Summer Spin for the Nowhere Man features a smashing new strategy to win the hearts and minds of Hillary supporters. Having voraciously devoured her dignity, gone to all lengths to destroy her credibility and spending the Primary season obliterating all objective information about her Presidential candidacy, MSM has decided its time to give the little lady her due. 

CNN’s Friday, July 11, latest masterpiece in manipulation, indicates the degree to which the obama (I refuse to ever capitalize his name) campaign is worried. Giving Hillary more continuous air coverage, in this 60 minute special, than it ever did during the vote-getting season, the network hinted that Hillary deserves some credit, after all. While they pointed out (in their version) that, although she ran a terrible campaign which got off on a failing footing – due to her “arrogant” presumption of entitlement to office (a perspective the MSM, not Senator Clinton, generated) – it’s now come to light that the Clintons hold sway with millions of voters.  

Now, isn’t that an extraordinary insight we needed the world’s largest news network to make clear? And that being the case, it’s time to give this she-devil her due – for, without her, it appears their Golden Boy might fall short of their mutual aims. While the same evidently illiterate geniuses at work continue to blur all distinctions between Hillary’s platforms and Barack’s, they and obama’s conjoined Corporate cause has begun, at last, to realize his polling results are shakier, week by week, and that will not serve. A strategic new spin is, thus, demanded. 


And this one, as demonstrated by Andersen Cooper and friends, requires due deference to the more qualified Clintonher unswerving supporters and even (however demeaning to acknowledge) her husband, with his record of salvaging our Republic from the ravages of the first Bush. We really should give MSM credit due. It musn’t be easy to stoop to inviting back two genuine, intelligent Hillary supporters (not the backstabbers they usually prefer to include). Next, think of the editing gymnastics involved in juxtaposing these candid commentaries on the Clintons’ undying merits with enough punctuating invalidations by network anti-Clintons to convey their  real message. It goes something like this: 

What’s wrong with you people! We’ve been carefully applying our favorite technique- namely, to mesmerize all viewers with hourly repetitions of the same contrived ‘facts’ we want the public to believe- against their own best interests. How many times do we have to tell you that this campaign is over?! This is getting taxing (not on corporations, of course.)” 

“Time for the ole bait and switch sales pitchHillary is soooo great, she ought to be a lifetime achievement leader in the Senate. (After all, somebody’s got to actually work on the issues.) Or, just imagine – she could be Governor of the great state of New York. Just picture her, even, on the Supreme Court in one of those cool black robes. And, if there are any out there who don’t think Hillary deserves such authority (since we’ve been saying otherwise for months on end), for you, here’s our stylish twenty-something female AA probama ‘expert’ who even agrees any of the above should do nicely.  Finally, we’ll throw in our standard line-up of patriarchal women haters to remind you all – if you’re not over your emotional outburst yet, we guarantee by November, you won’t even remember what brought it on!” 

“Lastly, if we must, (and this segment issued, no doubt, ondirective of Axelrod/Hitler himself) we will cast her gaze and your own toward the Vice Presidency. Think of what a Hillary Vice Presidency could do for the country. Breathe a sigh of relief knowing, that if she can only follow him around closely, twenty-four/seven, our nation and the world might stand a better chance of surviving his lack of leadership skills. However, as spokemen for obama’s campaign (even as grossly overpaid as we are) we aren’t in a position of being held to this offer. If it comes, it could only be bestowed by the Messiah himself. And we’re sure you understand, he won’t even offer unless he is certain of an acceptance. Not by Hillary, for that’s a given, but by her voters. We now extend the possibility of this time-limited offer and highly recommend you accept it, before it is off the table. Should you refuse, we will naturally never acknowledge any commitment was given nor implied. In the meantime, we’ll dangle it as the latest worm on our hook and see what impact it has on the next set of polls before deciding whether to pursue it further. .  . . . and now back to our commercials for other useless, shoddy products you don’t really need or want.” 

The momentuously multiplying Just Say No Deal members,who just raised millions in a few weeks, may be asking:Won’t they ever get it? We are not buying. Free shipping, vote pandering, issue-switching and globally expanding publicity aside. This is not a product we want in our White House. Not even with the finest of window dressing. Not even with internationally televised speeches, given in historic settings after weeks of plagiarized compilation and rehearsal. Not even if mobama learns to speak French in a whisper and wear Jackie Kennedy costumes day and night for eight years running. Not even if secret new technologies send night-long near-silent subliminal signals, via our sleeping computers: “It’s over, it’s over, buy now or be sorry later.”   

Our answer will remain the same (in paraphrase of the wonderful witch from “Wicked”)  Whose to say we’ve been changed for the better? We only know we’ve been changed for good!”  We are and shall  remain . . . in one voice . . .nobama, noway, nohow.  

Ain’t it funny how Will Bower can say more worth saying in a matter of moments on Fox than all Humpty Dumpty’s men can manage in a full hour on CNN?!    

YouTube Preview Image 

Published at Unity in Diversity


  • pew

    I didn’t hear them say the same thing in the second
    show,I know I heard the guy mention Hillary supporters, and it was not mentioned in the taped show.

  • tmt

    Didn’t see the program because I don’t have a TV but I loved the Wicked qoute. Yes I agree we better do something because we are about to be changed for good.

  • Catherine

    Try as they will, the media must be put on notice consistently and repeatedly from now till November until it gets through their thick skulls that puma’s will not be fooled. NoBama not now and not in November.

  • pew
  • Lou

    Mack Daddy and His Pimps=Obama and his base.

  • Garrett

    Check out Bonnie Erbe’s latest article on “Obama’s Fundraising Hypocrisy”–a-lobbyist-by-any-other-name.html


    just caught will bower on foxnews…..ha ha ha . pumas everywhere, and you all just know how much it pisses off the messiah and his minions ! i dont see any “hounds” or any pro-obama groups anywhere on the news, lmao

    • Lou

      please don’t call him messiah. Mack daddy is his name.

