up with to spread around. It's amazing. posted 04/11/2008 at 20:32:22

Elitist is about your attitude,not how much money you have. posted 04/11/2008 at 20:28:54

Clinton made Obama say this? That's what you are claiming? posted 04/11/2008 at 20:20:24

because you believe that the authors that always post anti-Hillary / pro Obama articles are objective. LOL posted 04/11/2008 at 20:18:27

and therefore they have antipathy for people who aren't like them and that's why the racists won't vote for me in PA. posted 04/11/2008 at 20:17:07

OMG, he basically said that the people inPA are bitter because of their lack of econominc opportunity and that is why they are racist and won't support the black candidate.

That's how I interpret "antipathy to people who aren't l ike them"

It's another "typical white people" comment posted 04/11/2008 at 20:14:21

just last week there ws an article about Obama campaigning in PA and he was 'couting' the gun owners.

PA is a state where gun rights are very important. I believe it has the highest percentage of hunters in the nation. posted 04/11/2008 at 18:54:08

Did he call them "TYPICAL WHITE PEOPLE"? posted 04/11/2008 at 16:58:03

Bill Clinton had executive experience as a governor posted 04/11/2008 at 15:53:58

she is a SENATOR and was when Bill did this, not the president. How many sitting senators and members of congress have spouses who actually ARE lobbyists?

Why would you automatically assume that when Hillary became president her husband would continue to be involved in lobbying when instead she has told you before that she woudl use him as a worldwide ambassador. posted 04/12/2008 at 09:19:31

Colin Powell just kinda almost endorsed Obama today. THis news won't make that endorsement look too helpful, will it? posted 04/10/2008 at 22:53:14

bundlers are responsible for most of Obama's campaign war chest



Among the group are businessmen such as Kenneth Griffin, a famously private 39-year-old billionaire who threw his support behind Obama's presidential campaign just as he hired a team of lobbyists to urge Congress to preserve a lucrative tax loophole.

A year ago, Griffin invited Obama to speak to employees of his Chicago hedge fund, Citadel Investment Group, and in subsequent months, employees and their families gave the candidate nearly $200,000. Griffin had previously backed Republicans, including Obama's initial U.S. Senate opponent

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/10/AR2008041004045.html?hpid=topnews posted 04/11/2008 at 08:54:02

hey, knock it off. the Obama supporters already know what he'll really do. they know some things he just HAS to say to get elected. But, they all signed up and they get the "secret" emails from Barack where he explains what he will really do when he gets elected. This keeps them all calmed down so they don't cause him any trouble during the election. They even all ge the secredt decoder ring in the mail so they can translate the coded messages he sends to them in his speeches. Just trust HIM, what kind of a cult do you think we're running here? posted 04/10/2008 at 21:27:13

and, he wants a VP that know stuff that he doesn't too. posted 04/10/2008 at 20:41:57

easy enough to understand. 65% of whites for for Hillary and you call them racists. 85% of blacks vote for Obama and you DON'T call them racists. understand now?

If you believe blacks are voting for Obama because they like his policies better, why can't that be true for whites voting for Hillary as well? posted 04/10/2008 at 21:40:21

she has ALWAYS said start to withdraw within 60 days at a rate of approx 1 -2 brigades per month. posted 04/10/2008 at 20:57:50

if you listen to TV you would assume based on the polls they quote that the race is tightening. The problem? they only bother to report the polls that favor Obama. If you look at the SurveyUSA polls for PA, 2 weeks ago Clinton was ahead by 19%. Last week it dropped to 12%. This week she is back up to 18%.

Any closing in the other polls I think can be explained by him spending so much more on TV ads so far. But, I would guess in the last week she will put up more TV ads. And there is a debate next week in PA as well.

I still expect her to win PA by double digits.

In Indiana she is maintaining a 9% lead. In NC Obama's lead has dropped in the most recent poll to 10%. And, I think the more Elizabeth Edwards talks it willhelp Clinton in NC as well. More so if John Edwards comes out with a Clinton endorsement. posted 04/10/2008 at 20:55:35

haven't you been listening to all the debates? THis is the same plan she has been advocating. I day one she instructs the military to develop a plan to BEGIN the withdrawl of troops within 60 days. She estimates we can withdraw 1 - 2 brigades per month.

