RevRick

Way to cherry pick your results.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

The ONLY way clinton comes out ahead is if you count Michigan where Obama wasn't on the ballot. Even if you include Florida where a large number of people didn't vote because they were told their vote would count, Obama still comes out ahead.

Of course including Michigan where Obama wasn't on the ballot wasn't enough for you was it? You then had to ignore the states that have not yet released the offical counts yet. Otherwise Clinton is only ahead by less than 12,000 votes, thats pretty bad considering you are counting a state that gave her over 325,000 votes and none to Obama. posted 04/23/2008 at 13:04:02

Strange that you "proof" that Obama's people are calling and threatening SD's shows a caucus delegate who wasn't threatened and who CALLED Obama's campaign.

The fact that this person who CALLED Obama"s campaign titled their YouTube post "Obama people calling Hillary Delegates in Texas", falsely claimed she had received a call from them shows that she is willing to lie and manipulate the facts. Hardly proof of anything, other than the dirty tricks of the Clinton Delegate who posted it. posted 04/01/2008 at 17:52:12

What I find amusing are the people who not only didn't get the joke but then posted without reading any of the comments pointing out what day it was. posted 04/01/2008 at 17:27:53

Good article even if the title was off.

Except for "Mississippi took a delegate away from Clinton yesterday and gave him or her to Obama"

Mississippi released the final vote tallies and they differed from the estimates that the press has been using for their delegate math. Turns out the press"s estimates were off by 1 delegate. This is not the same as Mississippi changing a pledged delegate from one to the other. posted 04/01/2008 at 18:30:48

I agree with you that the nomination rules are very messed up and the fact that they vary so much from state to state makes it even worse.

The rules however have been in place for awhile now.

I know that before the Texas vote MoveOn.org, who endorsed Obama, did a phone bank where they tried to call all of their Texas members in order to explain how the system works.

Rather then help prepare their supporters prior to the vote, the Clinton side has decided to help their supporters now in their attempts to challenge the Obama delegates.

It has been said that you can tell how someone will govern by how they campaign. I know what I would prefer. posted 03/30/2008 at 11:30:33

"Hope has two beautiful daughters. Their names are anger and courage; anger at the way things are, and courage to see that they do not remain the way they are." - St. Augustine of Hippo posted 03/29/2008 at 11:18:36

Of course since 32 people who have the name Hussein are Muslims then the hundreds of thousands who also share that name must also be Muslims. Makes perfect sense to me.

I assume that Waris Hussein the Brittish/Hindu actor and his mother Attia Hussein the Brittish/Hindu actress were also really Muslims.

While we are at it I bet that General George Joulwan (an Arabic name), the former NATO supreme Allied Commander of Europe, was also a closet Muslim. General John Abizaid (an Arabic name), former CENTCOM commander, same thing.

Don"t even get me started on General Omar Bradley the "hero" of D-Day and Normandy.

Now that I think about it isn"t John McCain"s middle name Sidney? That sounds a little girly to me maybe he is really a woman dressing up as a guy. No wait, thats just silly. I got it, it just means he is really Australian, so he can"t run for president.

Bill Clinton"s Middle name is Jefferson does that mean he was both the Third and Forty-Second president?

I am getting a headache, all this "investagatin" is hard work. posted 03/29/2008 at 16:09:00

Tip 3

Clinton"s site claims that "Obama has taken $1,180,103 from the top issuers of subprime loans." It then lists 10 companies with donations and when added up total 1.18 million.

It also claims "Sen. Obama has taken more money from the top 10 issuers of subprime loans than Hillary. Sen. Obama has received $434,420 from the top 10 issuers of subprime loans. Hillary has received $364,950."

If someone is giving statistics, and they are not being consistent with their terms, i.e. saying top companies and listing ten companies that give one total and then saying the top ten companies, without listing the companies, and that gives another total, they are trying to mislead you.

Tip 4

Make sure the candidate in question isn"t throwing rocks while living in a glass house.


I couldn"t check Clinton"s source. So I did my own research.

Clinton"s site lists:

Lehman, GMAC, CS First Boston, Countrywide, Washington Mutual, Citigroup, CBASS, Morgan Stanley, Centex, and Goldman Sachs.

According to http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/search_donor.asp

Donor Employer:

Lehman Obama $274,207 Clinton $264,610

GMAC Obama $3,400 Clinton $1,750

CS First Boston $0 for both

Countrywide Obama $13,350 Clinton $10,350

Washington Mutual Obama $11,652 Clinton $7,800

So far Obama is slightly ahead¦

Citigroup Obama $199,860 Clinton $383,852

Clinton just pulled way ahead!!