  • Black Americans are talking about NObama, and changing over to Cynthia McKinney the Green party candidate who has tons of credibility
    watch her here tackling Rumsfield

  • rjj

    also in some Bank of America branches. It’s difficult to avoid Big Bro’ O.


    • rjj

      Who decides that policy I wonder. If CNN is failing to get home viewers are these institutions keeping it on life support? In which case CNN is delivering the Corporate message to captive audiences.

      Anybody understand who decides to have omnipresent TVs and what will be shown on them. What if some branch manager or airport manager wants to show ESPN or the weather channel? Do they have the discretion, or is the programming policy an upper management diktat.

      • pew

        You would have loved to watch CNN tonite/

        Glen Beck, was the host, and didn’t hold back.He called Obama the farthest Left Wing candidate, and can’t understand why people are not running away. The first Half hour is the part you need to listen to.
        Good things said about Clinton supporters,and Glen Beck, he thought it was time to bring in a Third Party.

      • I make it a point wherever I go to ask them to change channels – and they always do so. It is just a collectively programmed habit – because, years ago, when they started CNN (before MSNBullshitC even existed) the public actually believed that the purpose of these news channels was unbiased, up-to-the-minute world “news” – which obviously has not now existed for a long long time.

        So, wherever you go, just ask them to change channels (ABC’s not so bad compared to the rest – it doesn’t matter even what is on, at least it’s drawing viewers away from the mass propagandists.

      • pew

        Is it true George Soros,owns CNN?
        I read that on another Blog.If thats true, than the broadcasters,are told what to say.imoIsn’t he the guy supporting Obama?

  • Susan

    I really do enjoy watching CNN in their pandering because it tells me they really do need my vote for Barfy to win! Then it makes me feel all hapy inside because I know they don’t have my vote and they cannot ever get my vote for Barfy under any circumstance! That send a tingle up my leg. If it was all wrapped up for Ofreakish, they wouldn’t keep trying!

    When all is said and done and Barfy loses in a landslide, the blame will go to racism, Clinton, and PUMA. The reality will be that the media should be credited with the loss. It kind of reminds me of when I was a kid and at a campout I ate way too many smores. I vomited all night and to this day, I cannot stand the sight of smores! Well, if that is what the media has done with shoving Barky down our throats so much that we can’t stand the sight of him and he will have to live under a rock for the rest of his no good life (should he manage to stay out of prison), then I amy send the media a big thank you card. I will love it if Obama gets his 15 minutes of fame and then is gone.


    • RepublicanChick

      Every white person that did not vote for Obama will be blamed.

      Every black person that did not tow the black unity line will be blamed.

      Every brown person that didn’t vote for him will be blamed.

      Every campaign advisor/aide will be blamed.

      Every woman that did not vote for Obama will be blamed because Hillary wasn’t strong enough to get the woman’s vote out on his behalf.

      Every man that didn’t vote for Obama is a redneck, God lovin’, gun totin’, and country lovin’ will be blamed.

      Everyone will be blamed except the person most responsible:

      Supreme Numero Uno—>Barack H. Obama

      Yes, it’s coming!

      • Lou

        It’s no accident. They planned the race card and blame game in 2007. They have every intention to play to the ‘white guilt’ But only people who are racist have white guilt and are voting for Mack one here though.

      • pew

        lol,that was funny, looks like Nader may have a good chance or

        I wish Clinton would go Independent

    • ginaswo still says no Uhhbama

      yes he is the Milli Vanilli of politics

  • Ferdberfle

    The only thing I dislike more than an Obamabot is two Obamabots.

    • Lou

      obamabot=mack daddy’s pimps

  • Bell’Artista

    Way too little, Way too late
    ciao Backtrack
    you’ll never EVER get my vote

  • eebaltimore
  • RepublicanChick

    Hell has frozen over. Note the time and date.

    I, RepublicanChick, have just donated to Hillary Clinton’s campaign to help pay off her debt.

    At this time, I have prepared a litte speech for such an historic moment.

    I would like to thank the little people out there—Obama supporters. You know who you are. I’d like to say thank you to Nancy Pelosi’s comments today that really geared me up to start kicking some butt.

    I’d like to *gulp* thank Hillary…well, I’ll thank her supporters. Still not a Hillary fan, but compared to Obama…I’d vote for Hillary.

    Now if I could just get the darn PUMA donation thing to work correctly. I think my computer hates me.

    By the way, do you donate to PUMA or JSND? Or is it easier to donate to NoQuarter?



    • RepublicanChick

      “little” not “litte”. Geez!

    • Susan

      I know how you feel. I am a democrat who never, ever would have imagined I would vote for McCain or any republican ever! But I have donated to both McCain and the GOP 3 times since Hillary suspended! You see, I would pay any dollar amount, I would give up as much money as I could to rid the world of that fraud Obama.

      I just cannot stand him!!!!

      • RepublicanChick

        If McCain wins in November, then I suspect Obama will be back to run again in 2012 and Hillary will be as well. If her debt is paid off already, fine. She can have her war chest ready to go the next time around.

        We can thank Obama for uniting Republicans, Democrats, and others in ways he never dreamed possible.

        I can’t stand him either. UGH!

    • Lou

      Hey..way to go Republican chick.
      donate to or Justsaynodeal. Or to the Denver group at Heidi Li’s potpourii.
      It goes to Ads and busses to Denver.

    • ginaswo still says no Uhhbama

      thank you rockin republican chick!!

      I gave to big mac too

      we are truly united to save the country frm this agenda, it changes every day, and every day it gets scarier…….

    • jmk

      Hey, Repub woman, good for you! Think the answer is this:

      If you can’t get the PUMA link to work, you can go to to give. Just make sure that you give on the page that says Senate campaign- the reason is they (bozo and his new DNC) have put her through so many hoops, giving under the ‘Senate” campaign is the way you can be sure that those dangerous fools can’t get their hands on a dime of it.

      Also, when you give, you usually get a comment box in which you can specify whatever you want to say.

