RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

Barack Says No But They Clapped

By Larry Johnson on July 15, 2008 at 10:10 AM in Current Affairs

It is true. Barack denies that he had some clapping but here is video proof:

Those people were clapping and Barack claimed they sat on his hands. So much for the unique not-like-other politicians guy. Barack, like any old style pol, will tell a story that suits his purpose.

  • http://dianej.wordpress.com DianeJ

    Interesting.

    • Dawnelle

      Any chance the Obot that video taped him dubbed in applause on his OWN blind LEMMINGNESS? LOL

      • Dawnelle

        I mean if Contessa Brewer has the nerve to quote a Quin…. poll saying OBAMA has a 20PT LEAD with WOMEN today????

        If they will prop him up like that? What WON’T they do?

        that’s all I’m sayin

        • wry

          Good morning Dawnelle! Just logged on. What are you referring to?

          Thanks,

          Wry

          • Dawnelle

            earlier this morning as I was channel surfing I caught Brewer on MSNBO quoting a Quinnepiac (Sp) Poll saying first that Obama had a 9pt lead over McKook (i think it was 9) but the next thing she read REALLY STUCK – 20PT lead with women!

            no friggen way honey!

            • ginaswo still says no Uhhbama

              BWAAAHAAAAAAA!!!!!

              Oh man thats rich!!!

              whatd they poll women in Berkley?

              • Dawnelle

                women in oregon no doubt

            • jwrjr

              Lies should be at least a little bit believable. LOL

  • HARP

    liar,liar,liar,liar,liar,liar,liar,liar,liar,liar,liar,liar,liar,liar,liar,liar,

    • Dawnelle

      I K N O W!!
      it’s crazy!

    • beebop

      Maybe what he meant was no one fainted … yeah, that must have been it … no one fell prostrate at his feet calling his name to the heavens and fainted … ;) … I wish we could go back to the days when the worms we discussed were in bottles of tequila … and even that one is put there!

  • http://IthinkIfeel... Tricia Spiegel

    He will say anything to suit the purpose of the moment. That is about as opposite to trust-building as any candidate could possible be.

    • Zee

      That’s it. Whatever suits the moment.

  • HARP

    Where are the 527`s? A deaf, sightless, mute could make a good commercial with all this material.

    • Randall Allen

      The 527′s are waiting until the Denver convention is over……..

    • Dawnelle

      Harp did you listen to the blog radio thing earlier?

      They mentioned a good point. How MOST of us are doing what we are doing w/OUT any prodding from the HILL camp or any other group. ON our OWN.

      The guy that made that FANTASTIC video did it all on he own. It’s such a fantastic thing to witness but then when you also consider the same is happening with the Obots and perhaps MOST of those are on their own as well.

      So they will on their own make up videos, do what ever to slander us and make us look weak, etc. at ever venue. I just don’t usually go around being so defensive in my daily life. That’s gonna suck.

      • Dawnelle

        every not ever (typos sorry)

      • HARP

        They can say anything they want. I will never fall for those moronic clowns.

  • hank48188

    I live in the Detroit area and remember when he gave that speech. Obama told the automakers thatthey were building gas-hog cars that nobody wanted to buy. At the time Obama was the owner of a new Chrysler 300 HEMI, I guess some people were buying them. After this was pointed out Obama got rid of his new 300 HEMI and got something smaller.

    • Mandelay

      He threw his car under the bus?????

      • Dawnelle

        roflol oh that’s rich!!!!

      • HARP

        Hey…That car is my parking space.

      • http://liberalrapture.com scott in jupiter

        One could wish that he was still in it at the time.

      • ritamary

        It wasn’t the car that he knew.

    • Anon

      Yeah, he got a foreign car, a Prius possibly. Just another slap to Detroit.

  • HARP

    A real time saver. No need to watch the news any more. Just play this every day and you will get the same information.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lge_mf2JxVk&feature=related

    • Dawnelle

      I like to know what PROPAGANDA they are throwing out to these poor virgin viewers (mostly under 40)

      hehe

      • HARP

        Hope they stay virgins or they might get punished with a baby.

        • bart

          Or they might get the clap Obama claimed he didn’t get before it was proven he did. . . .

          • HARP

            LOL

  • Mandelay

    Stupid and deaf? No matter what, he can’t be criticized, not now, not ever, never! Or, those who criticize him will be attacked. I’m not old enough to have seen it happen, but I’ve read about it in history books. The “leader” who could not be criticized by his citizens… or else! Hitler.

    • http://www.nativeamericansagainstobama.com/ timepassages

      It’s true anything anyone says that is true, but makes Obama look bad, should not be said. If it is we are all racist. At least that has been the view of Obama and his supporters. No matter what I will keep speaking out, hopefully someone will listen!

      http://nativeamericansagainstobama.wordpress.com/

  • simanov

    Author Andy Martin Dropping Bombs On Obama Campaign

    Jesse Jackson does not have to perform surgery. Obama is a ‘girly man’ who used his wife to ooze out the truth about his lies and his parents’ lies. What kind of a commander-in-chief would the cowardly Obama be? Who would follow a leader into battle that was afraid to admit his parents were not married?