CBASS $0 to both

Morgan Stanley Obama $210,550 Clinton $385,420

Centex Obama $1,350 Clinton $0

Goldman Sachs Obama $367,550 Clinton $495,550

Total Obama= $1,082,919 Clinton= $1,549,332 posted 03/28/2008 at 23:13:23

Where to start? First you made a slight typing error. You claim Obama has received "$1.8 million from the folks who have pushed these loans".

Your source http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=6698 says that "Obama has taken $1,180,103 from the top issuers of subprime loans."

Now about your source http://facts.hillaryhub.com that bills itself as "The Straight Scoop On Election "08 From the Hillary Clinton Campaign"

Tip 1

A good journalist or even opinion writer should be wary whenever one campaign offers "statistics" about another campaign.

Tip 2

Be extra wary when someone cites a source you cannot easily confirm. Unfortunately http://facts.hillaryhub.com cites cq.com as their source. This is the website of Congressional Quarterly and you need to be a paying subscriber to access the information.

To Be Continued¦ posted 03/28/2008 at 23:11:05

Yes he is his brother and kinda hard to say if they think alike


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ari-emanuel/my-brother-the-superdeleg_b_85924.html posted 03/27/2008 at 00:23:38

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/33694/why_did_japan_delay_surrender_to_the.html

This is a very well writen sourced look at the end of the Pacific Conflict

Some highlights:

"The Japanese capitulated not only because of the bombs, and many argue the Soviet entry into the war played a greater factor. Hirohito feared Soviet influence more than the victorious American forces and knew the Soviets would execute him and his entire government if they captured him."

"A major question after the war's conclusion was if it was necessary for the United States to use atomic weapons against Japan. Historian Gar Alperovitz proposed that the conclusion of the war without the use of atomic weaponry "not only seems likely in retrospect, but seemed so at the time". Alperovitz argued that the Japanese were ready to capitulate as early as June 1945, when the emperor opened his mind to surrender and that faint peace feelers appeared as early as September 1944"

"Due to the severe decay in Japanese morale, even Eisenhower, the future architect of the military-industrial complex, argued against dropping the bomb"

"There was no question in the War Department that by the end of 1945 Japan would have given up the fight without any of these major shocks to its system stated above. Stimson's survey concluded that aerial supremacy and the intense firebombing conducted by B-29 superfortresses actually destroyed Japanese morale and their will to fight, all the way up the chain of command." posted 03/27/2008 at 02:21:29

Thoes reports were based on vote estimates not the offical tally.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/nyregion/16vote.html?_r=1&oref=slogin


"City election officials said they were convinced that there was nothing sinister to account for the inaccurate initial counts, and The Times"s review found a handful of election districts in the city where Mrs. Clinton received zero votes in the initial results.

"It looked like a lot of the numbers were wrong, probably the result of human error," said Marcus Cederqvist, who was named executive director of the Board of Elections last month. He said such discrepancies between the unofficial and final count rarely affected the raw vote outcome because "they"re not usually that big.""
posted 03/22/2008 at 11:57:20

"Obama is trying to manipulate his way into the White House to pay white people back for what he ... believe were/are injustices to blacks. All 3 of them are unpatriotic"


"Obama isn't a bad person.... but to his young supporters......this is not American idol!"

You are contradicting yourself, what statement do you really believe?

As for the American Idol dig, I have heard young people I work with say they wouldn't vote for Obama because his wife pronounced ask as ax. Now these people obviously thought they were voting for American Idol, however they voted for Clinton. Now I wouldn"t be surprised if some Obama supporters were that shallow, though I am equally sure that only some Clinton supporters are.

Personally I based my choice at the start of this primary on issues like their stance on the war authorization. As the primary has proceeded some things have made me question my support, appearing with McClurkin, his vote for the Peru Free Trade Agreement, and most recently the "NAFTA memo" from Canada.

The NAFTA memo turned out to be false (it wrongly said that Obama"s campaign called the embassy when the opposite was true and it misrepresented the content of the conversation according to those involved), Clinton also voted for the PFTA, and Clinton voted for the Defense of Marriage act. So while all of these things made me question my support for Obama none of them made me consider supporting Clinton over him, since she is at least as bad or debatably worse on every issue.

I truly believe that Clinton isn"t a bad person. I volunteered for both of her Senate campaigns. However like all politicians I haven"t agreed with everything she has done. The same is true of Obama, I disagree with him less though. In the general I would never support McCain over any of the Democrats and I say this as someone who is proudly not a Democrat.

Frankly if you are trying to convince anyone your ad-homonym attacks on Obama through your caricatures of his supporters will not work, even if you can make your narrative consistant.

posted 03/22/2008 at 13:56:16