  • Darryl

    I think what they need to do to get rid of these pandering politicans is too do what they do in Holland. When someone gets in office, all there appointments policies and such aren’t approved untill 4 years later after the next election. Unless the person whom made the appointments and policies is elected again, its out the door and a new comes in. This is called,,,,holding them accountable.

  • Peggy Sue

    Do they think we’re brain dead? Or are they all on drugs?

    Too little, too late. The time for kissy face is over. You already told us we were deadenders, hormone deprived women, bitter working types, uninformed, fantasy-driven, petulent, carping hags [and whatever a male hag would be]. More than that, you said you could win this prize without us.

    Go right ahead.

    And you expect a half-hearted outreach to do the job, to seduce us back. A little wink and a crook of the finger?

    Dream on, babe!

    Gone for good [or at least for this election cycle]. I’m not one of those women who goes home after the old man blackens my eyes or spits on me or calls me every name in the book. I told my husband long ago–one time and I walk.

    Well, I’m walking right now from the Dems and their half-ass candidate. You don’t need me? Well, I sure as hell don’t need you!

    • Dave

      Thank god for that.

      The one thing I can never understand is the posters here who think us paid Obama trolls actually would want some of you on our side.
      We are here for entertainment purposes (both yours and ours) only.
      But thanks for the fun!

      • Ferdberfle

        The fun begins when your slouch of a candidate (Barky) loses and you go to your crying room in Mommy’s basement. With your degree in mechanical engineering, you could build yourself a a bot universe where change is ever present and the sky is always a light shade of pink, just like Planet Claire.

      • Peggy Sue

        You have no worry on that front, Dave.

        We’ll talk in November, after the election [the only poll that counts].

  • kcfromtx

    CNN plays all over the Houston Airport and I happened to see some of it yesterday. The news was all obama, all the time. Even my Ipod couldn’t block it out. Continuous free advertising and fawning all over him while pretending to be news. I would vote for another term for GWB and/or Cheney before obarfo. It seems people would be so sick of him by November they may vote for the other guy just to get him off our tv screens and web pages.

    • Susan

      Seriously, who would want 4 years of that crap??? There is marketing something and then there is making people sick of something! I wouldn’t vote for it either way because I think the job of POTUS is serious business. It should be anyway!

      And my thinking is, they let this guy get away with everything now, would they let him as POTUS? I can’t say for sure, but won’t take that chance!

      That is all a vote for Obama is, risk. Let me say it again for the kiddos. Obama is a risk.

      I hope most voters wake up and relaize that he is just a risk not worth taking!

    • basil

      I tuned out weeks ago but once in a while my remote gets stuck during channel surfing and I’m bombarded with All-Obama-All-the-Time coverage.

      It reminds me of the non-stop barrage of images during the 1990 Invasion of Kuwait.

  • Tricia

    I stopped watching Msnbc and Cnn a long time ago when I realized they were promoting and pushing Obama. For me personally they were an extension of Obambi’s campaign. I switched to Fox even though I absolutely despised it before Obama came to the picture, now I think they really are fair and balanced.

    BTW, the Obama trolls or cultists remind me of the people that voted for Bush in the last election. They are ignorant, dumb and have no common sense and they are even worse because they are radicals! This country is really going down hill, if you have the so called “latte” highly educated voting block on the side of O. How sad!!

    • Darryl

      No see this is not true. I am a degree in molecular biology. These highly educated people voting for him may be college graduated, but college graduates from where and what degree. I can get a degree as a hair dresser for god’s sake, doesn’t mean I am smart. Certain degrees take more mental capacity than others. These kids voting for him are either–fresh out of college (have no life experience) or have a degree in accounting or some bullshit non-profesional degree.

      • Dave

        Hello degree in molecular biology. I am a doctorate of mechanical engineering. Nice to meet you. I am rather troubled that you would call me a bullshit ‘non-profesional’ [sic] degree. You be no nice.

        • Ferdberfle

          Maybe you could use that degree in Mechanical Engineering to build Obama a new platform. This time make sure it is on solid footing and doesn’t sway in the political breeze.

          • basil


          • Dave

            no no no no no….that’s the part where you’re supposed to say “Degree my a$$!!!You’re really just some idiot high school drop out getting paid $7 an hour to blog about Bacrackhead OBlowme and convince us Lovers to come to your side.”

            Come on now…getting off message.

            • imustprotest

              Well…you said it so it must be true Dave. Dave, did you lose your job as a mechanical engineer? Why do you have time to blog. My brother is a mechanical engineer and he’s working night and day.

              • Dave

                “My brother is a mechanical engineer and he’s working night and day.”

                Well that sucks to be him, I guess. Maybe he should be a little more efficient or not take on more than his wittle mind can handle.
                Since you seem so interested in my life, I am resposible for logging 40 hours a week under my current contract. When those hours are logged, is up to me.
                Thank you for asking.

                • Ferd Berfle

                  That log you speak about is a checksheet used by the prison guards, I’ll bet. NOw get back to work.

                  • Dave

                    so I’m an engineer buuilding houses of cards and then in a prison…come on now- pick one fantasy and then stick with it. You’re starting to get boring.

                    I think you and imustprotest should get together.

        • ginaswo still says no Uhhbama

          Ahhh engineer, explains a lot

          • Dave

            Haha, is it safe to assume that this is you?:

            I am nto GETTING IT
            b/c as an AMERICAN

            I refuse to accept it



            ginaswo | 05.31.2008 – 7:32 pm


            73-55NOT 64-64NOT 68-55

            Waaaaaaaahhhh!!!! Waahhhhh!! The DIMocrats are being unconstitutional with their primary rules and delegates!!! WaaaaahhhhH!!!
            I mean LOOK! It’s right there! You know…in the CONSTITUTION!
            I’m sure your daughters are proud.

    • Northwest rain

      It is amazing how much alike the extreme right and extreme left cult members are.

      Early in bushie’s reign the bushie cultist were reporting anyone for saying anything negative about bush.

      We are seeing identical behavior from the obamabutt cultists — and we don’t need to go further then NQ to see these authoritarian cult members defending their messiah.