    Barack Obama, Sr. and Anne Dunham never married. Obama knows this fact. This is also why he keeps his white grandmother a virtual prisoner; she knows too, and she won’t lie.

    http://nosheepleshere.blogspot.com/2008/07/author-andy-martin-dropping-bombs-on.html

  • http://liberalrapture.com scott in jupiter

    OT

    Foxnews.com has a story on googles blogger flagging anti obama blogs on their main page.

    • Dawnelle

      it’s gonna get creative

      I figure the Dem party was soooooooo united under BUSH that now that we are split it’s causing creative hysteria to pop up all over the blogasphere, etc!

      All these Creative DEMS (and we rule here) will NOT be silenced.

      I wonder how many of them still are creatively trying to back away from defending BArry?

      I don’t see anything like this coming out of Barry’s camp.

    • http://www.nativeamericansagainstobama.com/ timepassages

      I read it, mine was one that was shut down. Reflections In Tyme We moved, our new blog is at

      http://nativeamericansagainstobama.wordpress.com/

      However, with everyone knowing it got shut down, we have had more hits on the old one than the new!

  • fred

    McCain: Obama Would Swap Iraq Defeat for Election Win

    Republican John McCain’s camp has charged that his Democratic foe Barack Obama would trade defeat in Iraq for an election win, as a fierce new row over the war rocked the White House race.

    As tensions mounted ahead of Obama’s expected to visit to the war zone, his campaign hit back that McCain was oblivious to the real situation in Iraq and warned voters would not be hoodwinked by “fear-mongering.”
    In response, McCain’s foreign policy aide Randy Scheunemann
    http://countusout.wordpress.com/

  • HARP

    If Obama lies about something in the woods and there are is nobody there, is it still a lie?

    • Dawnelle

      Ha goooood one!

    • wodiej

      LMAO!!

    • beebop

      Is the bear shitting on it?

  • http://obamafact.blogspot.com/ Mel

    Why is everyone picking on Barack for, geez!

    His is a story that could never be told anywhere on earth except in the US of A! Being a product of the kennedy Airlift and of the march in Selma are hard enough to bare, but being raised by modest means and having to struggle his entire life to achieve anything fairly has been a burden upon him!

    So stop attacking him and just accept his compulsive lies as fact and everyone will be happy go lucky enjoying the words that are not Just Words of the messiah Barack!

  • beverly leslie

    My disdain of obarf grows daily. He is truly a piece of crap on a stick.

  • I Will Remember in November

    Have you seen the nytimes homepage? It is a economic house of horrors! Economy sliggish, dollar down hits new LOW aga the euro, gm suspends dividends more layoffs to come, stagflation, fannie and freddie, more bank failures–and all we have to chose from is obama the neophyte (Iam being kind) and mccain the “i just know war stuff”.
    UNBELIEVABLE!

  • sfhillary

    yadda yadda yadda. Read this, PUMAs:

    http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/07/shock-and-awe-paid-organizer-version.html#comments

    I’ve been saying for months that Obama’s organization — the best in modern U.S. political history — was going to win this election. It’s a reality you folks don’t want to accept, but in November you’ll have no choice.

    • simanov

      The bottom line is that under Article II of the Constitution a person with Dual Nationality is as ineligible as a Naturalized Citizen. Like the Naturalized Citizen it doesn’t matter if they have ceased to have the Dual Nationality. It’s a question of Allegiance.

    • HARP

      LOL…The only people that go to that site are the hard core Kool Aid drinkers who refuse the 12 steps.

      • sfhillary

        Wrong. Nate Silver, in just six months of writing this blog, has become one of the most respected polling statistical analysts working today. And the article isn’t just his opinion: the numbers of on the ground field organizers are fact, not opinion.

        Like I said, the fact that the Obama campaign has an absolutely overhwhelming number of ground organizers working in crucial states where McCain is barely up and running is not the sort of thing that emotional, low-information voters like you PUMAs tend to pay attention to — there are birth certificates to obsess over, magazine covers to cheer about, Rev. Wright’s to fume about, “flip-flops” to excoriate — but trust me: professionals who really understand politics read stories like this and nod their heads and realize that the odds of Obama winning this election are very high.

        • DeaninMI

          Ah.

          The not-so-clever “we’re smarter than you” meme.

          *golf clapping for sfhillary*

          Way to promote unity.