All she has added today is to say she is asking the miltary to develop the plan, not asking them IF the withdrawl should be done, but HOW to do it safely.

She is doing it to show the difference between her and BOTH McCain and Obama. Obama and his advisors have been making statements lately that make it appear he is walking back from his position which used to be the SAME as Hillary's.

She is trying to give his supporters a reason to support her if withdrawl from Iraq is their #1 issue. And, I would guess it is for quite a few. Haven't they all been complaining ever since the dems took control of congress that they haven't done enough to end this? posted 04/10/2008 at 20:35:48

there is only ONE rule and that is that you have to get to 2024 delegates.

Super delegates can use any criteria they want to for their own vote. Ifthey want to consider popular vote, itis their rightto do so. posted 04/11/2008 at 18:38:23

this author has applied the MATH to all the caucus states. There are only 4 caucus staes that din't report actual voter numbers. His example of Kansas is WRONG. thet numbers reported by Kansas are REAL voter numbers posted 04/11/2008 at 18:35:03

yes, I guess you're right. That poor 90 year old woman in the nursing home should have dragged her scrawny butt to the caucus to cast het ballot. That sergeant serving in Iraq should have gone AWOL to get to that caucus. That father of 2 children should have left his job to go to that caucus. That single mother should have left her children at home by themselves to go to the caucus. Do you underrstand at all that many people who would have liked to vote just CAN'T do it in a caucus.

The caucuses may have set attendance records for a caucus, but they come nowhere near the attendance of a primary. posted 04/11/2008 at 15:34:11

except the author of this article is full of CRAP because Kansas reported ACTUAL VOTER TOTALS. posted 04/11/2008 at 15:24:23

real clear politics has done the estimates. posted 04/11/2008 at 15:21:57

what are you talking about? You don't get to CALCULATE the popular vote. You count how many people actual came to the caucus. It's easy. Colorado already did it. YOu don't get to use a caucus result as a representative sample and then use it to calculate what you think the result would have been in everyone voted.

If a state uses a caucus, that was their choice. Obama supporters keep saying everyone could have come to the caucus if they wanted to. So, the actual number that showed up, is the number you get. posted 04/11/2008 at 15:20:44

and, every time you mentioned that, you were wrong. 9 of the caucus states reported actual numbers. Kansas reported actual numbers. Shawn just happend to be as wrong as you are. posted 04/11/2008 at 15:16:45

really? do you have a personal relationship with the super delegates? do they confide in you? You seem to know what they know. How do you do that? Are you a mind reader?

Or, do you just make this stuff up as you go along? posted 04/11/2008 at 15:15:36

there are only 4 caucus states that haven't reported ACTUAL voter turnout figures. And Kansas is NOT ONE OF THEM. The numbers reported for KS are the actual voter turnout numbers. I find it very difficult to believe that Iowa, Nevada, Washington and Maine in total had over 6 million people show up for their caucuses.

You don't get to ADJUST the figures from the other 9 caucus states. they reported REAL voter turnout figures. posted 04/11/2008 at 15:13:17

No, the lead is NOT much more. All you need is the actual vote counts from those four caucus states Iowa, Nevada, Wash and Maine to calculate the number. Oh, and by the way Clinton won NV, so that number will cut into the lead, not add to it. posted 04/11/2008 at 15:06:47

it is correct. In a caucus you have to show up at a specific time and be able to stay for more than an hour or two.

In a primary you have all day to vote at your convenience. You can mail in an absentee vote, in some states you have early voting for several eeks leading up to the primary.

It makes total sense that many more people are able to participate in a primary than in a caucus.