      At one point a week or two ago an obamabutt posted information about someone associated with NQ on one of the NQ articles. And then this BOBO cultist threatened all the NQ commentators — that they were coming after us next. Just like the bush cultist used to do.

      Cultist are sick people.

      • Dave

        We’re here for each and every one of you….and your little dog Toto too!!!!

        • Ferdberfle

          Gee, now you’ve gone and scared the sippy-cup Obamabots. Shame on you.

          • imustprotest

            How did he know I have a dog named toto.

      • Lou

        We won’t back down. They can threaten and we’ll just humt them down and kick their ass into their throats. And soldier4Hillary has a machine gun & assult rifle. They better back off and leave us alone. Nincompoops that they are.

        • Dave

          Keyboard commandos….unite!!

  • Steve

    MSM is a controlled institution. There are no such things and free and independent journalists. Where are the investigative reporters? All corporate controlled, script readers.

    Obama is made of the same cloth, controlled, blackmailed, compromised puppet. Same puppet masters. Million March on Denver. CNN, MSNBC, News week, boycott and prtests.

  • Hillcrat

    Wonder how many shots of Kool-aid the obamatrons on CNN have to drink before they think they sound convincing?? LOL!


  • Mel

    Notice 2 things out of the Obama Afganistan visit?

    #1 Bambi claims to have been pushing for over a year to have 7000 US troops installed in Afgansitan. Problem is, there is no record of Obama calling for this and is simply a diversion from being asked how come he never heald a hearing on his Commitee overseeing NATO!

    #2 The military guy who was so impressed that Bambi would take time from campaigning to visit the troops in Afganistan. Guess no one told the troops Bambi was there to use them on his resume for foreign experience which he has none of and no one mentioned to the troops in Afganistan that there is no supply of additional NATO troops because Bambi never heald a single meeting on his commitee that oversees NATO!

    When you have captive media, hard to get the truth out, after all who in the media wants to be left behind in Afganistan or Iraq because Bambi doesn’t like that they are stating the truth and not Bambi’s self made image of greatness?

    • Dave

      “#1 Bambi claims to have been pushing for over a year to have 7000 US troops installed in Afgansitan. Problem is, there is no record of Obama calling for this”


      As President, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to re-enforce our counter-terrorism operations and support NATO’s efforts against the Taliban.

      Yeah well I bet they forged that on his website just like his birth certificate…right?

      • Mel

        Only trolls believe what is on Bambi’s webiste, so nice try, but go look at his fraud birth certificate on his site first….lol

        • Dave

          Better now? Or…is the San Diego Union Tribune owned by Oblowme as well?

          I could post video of the speech…but that was probably digitally aletered as well.

        • Dave

          Here’s Novemeber 9, 2007:

          FRAUD I TELL YA!!! FRAUD!!!

          • Hillcrat

            Wow! impressive…So do you have Obambi’s REAL COLB??????????? We would love to see it!

            “Change we CAN NOT believe in”


        • Dave

          Uh oh…I found another wholly-owned subsidiary of Bacrackhead’s campaign:

          “Senator Obama has since August 2007 called for the deployment of at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan and has said he will work to cajole the Pakistani military into fighting again.”

          And another one!!

          “Since first proposing it in an August 2007 speech, Obama has repeatedly pitched sending “at least two” more American combat brigades to join the force of 31,000 U.S. and 29,000 European NATO troops.”

          Keep it up guys! You’re doing great!

          • ginaswo still says no Uhhbama

            that is why I think it awful he held not one hearing

            and he did not attend the hearings Biden held either

            why is he talking policy in aug of 07 and not holding a meetign or trying to send more NATO troops in if he thought it was needed?

            • Dave

              What in the heck are you talking about?

              Those speeches I posted never even occurred.
              Mel said it best:

              “#1 Bambi claims to have been pushing for over a year to have 7000 US troops installed in Afgansitan. Problem is, there is no record of Obama calling for this”

      • Hillcrat

        Nice try! but should I remind you Barky scrubbed his website last week so everything is in line with his *flip-flop, flim-flam of the day*

        You know… “silly politics”?!


        • Dave

          so what you’re arguing is that this speech never took place…right?


          • Donna Brazile

            One less HA and that would have been a perfect laugh.

            The good news is you can continue to work on it– at home if you like.

            Stop the Hate!

          • Hillcrat

            Can you find his State Senate records for us???

            Oooppss…he’s never accomplished a da*n thing! So what record would he have…right Dave???

            Ahhh…that speech must of sent a “tingle” up your #$%^&


            • Donna Brazile

              Is this the speech that he and Axelrod had to recreate in the studio since there is no actual audio or video of him giving his “anti-war” speech?

              Stop the Hate!

              • Hillcrat

                Yep, I believe Dave listens to that speech over and over and over and over again…until he gets that *tingle* you know!


              • Dave

                Hahaha, you’re close, but they actually took the time to forge the video as well!


                Feel free to skip to 4:30 in the video.

                Can you believe the AUDACITY of these guys?!?! Unbelieveable!! They are good at forging these things though, must admit.

                • Donna Brazile


                  Thank you, Thank you for FINALLY admitting it! I knew there was hope for you to change. Thank you!

                  Stop the hate!

                  No OBush 08

          • ginaswo still says no Uhhbama

            HILLARY WENT TO AFGHANISTAHN IN 07 when Uhhbama was copying what she said, she WENT THERE

            ALL his ideas that we find acceptable come from Hillary

            go find somehting HE said BEFORE SHE DID IT!

            THEN we may be impressed:


            Iraq – January 13, 2007

            Senators Evan Bayh and Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Congressman John M. McHugh, completed a full day of briefings and visits in Iraq, including meetings with U.S. commanders and senior Iraqi officials. READ MORE >

            Afghanistan – January 14, 2007

            Senators Evan Bayh and Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Congressman John M. McHugh, met with U.S. troops and Afghan leaders as they continued their Congressional Delegation (CODEL) visit in Afghanistan. READ MORE >

            CODEL Press Conference – January 17, 2007

            Senators Evan Bayh and Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Congressman John M. McHugh, held a press conference to discuss their Congressional Delegation (CODEL) visits to Iraq and Afghanistan. READ MORE >

            • imustprotest

              I guess she was too busy meeting with commanders and Iraqi officials all day to play hoops huh? Too bad, looks like she missed a good photo op. Damn that Hillary working all the time, what a wet blanket.