          • sfhillary

            I’m not trying to promote unity with you PUMA clowns. You are beyond hope and those of us in the reality-based community just laugh (and, alternatively, are appalled) by you all and your crazed hatred. I’m here, as I’ve said before, to deliver thoughts and information to the lurkers who come to NQ and read without posting. NQ is the kind of site with a small readership but much smaller posting figures — there are a few hundred truly fanatical community members here (like me) who post frequently, and a few thousand, probably, who read these threads. Those readers are my real audience. You PUMAs aren’t members of the Democratic Party anymore; you are Republicans who are going to vote for the Republican candidate this fall, so I couldn’t give a shit what you think or say. You’re gone.

            • Donna Brazile

              Please calm down and stop the hate!

              • sfhillary

                Fair enough. I do get snide on occasion. But Donna, if you consider the number of insults I am subjected to every time I post here, I’m sure you can understand my own snippiness.

                • HARP

                  Then piss off

                  • mahaska

                    I second the motion

                • beebop

                  For someone whose candidate is the second coming … why again is it that you hate Americans?

            • DeaninMI

              People who support Obama can hardly claim to be in the “reality-based” community! LMAO.

              My “crazed hatred” stems from the FACT that primary votes in my state for one candidate went to a candidate who took his own name off of the ballot for absolutely no reason. That is FACT that you non-reality Bozos continue to ignore. Indeed, you continue to tout the destruction of democracy by backing the charlatan candidate.

              I am on record here at NQ as saying that I will not, under any circumstance, vote for a Republican. Your assertion that I somehow will is erroneous, and further demonstrates your lack of connection to reality.

              You have failed in your duty as an American by supporting a candidate who does not support democracy.

              November will prove just how irrelevant you and your candidate will prove to be.

              BTW. If you truly didn’t care what I think or say, you wouldn’t be here. Yet another case of disconnectivity coming from an Obama clown.

              You are right on one point, I have to concede. I am no longer a Democrat.

              Now, I’m an Independent……and we will decide this election!!!

              • sfhillary

                Independents usually do decide national elections. Unfortunately for you, Independents currently support Obama over McCain by about 20 points, and I don’t see that changing very much by November.

                As for Michigan: Obama took his name off the ballot, as did every other Democratic candidate except HRC, because that was the agreement that all the campaigns, including HRC, reached with the Democratic Party; because the Michigan party moved their primary up, against the instructions of the national party, their primary was not supposed to count in the primary at all. Hillary herself was quoted saying “Everybody knows that Michigan and Florida aren’t going to count.” We all know she said this. But then she cleverly kept her name on the ballot and started screaming about how MI and FL had to count, after the fact, thereby cutting the legs out from under the party and giving her most hardcore supporters a fig leaf of a reason to claim the nomination was stolen from her, which is absurd.

                I am glad you are not going to vote for the Republican. Truly, I am — it’s an intelligent decision, and an important one for America, as I’m sure you’ll agree. Unfortunately, from what I can tell, most of the regular posters here on NQ are planning to vote McCain, and most of them, I assume, really will. Thus, my generalization; I apologize for including you in it.

                But equally truly, the NQ visitors I “care” about are the assumed silent majority whose votes are still up for grabs. I will admit that I do “care about” the regulars with whom I spar, in the sense that I find it entertaining. And I don’t mean that in a condescending way — I find your emotions gripping (if crazy) and get a kick out of arguing with you. I just don’t have any hope of changing any real PUMA’s mind about what to do in November, so in that sense, I don’t “care.”

                • sfhillary

                  In the interest of maintaining my own credibility here, I’d like to add that what I wrote above about Independents is false. According to the last two polls I’ve been able to find, Obama has a slim lead over McCain nationally, but Independents are actually evenly divided between the two of them. So my statement above is complete and utter BS. There are many, many reasons to think Obama will win this fall, but the overall race right now is actually pretty close.

                  • mahaska

                    Geez, now I know for sure they’ve started paying by the word.

                • DeaninMI

                  Your premise that HRC was the only candidate on the MI primary ballot is false and misleading. I know that premise has been bandied about ad nauseum on pro-O sites, but a quick trip to a MI state site would quell that notion. I find it odd that you chose not to check this fact out for yourself. Hillary’s name appeared alongside the likes of Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel.

                  So once again, your assertion is not grounded in the “reality-based” world.

                  I, too, write on here in the hopes that “lurkers” will see the abject stupidity of Obama’s supporters, and choose to do what is right for our country.

                  (I don’t profess to an overabundance of computer knowledge, but I’ll try to link to the MI site that shows the names that appeared on our ballot. Maybe then, at least one Obama supporter will stop disseminating such disinformation.)

                  http://miboecfr.nictusa.com/election/candlist/08PPR/08PPR_CL.HTM

                  • sfhillary

                    Fair enough: if you’re right about that, you’re right. The fact remains, though, that MI and FL were not supposed to count. At all. This is what the national party said, in advance, would happen if they changed the dates of their primaries. And they did change the dates anyway. And Hillary herself said publicly that everyone knew that those primaries wouldn’t count. Since you held my feet to the fire about who was on the ballot (and I accept that you’re right), please allow me to do the same to you:

                    1. Is it not correct that the national party said in advance that if Michigan and Florida moved up their primaries, their delegates wouldn’t count toward choosing a nominee?