If you have to work, you can't caucus. If you are disabled and house bound, you can't caucus. If you are in the military and deployed, you can't caucus. If you don't have transportation, you can't caucus. If you have children and no access to childcare, you can't caucus. posted 04/11/2008 at 13:41:09

it is actually the Obama supporters who are complaing about the caucus states now because of the effct they have on the popular vote. posted 04/11/2008 at 13:37:05

it is much more difficult for older voters to get to a caucus. All exit polls have showed that Clinton wins a majority of older voters.

it is more difficult for lower income voters to get to a caucus. All exit polls show Clinton wins a majority of lower income voters.

etc, etc

The people who are less likely to be able to attend a caucus are also more likely to support Clinton. posted 04/11/2008 at 13:33:43

except for 4 caucus states, the others reported actual voter turnout figures.

When people complained that not everyone could get to a caucus to participate, Obama supporters basically said too bad. Everyone who wanted to come should have made time in their schedule to come. And, they weren't upset about the much lower turnout for caucuses.

Now, they want it the opposite way when the low turnout affects the popular vote totals.

Can't have it both ways. posted 04/11/2008 at 13:29:03

that is simply NOT TRUE. There are only 4 cuacus states that have not reported the total number of voters who participated. And KS is not one of them. posted 04/11/2008 at 13:26:26

which claims do you find outlandish?
here is the recent article where Obama supporters say that ALL 13 caucus states should have their voter turnout numbers adjusted UPWARD to reflect what they claim the totals would have been if a primary were held instead of a caucus. The fallacy is that they assume the people who COULDN'T attend a caucus would have voted for Clinton or Obama in that same ratio as those that did attend the caucus

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/glenn-hurowitz/study-hillarys-popular-vo_b_95846.html posted 04/11/2008 at 11:45:57

that's exactly what it means. and thah is the reason why people have been saying that caucuses are not a fair representation of what the states actual voters think. It is skewed to those who ar ABLE to attend a caucus. posted 04/11/2008 at 11:36:54

you RIG the caucus by disenfranchising voters who are not able to be there but would be able to vote in a primary posted 04/11/2008 at 11:34:46

the problem with the article you cite is that it assumes that the people who were not able to attend the caucus would have supported each candidate in the same percentages as those that did attend.

That is simply a FALSE assumption if you compare the demographics of Clinton supporters to the demographics of voters who were more likely to not be bale to attend a caucus. Older, working class, lower income voters. posted 04/11/2008 at 11:33:39

the point Clinton makes is that the votes in a caucus are not an accurate reflection of the state as a whole. Many voters are not ABLE to attend a caucus for various reasons such as no transportation, no child care avaiable, have to work, aren't able to get out of the house because of a disability etc.

When you look at the demographics of people who support Clinton and compare it to the demographics of those more likley to NOT BE ABLE to go to a caucus, they are very similar. Older, working class, lower income etc.

So, the point she is making is that if these caucus states had primaries where these people could have voted, the reults would have been much different... posted 04/11/2008 at 11:31:04

I'm not really sure which argument this guy is trying to make. Is he saying that there were actually MORE voters physically in attendance at the KS caucuses than were reported? Because according to ALL other reports only 4 caucus states did not report the total of voters. KS was notone of them.

More recently though many Obama supporters have been trying to claim that caucuses who DO REPORT the actual number of voters aren't fair to use in popular vote totals because far fewer people attend caucuses and therefore they should calulate those numbers up higher for the populat vote total to PRETEND that a certain percentage of voters actually showed up to vote (and conveniently all these pretend voters voted in the same ratio of the real voters to Obama or Clinton).

This is a completely different argument than they use when they defend the charge that caucuses aren't fair because they disenfranchise so many voters who are not able to attend.

This is about the most circular logic I have ever heard posted 04/11/2008 at 11:23:38

the press has brought this up many times. There are only FOUR states with caucuses where the actual number of voters who participated was not reported. Kansas is NOT one ofthem. posted 04/11/2008 at 11:17:08

he said some people. he didn't say anyone who doesn't support Hillary. Can you read with comprehension? posted 04/10/2008 at 18:16:02

many wonder the same about Obama supporters if Hillary is the nominee posted 04/10/2008 at 18:14:58

is he trying to say that his wee-wee vibrates when he gets excited? That kinda weird. posted 04/10/2008 at 15:32:50

it doesnt matter that it is Idaho. It's the company he works for that is causing the problem. Idaho can't stop a company from providing benefits to same sex couples if it wants to. The man worked for the same company in NJ and they were provided the benefits there.