      • Lou

        Please quit calling him Bambi or Messiah. His name is Mack Daddy. Pimp will do. He plays everyone including his base.

        • MIDem

          but..but..but.. he’s godbama.
          please don’t disillusion his followers*.

          *they believe in unicorns too.

    • roseeriter

      Hmmm, I never considered putting my cross country trip on my resume. Might impress someone, get me a better paying job and maybe then I’ll run for president some day. Why didn’t I think of that when I was younger?? Damn.


      • Lou

        Let’s nominate Heidi Li for President.

  • rjj

    Obama’s had more specificity.

    1. Obama/specificity is an oxymoron.

    2. Though Axelrod is marketing Obama as a “Rainmaker,” what you consider specificity about Iraq is as meaningful as specificity about the weather at some future date. Washington controls neither.

    • Anon22

      Like it or not, Obama’s proposal was more specific than Hillary’s. It contained a timetable for withdrawal, which Hillary did not provide.

      As to whether or not the exact timing of a withdrawal is under the President’s control, in the grossest sense it is. Because we have civilian control of the military, Obama could call in the Joint Chiefs on 1/21/09 and say “Get our boys home as fast as you can,” and they would have to say “Yes sir, Mr. President.” Now, if you’re simply implying that his 16-month timetable may have to be adjusted to account for circumstances as they develop, he has always said that, and it’s a truism. The point is to set a verifiable time goal for complete withdrawal, and then to steadily move towards it. That’s what the Bush administration has consistently failed to do, although at this point they are slowly starting to come around to the Obama position by floating talk of “time horizons.”

  • SoldierofChrist

    Fork Mouth Flip Flop probably wants to shake a piece of steak in front of the Clintons for bait. Even on a VP slot, I think most of us know we don’t want this guy to govern us. Hillary would not have her grassroots anymore, too much damage, and too much dislike has rooted. It will be hard. Now, the famous Newsmax, (hillary haters) are promoting Powell as VP. Another mistake. Republicans and grassroots are not going to flock over this ticket neither. Best thing is to “not change the subject on him” and make sure the birth certificate is an issue with Congress.

    • Hope Floats

      Powell’s political reputation was destroyed by taking the fall for the Bush administration. His crossing to the Democrats would be seen as a petty double-cross motivated by self-pity and identity politics.

  • Hope Floats

    Isn’t that entitlement shtick straight out of The Gospel According To Pfleger?

  • luvtruth

    THANK YOU, Unity, brilliant post!

  • WiIdChild

    Point 2, Hillary was right to suggest a gas tax holiday. Liberals have been arguing since Ronald Reagan that the moving the tax burden from the corporations and the wealthy to the people was unjust for all it did was to further consolidate wealth in the first two groups. Hillary’s plan to shift the gas tax from the people to the corporations is entirely consistent with that argument. You, BOBO and the “economists” on the other hand embraced Reagan’s supply side argument to defeat Hillary.

    Was your position change we can believe in? No, it was nothing more than Reaganomics with a name change to BOBOnomics.

    • Hope Floats

      Obama voted for a gas tax holiday in the IL Senate in 2000, but without the saving mechanism of a windfall profits tax as Clinton suggested.

      During one state Senate floor debate, Obama joked that he wanted signs on gas pumps in his district to say, “Senator Obama reduced your gasoline prices.”

      Now, running for president, he says the tax reduction was a complete failure, and that “the oil companies, the retailers” ended up benefiting most because they raised prices by the entire amount of the tax cut.

      It looks more like he was taking a cheap shot at his opponent to restore his populist credibility after his bitter comments. Change we can believe in?

      • Anon22

        Which would you rather–that he be wrong then, when it only affected the state of Illinois, and correct now, when it will affect the entire country? Or that he have learned nothing from his mistake in Illinois of supporting the pointless proposal, and continue to support it now for the sake of that hobgoblin of small minds? It looks a lot more like he was taking a stand against a stupid policy proposal intended to burnish Clinton’s populist credentials, even though he could have taken a political hit for it in the short term. (Due to some unusually competent reporting in the mainstream media, he mostly didn’t.)

        • Clinton Fan

          You can’t read very well, can you?

          Adoration and stupidity are a powerful mix.

          Go back and read what the poster wrote, particularly with regard to windfall profits. Pay careful attention to the bit where Obama didn’t craft a GOOD law, yet still wanted credit for it.

          Small minds, indeed. You seem to know about them from personal experience.

          You’re aptly named though–I’d stay “anon”ymous if I had such wanting reasoning skills, too.

          To say nothing of your research skills–you wouldn’t be defending that debacle of Obama’s if you’d bothered to do a little reading:

          But Obama is wrong. He did not learn this lesson. In fact, the only scientific study done on the pass-through of the tax holiday savings to Illinois consumers (and those in Indiana, as well, whose citizens enjoyed a similar holiday) found that it actually worked to a large extent.

          The study is titled “$2.00 Gas! Studying the Effects of a Gas Tax Moratorium,” by Joseph J. Doyle Jr. and Krislert Samphantharak. Download the PDF here. The authors concluded that “the suspension of the 5% sales tax led to decreases in retail prices of 3% compared to neighboring states. And when the tax was reinstated, retail prices rose by roughly 4%.”

          This suggests that the tax holiday delivered at least 60 percent of the tax savings to motorists.
          The economic basis for attacks on the Clinton tax holiday is a fundamental economic theory called “tax incidence.” It says that the cost of a tax on any consumer product will be borne by those with lesser “elasticity” in the tug of war between suppliers and consumers. “Tax incidence” falls mostly upon the group that responds least to price — the group that has the more inelastic price-quantity curve. In this instance, assuming that the supply of gas is pretty much fixed, it means consumers will end up paying those missing tax dollars directly to the gas companies in the form of higher prices. The increased demand triggered by the price cut will supposedly lead drivers to bid up the price of gas, swallowing the tax cut.

