zeph

Thank you sir for having General Clark's back, when the man he was standing up for couldn't see fit to do the same.

General Clark has reiterated his statement.

It won't let me post it here, too long. Read it here:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Clark_wont_back_down.html posted 06/30/2008 at 21:55:30

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. posted 03/31/2008 at 16:17:12

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... posted 03/31/2008 at 16:01:45

Thank you Mr. Press. I've long respected your work and writing. This is no exception.

I'm sure the comments are full of hopeful, uniting posts of thoughtful, logical Democrats, right? Well, I think I'll just be happy to read your post, thank you and move on.

Go Hillary!! posted 04/02/2008 at 00:35:58

Unfortunately, you are correct, Taylor.

The anger and hate Obama inspires in his supporters is quite strange for someone who (again) claims to be a uniter.

At this point, if Obama is shoved down our collective throats, I will focus on Congressional races, and leave the top spot blank in the GE. The uniter strikes again... posted 03/29/2008 at 12:13:32

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. posted 03/28/2008 at 18:20:29

...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. posted 03/28/2008 at 18:17:04