                    2. Is it not correct that Hillary Clinton said publicly that “everyone knows” those two primaries won’t count?

                    Thanks.

                    • DeaninMI

                      1) That is correct. However, South Carolina also moved their primary up in defiance of the “rules”. Why were those delegates counted? Why were the rules bent for S.C.?

                      2) Yes, Hillary did parrot what the DNC had said about our primary. I notice you fail to mention that she also said she was keeping her name on the ballot so as not to disenfranchise an entire state that went Dem in 2004.

                      Once again, only half the story from an Obama supporter. You should instead be asking yourself, why was the “change” candidate so willing to disenfranchise an entire Dem-leaning state? Why did he tow the party line, instead of standing for priciples?

                      One could say giving half of a story is not only misleading, but counterproductive. When people (who lurk at sites like this) find out the truth, they may be less likely to vote for Obama.

                    • TeakWoodKite

                      please allow me to do the same to with you

            • TeakWoodKite

              “reality-based community” somewhere on

              the planet Mongo, where they discover that the meteors are weapons devised by Ming the Merciless, evil ruler of Mongo

              Wiki

              Second Oborg I have seen use this phrase. That’s right Sfhillary, your journey to the dark is now complete. You have been assimilated.

        • Steven Mather

          Dear sfhillary,

          I challenged you to a blog radio debate on the old ROVE posting and you’ve been away, so I assume you did not respond because you did not see the post. Please go back and check the post and come back here and respond.

          Yours,
          Steven

          • sfhillary

            Hi Steven. Could you re-post your challenge here? I don’t want to have to go surfing back through old posts but I’ll be glad to respond to you here. Thanks.

            • Steven Mather

              Dear sfhillary,

              I’ve cut and pasted the post below. Unfortunately, it lacks the context (the preceding posts) that frame why you were posting what you were and why I responded as I did. This said, when you are on issues and off insults you are one of the articulate and credible Obama supporters we encounter here.

              Further, I respect that you may also disagree with Obama’s policy devolution, but still support his candidacy. As such, I do not think it impugns your character for you to decline to debate in favor of Obama policy positions that you do not share.

              Dear sfhillary,

              You broke your word and returned to this site. You said you would not return until November 5th. You said we only insult and fabricate lies against Obama. You show up and insult us by saying we’re fascists and resume your brownshirt tactic of flooding our posts because you reject the principles that ground the freedom of association.

              I am justifiably angered by your lack of moral and intellectual integrity. You think you have something that people must hear. You think your masters degree gives you the chops to come here and talk down to the citizens of this site.

              I challenge you to debate on blog radio. It is easy to arrange. I am a lefty. I’m ready to uphold the progressive banner. Let’s select a topic and agree to debate one week later.

              You support Obama. You do not like our assessment of Obama’s positions, This sets the parameters of our possible topics.

              I suggest we debate about his position on FISA (Is this compromise bad for America?), or on feeling blue and late term abortions (If his new position became law, would it mark a reversal of abortion rights?), or on campaign finance reform in word and in practise (Is Obama morally right to reject public financing?) or, on a different note, Did Obama supporters use Republican talking points to attack Hillary and Bill Clinton during the Democratic primary? (On this latter question, I shall defer my participation to a more learned respondent. You may do the same.)

              You’re here because you do not like our positions on your candidate. You think you have the intellectual and moral high ground. I disagree. As Bill said, let’s have an argument.

              Yours,
              Steven

              • sfhillary

                Ah, here you are. Yes, lord knows I disagree with Obama on some specific issues — FISA most certainly among them — and a couple of the things you’ve mentioned I don’t know a lot about, notably whatever he has said most recently about abortion or the minutae of campaign finance reform. Seems to me an ideal debate topic would be whether true progressives should be voting McCain or Obama this fall, and why. But I’m open to whatever topic feels right to you.

                On your more personal points: I’ve repeatedly acknowledged that I have somewhat of a tendency to get a little rude on this site, but given the incessant insults to which I’m subjected myself, that might be considered understandable. Case in point: your assertion that my posts on here constitute “brownshirt tactics,” as though my speaking out with lots of posts somehow prevents or dissuades everyone else from posting. This is ridiculous, but then again, comparisons of Obama and Obama supporters to Hitler and Nazis are fairly frequent on here. It’s the kind of thing that leads me to disrespect this community — comparisons so absurd that one simply cannot take those who hold them seriously. Hitler was a murderous dictator who tried to destroy the entire world and succeeded in causing the deaths of many tens of millions of human beings. Obama is a politician who is running for president and has a tendency to fudge his positions a little, and has a few associations from Chicago that might conceivably someday open him up to charges of corruption. How can nayone in his or her right mind compare the two?