I live in NC and the state doesn't recognie civil unions. But, the comapny I work for still offers benefits to same sex domestic partners. posted 04/10/2008 at 22:29:37

please understand that states are not in the religious marriage business. States issue licences for CIVIL Marriage. Civil marriage is recognied by the state whether anyone ever steps foot inside a church. No church ceremony is required for a legal Civil marriage.

The religious BIGOTS who are against marriage for gays would be just as against civil unions for gays. they do not want any legal recognition of GAY couples in any way. The majority of states that have adopted constitutional ammendments banning gay marriage have also banned civil unions and anything that approximates the benefits of marriage for gays.

It isn't the word marriage that these BIGOTS object to. It is any legal recognition for gay couples at all. posted 04/10/2008 at 22:12:34

if any politician had a racist singer on a gospel tour, they would be out the race now. But, anti-gay bogotry is still accepted in this country. posted 04/11/2008 at 20:42:24

i'm sure there are gospel singers who don't spew the hate that McClurkin does.

Would you gladly go listen to a gospel singer who spewed hate of blacks just because he sang nice?

You must admit the reason is because somewhere inside you believe it's acceptable to be anti-gay on religious grounds. posted 04/11/2008 at 17:57:48

Obama didn't compromise for Dom Imus, he called for his resignation. He didn't compromise for the administration official who made racial remarks about social security, he called for his resignation. He didn't compromise when the halloween black-face incident happened, he called for resignation.

But, when it comes to anti-gay bigots, he wants to compromise?

Why doesn't he view anti-gay bigotry to be as dangerous as racial bigotry? posted 04/11/2008 at 17:54:29

the question isn't about his STATED policy, it's why does he then align himself with the likes of McClurkin? He says he wants to include them in the big tent. Then why doesn't he include racial bigots in the big tent?

Why does he accept anti-gay bigots but not racial bigots?

It's because he is afraid to offend religous voters posted 04/11/2008 at 17:51:19

I am not mistaken. I am talking about Hillary Clinton's current position on gay rights. NOT about what her husband's administration did so many years ago.

DADT tell was forced upon Bill Clinton when his first attempt to allows gays to serve openly was attacked. DADT was certainly better that what was in place at the time which was NO service for gays and they could discharge gays who didn't even tell.

DOMA was a response to the calls for a constitutional ammendment to BAM gay marriage completely across te entire country. If DOMA hadn't been put in place, there wouldn't be gay marriage in Mass now. posted 04/11/2008 at 17:47:49

bundlers are responsible for most of Obama's campaign war chest

Among the group are businessmen such as Kenneth Griffin, a famously private 39-year-old billionaire who threw his support behind Obama's presidential campaign just as he hired a team of lobbyists to urge Congress to preserve a lucrative tax loophole.

A year ago, Griffin invited Obama to speak to employees of his Chicago hedge fund, Citadel Investment Group, and in subsequent months, employees and their families gave the candidate nearly $200,000. Griffin had previously backed Republicans, including Obama's initial U.S. Senate opponent

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/10/AR2008041004045.html?hpid=topnews posted 04/11/2008 at 10:43:19

DADT was a response to the yelling and screaming that went on when Clinton tried unsuccessfully to change the law to allow gays to serve openly in the military. If you recall at least DADT allowed gays to serve. Prior to DADT gays were not allowed to serve at all. Prior to DADT gays could be kicked out of the military even if they didn't tell. DADT was a first step that needs to be done away with now and that is Hillary's position. Based on this article Obama, who used to share the position of repeal, seems to be balking a little bit now.

DOMA was a response to all the efforts to get a constitutional ammendment at the federal level passed to BAN gay marriage theroughout the entire country. The passage of DOMA is what STOPPED the efforts at a constitutional ammendment.

Clinton and Obama now have the same stated positions on gay rights. But Obama's actions don't match his talk. posted 04/11/2008 at 10:12:55

Obama and Clinton had the EXACT SAME positions on gay rights issues when this campaign began with one small difference. Obama called for the repeal of ALL of DOMA. Hillary called for repeal ofthe portion of DOMA that stops the federal govt from providing federal benefits to same-sex couples in state recognized relationships.