          But this is not what happened in Illinois and Indiana back in 2000. And there are factors at work today that might provide equal or more “elasticity” to the producers, and prevent consumers from paying the price for the tax cut.

      • Lou

        Dems to raise Oil taxes 50%. DOH!
        the most distasteful and contrarian effort yet, stories are surfacing through news agencies this morning of a private congressional talks that would actually raise the Federal Gas Tax by approximately 50%. That’s right, a 50% increase in the federal gas tax at a time when Middle Class and Lower Class Americans, along with the backbone of our economy, the trucking industry, are suffering from oil prices that have more than doubled since the beginning of 2007.

        • Anon22

          Short-term pain may be necessary to break this country’s crippling addiction to foreign oil. Still, I think Congressional leaders ought to consider that the shoddy public transit infrastructure in many parts of this country leaves many working class people with no choice but to drive to work. If you’re going to ask consumers to bear this pain, you should also be forcing America’s most fortunate citizens, the wealthy, to give up more of their income to help make it possible to live without a car in more parts of America.

          • imustprotest

            Gee Alanon……so you want the poor people to suffer “short term” pain so we can move to public transportation. Okay, so you want gas prices high then so we will move to get off our oil addiction. Fair enough. But how long do you think “short term” is ? How long will their pain go on? Do you have any idea how long it takes to appropriate the funding, do the planning, get the bids, and construct all of the mass transit needed? Short term pain? What happens to all of the working class people who are paying $10/gal for gas all these year? Not to mention the cost of everything else, food, etc goes up with that $10 gal gas. It could cripple the economy. But at least we’ll have nice trains that run on time.

            • Anon22

              I’m sure you’ve got the perfect solution, then. Or don’t you think it could possibly cripple the economy when we hit peak oil, supply drops dramatically, prices double, and rationing ensues? The question is whether we’re going to prepare for such a scenario starting now, or sit on our hands and wait for events to overtake us.

              • imustprotest

                I think we should prepare now, actually, it would’ve been better 10 years ago. I don’t know where you live but I live in California and premium is close to $5.00/gal now. There’s freeways all around me and I know how long it takes just to widen them let alone build a whole new system. So how about meet in the middle. Get started on the plans for building and give gas relief in the short term while working on the long term solutions.

                • imustprotest

                  That’s what Hillary proposed by the way. She wasn’t trying to score a political point like your Barry. That’s the irony, he was painting himself the anti-hillary….see she’s pandering with the gas tax…then what does he do after June 3rd????? Flip flop city. What a jerk.

                • Ferd Berfle

                  It would have been far better if we had listened to Carter in 1979. He saw it coming but the nattering nincompoops of the time just made fun of him. Being able to say, “I told you so” is priceless, even for a man who succumbed to the Obamafog.

                  • Dave

                    “It would have been far better if we had listened to Carter in 1979.”

                    Hahahahahah, spoken like a true McCain supporter.

              • WiIdChild

                we do have the perfect solution. Put an end to Reaganomics (now BOBonomics) by rejecting BOBO in Denver and nominating the only liberal left with enough clout to pull us all together: Hillary Clinton.

                • imustprotest

                  That’s right Wildchild I was trickled down on plenty in the 80s!

                  • imustprotest

                    and I don’t mean with money.

              • jmk

                Really urge all to ignore Anon 22, who clearly hasn’t the brain power for anything that is not programmed straight in.

                There are inaccuracies in all that trolls comments – and NOTHING on earth – short of a brain transplant (and throw in a soul) is going to correct the deficiency.

                More to the point, that creature has no interest in discourse, logic or reciprocal thoughtful communication – it is here to DISTRACT and produce STRESS – just like MSM does – from the real topic, which is our singular unwillingness to ever – under any circumstances – go for obama- including, even – and moreso- with the bait of Hillary on the ticket.

                Let the Precious one’s faulty believerrs go find a less sadistic way to pleasure themselves – or at least one that doesn’t distract us. We’ve better things to talk about.

                • Dave

                  “which is our singular unwillingness to ever – under any circumstances – go for obama”

                  “We can be called with a “dog whistle” so that pretty much says, they think we’re in the bag.

                  Any PUMAs here that come by a dog whistle? ….”

                  yep…sounds about right.

    • ginaswo still says no Uhhbama

      again agree she had skilfully taken that away from MAC for the general and the dopey DEMS walked right into it, d’oh!!!

  • hillarysmygirl

    I love when the commentator said that if we’ve raised all that money, that he didn’t doubt we could make sure Hillary’s name was in nomination at the convention! Absolutely!

    Yes, Unity in Diversity, we’re not buying! And we’re definitely not going to settle for a Gift with Purchase deal of “Lookie, we’re willing to make her Vice President!” Uh-uh, no way, no deal, NOBAMA!

    Hillary Clinton for President!

  • Anon22

    So it’s the media who’s blurring distinctions between Hillary’s platform and Obama’s. Please name these distinctions. I am aware of two (2) actual differences, neither of which rises beyond the level of “minor.”

    1) Clinton’s health care proposal called for mandates. Obama’s does not.

    2) Clinton supported a gas tax holiday. Obama does not.

    As to 1), Clinton had the right of it, but any health care reform proposal is going to owe a lot more to the concerns of the 60th Senator to sign on than to the text of the original proposal. I do not believe Clinton would be foolish enough to walk away from a reasonable health care deal after the ’94 debacle, which means she’d be willing to compromise on mandates if she had to.

    As to 2), Clinton had the complete wrong of it; every economist of every political stripe confirms it. It was a pathetic, pandering policy proposal that Clinton pushed out of contempt for voters’ intellects.