                Anyway, I’ll be glad to try and arrange a blog radio debate. I’m around until next weekend, then on vacation until early August. Let’s go for it and have some fun.

                • Steven Mather

                  sfhillary,

                  I thought you would agree and your would agree with the right spirit. You did not disappoint me.

                  I like your topic suggestion, but, like our agreement on FISA, we agree that progressives should not vote for MCain. I would want to lose that debate! I think it will be more fun and meaningful, if we can argue on a point where we differ. We might have to wait until we find that point, given our leftiness. In this regard, I written down your e-mail.

                  As to both your use and my use of Nazi associations, we are guilty as charged. My point originates in the practises that drove Clinton supporters from Democratic blogs, and lead them to create their own blogs. Specifically, my point relates to people who claim the right to free speech without adopting the responsibilities inherent to the practise of free speech, namely that one should not use free speech in a way that silences others. For example, incessant interjection and post-hijacking are tactics used on blogs by hostile posters to inhibit freedom of association. believe’s practises stand as an example.

                  Further, I do not claim that NQ posters are guilt-free, however, because this is an anti-Obama blog created by Democratic refugees, we deserve a little leeway.

                  With the debate as a prize , because it would be fun, I look forward to us finding an appropriate point of contention.

                  Yours,
                  Steven

                  • Steven Mather

                    “Be it resolved that progressives should not vote for Obama.”

                    What do you think?

                    • sfhillary

                      That works for me. What’s the next step?

                    • Steven Mather

                      First, we have to work out an approximate date. Then we must get a venue. It would probably be easier to ask a PUMA station to hold the event because they have a venue set up. We could also do a show on our own, which means more work, but it might provide a more neutral playing field.

                      I like the topic because it allows for good arguments on both sides.

                      I’ll try the e-mail address you sent me.

                    • Steven Mather

                      I’ve e-mailed. I await your response.

            • mahaska

              another lazy bot. they always want us to do their work for them.

          • sfhillary

            Well, I actually did try to surf backward and find the Rove posting (which I dimly remember), but I wasn’t able to do so. NQ’s search engine could use an upgrade. At any rate, I’ll check back here a little later today in case you respond. You can also write to me at reachmk [AT] AOL [DOT] com. It’s a spammed out address that I rarely check anymore, but I will do so tonight and tomorrow. Please put “Steven Mather” in the Subject line so I can find your email. I’d be glad to have a blog radio debate with you; it sounds like fun.

            • HARP

              sfhillary.. Try reading the rules first.

              Rule 11.A. of the Delegate Selection Rules for the 2008 Democratic National Convention states the following:
              11. TIMING OF THE DELEGATE SELECTION PROCESS
              A. No meetings, caucuses, conventions or primaries which constitute the first determining stage in the presidential nomination process (the date of the primary in primary states, and the date of the first tier caucus in caucus states) may be held prior to the first Tuesday in February or after the second Tuesday in June in the calendar year of the national convention. Provided, however, that the Iowa precinct caucuses may be held no earlier than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the Nevada first-tier caucuses may be held no earlier than 17 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the New Hampshire primary may be held no earlier than 14 days before the first Tuesday in February; and that the South Carolina primary may be held no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February. In no instance may a state which scheduled delegate selection procedures on or between the first Tuesday in February and the second Tuesday in June 1984 move out of compliance with the provisions of this rule.

              We already know that Florida and Michigan violated Rule 11.A. by moving their primaries to a date before the first Tuesday in February. There is no argument there, but what about Iowa, New Hampshire, and yes, South Carolina too.

              Rule 11.A specifically set the date for the primaries & caucuses for those three states as “no earlier than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February” (Iowa), “no earlier than 14 days before the first Tuesday in February” (New Hampshire), and “no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February” (South Carolina).
              Iowa held their caucuses on January 3rd. That’s more than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February. New Hampshire held their primary on January 8th. That’s more than 17 days before the first Tuesday in February. And South Carolina held their primary on January 26th. That’s more than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February.

              Under Rule 11.A., five states were in violation of the Democratic National Committee’s Delegate Selection Rules, and as such, all five states should have been punished under Rule 20.C.1.a.

              Violation of timing: In the event the Delegate Selection Plan of a state party provides or permits a meeting, caucus, convention or primary which constitutes the first determining stage in the presidential nominating process to be held prior to or after the dates for the state as provided in Rule 11 of these rules, or in the event a state holds such a meeting, caucus, convention or primary prior to or after such dates, the number of pledged delegates elected in each category allocated to the state pursuant to the Call for the National Convention shall be reduced by fifty (50%) percent, and the number of alternates shall also be reduced by fifty (50%) percent. In addition, none of the members of the Democratic National Committee and no other unpledged delegate allocated pursuant to Rule 8.A. from that state shall be permitted to vote as members of the state’s delegation. In determining the actual number of delegates or alternates by which the state’s delegation is to be reduced, any fraction below .5 shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number, and any fraction of .5 or greater shall be rounded up to the next nearest whole number.