The part of DOMA Clinton would keep in place is the part that makes clear that one states does not have to recognize the same-sex unions that ar legal in another state.

But, analysts have said that this is a difference without a distinction. Total repeal of DOMA will NOT force states to recognize the same sex marriages, civil unions or domestic partnerships of other states.

With this post, we now learn that Obama's position of repeal of DADT (don't ask don't tell) may not be as strong as he previously stated.

With their positions on these issues nearly identical, I look to their actions and relationships for my decision.

Obama's actions with his Gospel Tour headliner Donnie McClurkin and his relationship with his spiritual counselor Rev James Meeks are very telling for me. These two ar rabidly anti-gay bigots and Obama embraces them for only one reason. He is pandering to their religious beliefs.

When Obama statrs to treat anti-gay bigotry in the same decisive manner he treats racial bigotry, I'll give him a second look. But, not before then. posted 04/11/2008 at 08:24:03

what is the validity of the ANTI-GAY BIGOTRY divergent interest?

If the views of anti-gay bigots are divergent interests that need to be listened to for understanding, why doesn't the same apply to the views of racial bigots? posted 04/11/2008 at 08:07:12

Obama's ACTIONS speak much louder than his words. Just look to his Donnie McClurkin gospel tour and his spiritual counselor Rev James Meeks. These ACTIONS don't mesh with his words. I prefer to jusge him by his actions. posted 04/11/2008 at 08:04:15

Obama has a problem with the way he views anti-gay bigotry. Everytime an issue of racil bigotry comes up, Obama calls for resignations. But, whenever an issue of anti-gay bigotry comes up he calls for discussion and understanding and compromise.

It's because the anti-gay bigotry is rooted in religious beliefs and he doesn't want to offend the religious voters.

With Don Imus, Obama called for resignation. With the govt official involved with the black-face halloween costume, Obama called for resignation. With the govt official who made racial remarks relating to social security, Obama called for resignation.

But, with Donnie McClurkin on his own payroll, it was a different story. With the Rev Meeks as his own spiritual counselor, it's a different story.

Obama is PANDERING to religious voters plain and simple. posted 04/11/2008 at 08:02:15

Additionally Obama has a relastionship with anti-gay BIGOT Rev James Meeks

Described in a 2004 Chicago Sun Times article as someone Barack Obama regularly seeks out for "spiritual counsel", James Meeks, who will serve as an Obama delegate at the 2008 Democratic convention in Denver, is a long-time political ally to the democratic frontrunner.

http://www.chicagopride.com/news/article.cfm/articleid/5603104 posted 04/11/2008 at 07:54:50

It is my understanding that the part Clinton wants to repeal is the part that stops the fed govt from giving benefits to gay couples. But, she would leave in place the part that allows states to NOT recognize gay marriages from other states.

Obama says repeal it all. But, I read somewhere else that even repealing that other part will not FORCE states to recognize gay marriages from other states. If it did, as soon as it was repealed all gays could just go to MA and get married, then their home state would have to recognize it. But, in actuality repealing that part does NOTHING. posted 04/10/2008 at 15:26:47

MSNBC will probably hire her tomorrow. posted 04/10/2008 at 15:20:39

Check SurveyUSA poll numbers. Two weeks ago she was up 19%. Last week it wen down to 12%. This week it's back up to 18% posted 04/10/2008 at 15:39:38

i was talking about people who will be able to aford it and choose not to buy it. I believe there wil be enoug hsubsidies involved that the poor will get insurance for a very small price or for free posted 04/10/2008 at 19:18:10

i thnk her plan does expect the same cost for everyone. Then, if you can't afford it, you are given enough tax credits tobring the cost down to a percentage of your income. posted 04/10/2008 at 14:56:39

try suggesting single payer and see how far you get.

That's when you will hear all the screaming about govt run socialized medicine. And everyone who already has good insurance that they like (and would be able to keep under either Clinton or Obama's plans) and is paid for by their employers wouls scream at the top of their lings. posted 04/10/2008 at 14:54:31