    You will, perhaps, bring up Iraq. I’ll note: Obama was correct in the past where Clinton was wrong. As to the present, their proposals to end the war did not differ significantly; Obama’s had more specificity, but Clinton never attempted to draw any sharp contrast between them on Iraq because there was no such contrast that was favorable to her.

    You will, perhaps, bring up negotiating with leaders of rogue states. I’ll note: that isn’t really part of a “platform,” just a general foreign policy orientation. I’ll further note that it is the “we don’t negotiate with people we don’t like” mindset that made North Korea and Iran such dangerous threats, and it was a reversal of that policy that has put North Korea on the path towards disabling its nuclear capabilities. So unless you’re a bunch of Bush-lovers around here, you should acknowledge that Clinton was wrong about this too.

    • Darryl

      No buddy boy you can’t claim none of that. Your man now supports the Iraq war, or are you forgetting that flip flop.

      Second, he supports faith based initiatives remember that flip flop

      Third, he now thinks Nafta is good thing, remember that flip flop

      See we all KNEW THIS SHIT before he switched because we actually looked at his voting record instead of creating a blog on his.

      • Anon22

        No, he still doesn’t support the Iraq war. Your vaunted mainstream media did their best to pitch it that way, but he has stuck to his guns and continues to push for a 16-month timetable for withdrawal. He has been saying throughout this campaign that any withdrawal would have to respond to conditions in Iraq, and suddenly the media tried to make it seem like this common-sense observation was novel. But it’s not.

        He hasn’t flip-flopped on faith-based initiatives. He’s supported the idea of them at least as far back as January of this year, and I don’t know of any inconsistency with that position in his past. Cite one if you can. Moreover, Sen. Clinton supports faith-based initiatives that do not conflict with the constitutional separation of church and state, see here.

        NAFTA is a definite tack to the center. He and Clinton had fairly similar (anti-NAFTA) positions on this issue during the primaries, but I think both of them were aware that they would have to make free trade noises if they became the nominee. Maybe I’m wrong; maybe Sen. Clinton would have held onto her anti-NAFTA rhetoric in the general election campaign. I doubt it–she’s not a profile in political courage.

        • Ferdberfle

          “I doubt it–she’s not a profile in political courage.”

          Hahaha-Obambi is a whichever-way-the-wind-is-blowing candidate.

          She is a centrist and would not have had to tack to the right.

          Back to square one, Goob.

          • Anon22

            She’s center-left, and she did oppose NAFTA in the primaries. A shift from her earlier support for it, which I think would have been mirrored by a shift back to supporting it in the general election.

            Obama’s not a profile in political courage either. Nor is John McCain. What’s your point? Such politicians are few and far between, and they rarely make it onto the parties’ Presidential ballots. (Nor is political courage a complete qualification in and of itself; Barry Goldwater ran a courageously radical campaign in 1964, but all his ideas were crazy, so most people are glad he lost.) Give me a chance to vote for a Feingold or a Wellstone (rest in peace) for President and I’ll be thrilled. As it is, we get Obama and McCain, and Obama’s policies are much better. That means, vote for Obama.

            • imustprotest

              So go vote for him, who’s stopping ya? We don’t go to pro-obama sites and try to convince people not to vote for him. I don’t think he can be trusted. Words, just words…..actions speak louder. He’s unquailifed, inexperienced and arrogant. We already had that in a president and I don’t want another one so I say NObama. I own my vote and so do you.

            • Ferd Berfle

              Obama’s policies are completely unknown as he keeps changing what passes as a mind. No thanks.

    • Darryl

      Also, there is ONE MAJOR DISTINCTION. Obama has absolutely done NOTHING and has no experience. You can’t just wish that away. And before you post his fallicous email he sent to you about what he has “helped push through” or “joined democrats” in passing, we been there done that, and we know its just more garnish for the kool-aid.

      • Anon22

        That isn’t a difference in platforms, which is the part of the post I was responding to. Sen. Clinton’s vaunted experience consists of 8 years as a U.S. Senator, as compared to Obama’s 4 years as a U.S. Senator and 7 years as an Illinois State Senator. I’m sorry, but 8 years of being First Lady is not “experience.” No one elected her to that position. She did not have many major policy responsibilities, certainly not after 1994. The fact is that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have roughly equivalent short records of public service, with Obama getting the edge for length of time served as an elected official.

        • imustprotest

          Another lie. Hillary Clinton had an office in the west wing. She was deeply involved in all domestic policy. Her first 4 year term was full time. Barry’s State senate seat was part time (like Bush the part time governor of Texas). And during that time Obama did nothing. As first lady of Arkansas Hillary was also involved in education policy. After law school she worked for the Children’s Defense Fund. These are just a small sample of what Hillary Clinton did over the past 35 years….Barry did NOTHING.

    • Mel

      As to 2), Clinton had the complete wrong of it; every economist of every political stripe confirms it. It was a pathetic, pandering policy proposal that Clinton pushed out of contempt for voters’ intellects. Bullshit, McCain even suggested the gas holiday and the only one against it was Bambi the fraud!

      You will, perhaps, bring up Iraq. I’ll note: Obama was correct in the past where Clinton was wrong. As to the present, their proposals to end the war did not differ significantly; Obama’s had more specificity, but Clinton never attempted to draw any sharp contrast between them on Iraq because there was no such contrast that was favorable to her. Bullshit, Bambi stated in 2004 he has no idea how he’d of voted if he was actually a US Senator and Bambi platform for US Senate was he’d oppose any funding of the Iraq war, did he, nope, because hope3 is a joke in the name of Obama!

      You will, perhaps, bring up negotiating with leaders of rogue states. I’ll note: that isn’t really part of a “platform,” Bullshit, stating publically that is what Bambi would do on several occassions during debates is a platform, but stupid you thinks Bambi can say anything and has no meaning, just like you do!

      So there goes another $7 from Bambi’s money wasted on another joke troll!

      • Darryl

        See, I think the trolls are used to uninformed voters. I think the people that come onto this board have got it together. We are the people who have been paying attention from the start. We are the ones we’ve been waiting for LOL.