              Yes, you read that right; under Rule 20.C.1.a., Florida, Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire, and South Carolina would have all lost their super delegates and had their pledged delegates reduced by half since they all violated Rule 11.A.

              However, Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina weren’t punished fairly. In fact, they weren’t punished at all.
              And what about Florida & Michigan?
              Well, we all know what happened to them.

              Instead of strictly adhering to Rule 20.C.1.a. and reducing their pledged delegates by 50%, the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee decided to take it a step further. The DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee exercised the authority granted to them by Rules 20.C.5. and 20.C.6. which allowed them to “impose sanctions the Committee deems appropriate.” And what were those sanctions the Committee deemed appropriate? Stripping two of the largest states in the union of all their votes at the 2008 Democratic National Convention.

              Ladies & Gentlemen, this is what happens when the rules aren’t applied equally and fairly. And as I said before, this mess is a result of the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee not applying the rules equally and fairly.
              So, the next time someone starts talking about the rules, might I suggest two courses of action:

              1.) Read the damn rules first!
              -and-
              2.) Let them know that the rules were bent to allow for Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina to keep their preferred first-in-the-nation status.

              • sfhillary

                Harp, I bow before your willingness to dive into the details of this stuff. Maybe you’re right that the national party allowed some states to bend the rules and not others. In general, I certainly agree that the deference granted to Iowa and NH (by both parties) is silly. The fact remains, though, that they said in advance that MI and FL shouldn’t move up their dates, and they did anyway; and that even if you grant Hillary all her delegates from those two states, Obama will still defeat her handily in overall delegates, because the super-delegates, after watching both campaigns for a year, decisively chose him. This primary was not “stolen” from Hillary Clinton. She was out-performed by Obama, by his campaign staff, by his volunteers, by his fundraising and by his strategy, which focused on many states that she totally ignored until way too late.

                Seriously. This is one of those beliefs that most of us loyal progressive Democrats just find silly, this notion that the primary was “stolen.” It was close, but she lost fair and square, and for fairly obvious reasons, too.

                • http://deleted AnninCa

                  I don’t agree with Harp on the Iowa bit. The DNC is allowed to designate states that can go early.

                  I disagree with you that it’s insane to see the election as stolen.

                  A LOT of Democrats view it that way.

                  Caucuses were mismanaged, and there are many, many official complaints of stolen votes that have not been addressed and other major violations as well.

                  The MI compromise is not fair reflection of voters. It could be challenged within the Democratic Party easily because it’s an obvious violation of our own charter. Delegates she won were stolen and given to Obama. Nevermind that he got all the uncommitted, which is wrong.

                  DNC leaders consistently misinformed the press about party rules regarding SD roles. They implied that it was “only right” that the one with the most delegates should win SD support. That’s is not accurate. They lied. The DNC abused its position by trying to suppress voter turnout and suggest that Hillary should quit when she clearly was a viable candidate. Their reason? She’s behind in delegates and can’t catch up. Except Obama had little chance of winning the required number of delegates, too. So that was a lie, and it was an attempt at voter suppression.

                  Obama was given a pass on his violations of the no campaigning rule, both in MI and FL. There was no accountability enforced.

                  These and other reasons are why we say the process was undemocratic and Obama was selected, not elected.

                  • sfhillary

                    Look, your depictions about the DNC being involved in “voter suppression” are ridiculous. We (by which I mean, we Democrats) broke voter turnout records in (I think) every single state of the union. And the DNC was scrupulous in NOT urging HRC to leave the race before all states had an opportunity to vote. If you can show me any public quote from any DNC leader saying otherwise, please feel free to do so. Certainly there were those who urged her not to tear down another party member in ways that would hurt us in the fall, and certainly there were quotes from DNC people urging her not to continue an aggressive campaign after the primaries were over, and certainly there were those who expressed the opinion that Obama had “won” the nomination. That is exactly how party members behave who want a unified front as early as possible. It’s also how frontrunners behave who want to project victory as early as possible — see Bill Clinton in 1992; if I recall correctly, he declared himself having an insurmountable lead over Tsongas by March or so (and he was right, of course).

                    As for super-delegates: again, please show me a public instance where a DNC leader “lied” about SD roles. SDs are free to vote for whomever they wish. And they are also free to speak publicly about what they feel those criteria should be. I know some SDs said publicly that they didn’t feel other super-delegates should go against the cnadidate who had more delegates overall. That is their right; there are no rules about how a SD votes, and there are no rules about opinions being stated publicly about what should govern a SD’s vote. One could just as easily say that Hillary supporters “broke the rules” and “lied” by saying that super-delegates should vote for the candidate who would be best able to win in November.

                    Sorry. Your argument that Obama was “selected not elected” is ridiculous. This was a very close primary race which Hillary lost because she didn’t put resources into caucus states or post-Super Tuesday states. Obama’s strategy was better than hers and so he amassed more delegates. He also impressed the super-delegates with his fundraising, his organization and his “change” message, so most of them wound pu deciding they wanted him to lead the party this year. That’s the long and short of it. The rest is nonsense.

                    • TeakWoodKite

                      Sfhillary ; he was indeed selected. If you cannot even see the contours of the “selection” as it occurred as viewed over time, it is your problem.

                      So when Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi stated that the SD’s should cast their vote based on the popular vote and then when BO lost that advantage,switched to saying SD’s should vote based on who has the “majority” of delegates, and when it was obvious to every one that Neither candidate would win the the correct number of delegates, injected herself in the a rare display of bias?

                      Are you aware that Penny P and her go back to when she was 11 years old?

                      The control of the Democratic party is not a reflection of the majority of the rank and file democrats. Yet you continue to preach about BO’s ground game and organization.

                      The primaries are replete with the twisted wreckage of strong armed tactics and illegal acts. There a markers going to be called in on this current gang of igits and I don’t want to be anywhere near it when it happens.
                      Remember hope does not put food on your table or gas in the tank.
                      Change occurs,like it or not. Who you choose to support is your choice, which I would defend your right to do.

                      That said answer this question for me;
                      How can you vote for a person who profited from the misery of others,on the backs of the very souls he was elected to represent?

                      If your candidate is so lacking in taking any principled stand and following thru, why are supporting him?

                      OBAMA: Well, look. There are going to be times where it’s the right thing to do, and the consensus is not going to be perfect

                      .

                      FISA was just one of those times? Just words?

        • Northwest rain

          Good — the more Obamabots out there — the more people they will PISS OFF — and the more people will NOT vote snObama.

          It is the Obamabutts (like the idiots who show up here to harass anyone who does NOT like Obama) — the Obamabutts will lose votes for Obama.

          The only idiots Obama can hire are like the thugs who showed up in the caucuses.

          Obama is a loser — and McCain doesn’t need ground troops — WE know who McCain is.

          Obama will lose — he can hire as many thugs with the overseas money that supports his campaign — Obama will lose!!!!!!!

          Obama is a loser and he always has been a loser.

          PUMA!!!!!!!!!!!

  • HARP

    McCain has to start getting a younger audience around him when he gives a speech. Most of the ones I`ve seen have more vegetables than a smorgasbord.

    • Dawnelle

      Heyyyyyyyyyy r u callin me a Veggie Plate? lol

      • HARP

        Dawnelle… Sorry but I have to put myself on that list also.

  • ritamary

    Our system for choosing presidential candidates needs serious overhaul.

    • Dawnelle

      time to fly

      RISE HILLARY RISE!!!!

      WE WILL MAKE YOU OUR PHOENIX!!

      just say NO to the Precious!

      PEACE out

  • http://elect2009.wordpress.com/ Cindie

    This man is DELIRIOUS! He ONLY hears what he wants to hear.

  • lute

    If you can’t do irony on the cover of The New Yorker, where can you do it?

    – Bill Maher

    • sfhillary

      That’s actually a pretty funny line. And probably true.

      • beebop

        In case you missed this at Real Clear …

        http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/jpodhoretz/16021

        I did lift this from the article. Never good to be known as the guy with no sense of humro, eh?

        It’s a rapid response backfire.

        Not to mention that it makes the Obama campaign look considerably less cool — and cool is a key element of the Obama magic. Andy Borowitz sums it up hilariously in a new Borowitz Report:

        Obama Releases List of Approved Jokes About Himself
        Bid to Help Late Night Comics

        Saying he is “sympathetic to late night comedians’ struggle to find jokes to make about me,” Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill) today issued a list of official campaign-approved Barack Obama jokes.

        The five jokes, which Sen. Obama said he is making available to all comedians free of charge, are as follows:

        Barack Obama and a kangaroo pull up to a gas station. The gas station attendant takes one look at the kangaroo and says, “You know, we don’t get many kangaroos here.” Barack Obama replies, “At these prices, I’m not surprised. That’s why we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.”

        A traveling salesman knocks on the door of a farmhouse, and much to his surprise, Barack Obama answers the door. The salesman says, “I was expecting the farmer’s daughter.” Barack Obama replies, “She’s not here. The farm was foreclosed on because of subprime loans that are making a mockery of the American Dream.”

        A horse walks into a bar. The bartender says, “Why the long face?” Barack Obama replies, “His jockey just lost his health insurance, which should be the right of all Americans.”

        Q: What’s black and white and red all over?
        Barack Obama: The New Yorker magazine, which should be embarrassed after publishing such a tasteless and offensive cover, which I reject and denounce.

        A Christian, a Jew and Barack Obama are in a rowboat in the middle of the ocean. Barack Obama says, “This joke isn’t going to work because there’s no Muslim in this boat.”

        Maybe the Obama rapid-response team should consider taking a short vacation. And Obama too. I noted during the primary season that the man never smiles. Now it may come to seem that he never laughs.

  • Zee

    Hey, it was a win-win situation for Obama. He’d long ago thrown the Michigan voters under the bus. So why not lie about them now as it suits him?

  • cleffnote

    Not this Oregon female.

    I have posted my “Why I’m a Democrat” video on youtube. I hope that everyone else who does the same will post it here and on our other PUMA sites. I left off the PUMA signal so that it won’t get blocked, but the message is pretty clear. Wait til the end. Please, when someone posts an Why I’m a Democrat video go watch it, vote on it and post comments. When the DNC sees how many of us are voting, they will have to check out what we are saying. This may be the easiest way to get to the DNC yet. Thanks DNC. Everybody post a video, you only have a few weeks, so hurry.

    Here’s mine.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Tw1Bg8TcK8

    • CheatedFLVoter

      Great video.

  • http://obamafact.blogspot.com/ Mel

    News Flash: American dog owners are becoming extremely furious as fines are skyrocketing and parks are becoming places of filth due to the lack of available pooper-scoopers that have been gobbled up by the Obama campaign!

    • Northwest rain

      Thanks for the laugh!

    • TeakWoodKite

      Mel, What I want to know is why all the warning signs about all the rats are gone from Riverside Park and 79st, and now there are only Obama warning signs? Do the rats know something I don’t?

  • CheatedFLVoter

    Do we know for sure of anything obama has ever said that can be proven factual? Just asking.

  • CATscratchfever

    aol bloggers are still going nuts over there about puma. they just dont believe the movement is more than a couple of mad women ! lmao…. tommy christopher did some interview with pumapac.org and started some shit. meanwhile aol started a new poll and obama is tanking ……last time i checked mccain was at 73 % oblwme at 27 % that poll is 50 states, not some poll hand picked by some obama lover. so when you stupid trolls start talking polls, go to aol any day and see your obama losing his lying stinkin ass….

  • clik212

    Well they did clap but with little enthusiasm and from what I heard not too many of them did either. What he should have said is “they was little enthusiasm in their reaction.”

    At any rate the man’s brand of snake oil, is not selling any more. Since the republicans bought most of it, to get Hillary out of the race. It is up to us to get him out of the race. Bite the bullet, hold your nose and vote McCain, between this do nothing congress and McCain we will be moon walking till 2012.

  • cleffnote

    clik212 can you say standing ovation and little enthusiasm in the same breath?

    He’s a liar.

  • Objective analysis

    Why are video’s not showing now? Has Obama tried to remove these out of circulation?

  • Mawm

    He just can’t help himself from telling lies.

    It is pathological.

  • Peter

    Speaking of applauding….

    Crowd erupts at Obama event–but it’s over mention of Clinton.

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/07/clinton-obama.html

    Not a very interesting piece, but I liked that is seemed Clinton got more appreciation than Obama.

  • Madison

    Obama vs Obama

    lol What a loser!

    NoObama !

  • Gary

    It wasn’t just the sweety thing.It was Obama avoiding this reporter.You can see how Obama gets going to avoid her.

    The workers stood there in hopes to hear something.Nothing.Obama will not speak to the people unless he is batching Hillary or McCain.He will wait till he gets on his leaded plane as these reporters on the plane are helping Obama by doing what he ask to do.He use this plane as a safe haven to go on and lie so he can’t be confronted on anything.

    Obama is a loser.

  • ribbone

    When will Real Tyme be back on, or is this another show that’s been cancelled because it informs the public of the truth!!!

  • HARP

    You must be talking about Huff & Puff.

  • http://liberalrapture.com scott in jupiter

    Hey dumb dumb doodieface is back.

  • simanov

    So you call Larry a liar, but you also admit that Obama is a liar by making the comparison. So which one of them do support for the presidency?

  • http://obamafact.blogspot.com/ Mel

    Hey Jeff, long time no see, you back on Obama’s blog payroll again or based on your post, can’t imagine you are since you are confirming Obama to be a complete liar!

  • Dawnelle

    Pahahaha!

  • Zee

    This is a TYPICAL Obot MO.

    They screamed about McCain’s slight acquaintance with some vile preacher….thereby admitting Obama’s longterm friendship with his mentor the hatemonger Wright was even worse.

    Their ONLY excuse is “so and so does it, too!!!”

  • YouHadMeAtChange-Obamabot#399

    Don’t forget about McCain’s birth certificate. Oh the Obotrage.

  • mahaska

    Yo Jeff, I’d run to the bank with those checks. boing, boing.