        • Dawnelle

          u got that right Darryl

      • Dave

        “Bullshit, McCain even suggested the gas holiday and the only one against it was Bambi the fraud!”

        Hahaha, I’d love for one of the people that “got it together” to explain how the gas tax holiday over the summer would help Americans.

        • Mel

          Well stupid, any relief is a good relief, but then it goes against Bambi’s voting for the Bush/Cheney gas Holiday for the oil companies doesn’t it, if Bambi was for it, but then your scooter doesn’t use gas, so how would you know huh….lol

          • Dave

            oh come on Mel, I know you can do better than that. Econ 101 now…think back…

            now- explain again how that holiday = ‘relief’ again…by relief you do mean a reduction in gas prices…right?

            Or are we gonna get the hilarious “it’s psychological relief” (hahahahahah) argument?

            • Mel

              Oh come on Dave, your $7 is pretty pathetic these days in your defending your pathetic boss with your liesw that you now use the Saul Alinsky attempts at twisting things around, so fuck off Dave ok, your ignorance isn’t worth the time of day, so go back and find some other phoney lies from Bambi’s site ok! Go see what Bambi scrubbed from it today ok….lol

              • Dave

                but…but…but….Americans LOVE psychological relief!!!

                Hahahah, you guys are great. Love it.

                Stll working on that explanation of how temporarily cutting the gas tax will reduce the already set prices of oil?

                I mean you OBVIOUSLY already know that the short run supply curve is practically vertical…but since when do lil’ ole facts get in the way of Hillbots?

                • Ferdberfle

                  You’ll be crying in November when your boy bambi loses. Come back then and take your lumps, dud.

                  • Dave

                    Haha, now there’s a typical Hillary comeback- all fluff and absolutely NO substance. Just like the worthless Hilldog herself.

                    Come on, I know the rest of you want some as well. Let’s hear it.

                    • Ferd Berfle

                      Let me type slowly so your engineering mind can keep up: McCain will beat Oblahblah. Come back in November and get your lumps, if you have the courage of your convictions. Obambi couldn’t win if he was the lone candidate.

                • imustprotest

                  You obviously don’t have children, a family to feed, bills to pay perhaps an elderly parent or two to take care of…..go back and charge up your ipod Dave your mom needs the computer to pay some bills online.

                  • Dave

                    and the profiling and your obsession over my personal life continues- great argument…big ole’ strikes on those though-
                    only thing you got right was the elderly parent or 2- mine are both perfectly healthy. Sorry to disappoint once again.

                    My argument:

                    “Psychological relief” would not help the Average American with children, a family to feed, bills to pay, and an elderly parent or 2 to take care of.
                    The overwhelming consensus amongst economists was that the actual monetary benefit of the tax relief would be negligible.”

                    Someone who says it better than me AND explains what happened when Obama screwed up by voting for one in Illinois.

        • Hope Floats

          Easy. Gas prices will continue to rise regardless of whether the oil companies are taxed or not. At least it provides psychological relief for those who are constantly reminded how much the economy sucks every time the go to the pump. It is a stimulus and nothing that economists would report on, because it’s psychology not theory.

        • Hillcrat

          Have you pumped gas lately *Dave*???

          You are probably heartbroken since Starbucks is shutting down 600 stores nationwide….”Oh no, where will I get my latte????!!”

          NObambi…NObitter…NOblahma NO DEAL!


          • Dave

            yes…I have. Did you have something substantive to say? Or…do you have absolutely no fucking clue what you’re talking about?


            Sorry for the caps, but it seemed necessary for the less edu-macated folk here.

            • Donna Brazile

              Oh, glorious a Barackolatte comment! So cute!

              Stop the hate!

            • Ferdberfle

              If everything is so hunky-dory with you bots, how come you’re here bothering real Americans?

            • Hillcrat

              Ahhh…Dave…every insult from a troll only makes us stronger. Now I have a question of substance for you..



              • Dave

                you asked for it…


                Hello, this is Senator Barack Obama and today is Thursday, May 11, 2006.

                The other day I went to the gas station. Gas was $3.08 a gallon in the station where I stopped. It is rough on Americans across the country right now. Chicago has some of the highest gasoline prices in the country. I’m fortunate that I am able to afford spending $50 on a tank of gas; there are a lot of families out there that can’t. People who have to drive to work long distances, people who don’t have the money to buy more fuel-efficient cars right now and they’ve seen their standard of living drop substantially as a consequence of higher gas prices.

                Now, the only thing as predictable as rising gas prices are the short-term political solutions that usually come along with them. Every year you had the same headlines, “Pain at the Pump” and then Americans start emptying their wallets to fill up their tanks and politicians go through the standard responses: tax rebates and tax holidays, investigating price-gauging bio-oil companies.

                None of these proposals are going to do any harm. Some will provide Americans temporary relief at the pump, but, in the long term, we can’t keep on relying solely on quick fixes designed to placate an anxious public. We need proactive solutions that are designed to lessen our dependence on foreign oil and bring down prices for good. Washington privately understands this but perhaps because of the influence of the oil companies, some of it having to do with ideology, Washington has just been unwilling to take the hard steps necessary to confront what I consider to be one of the most pressing economic and national security challenges in the 21st century. So, the time for excuses is over. Now’s not the moment where we should be afraid of what is going to seem politically difficult or controversial. Now’s the time to call for innovation and sacrifice from those institutions that can make a difference: the auto industry, the oil industry, the federal government.

                The first place to start is with cars. We’ve got to build cars that use less gasoline. The auto industry hasn’t been asked to raise fuel-economy standards in seventeen years and frankly, lately Republicans and Democrats seem to have stopped asking. Today, we’ve got no choice. Starting in 2008, we should raise CAFE standards (that’s the fuel-efficiency standards on cars) a modest 3 percent a year. If we did that over the next 12 years, by 2020 passenger vehicles would average 40 miles per gallon, light trucks would average 32 miles per gallon. That’s not a dramatic increase; it’s easily achievable through existing technology and it can be done without compromising passenger safety.

                Now, there are going to be transition costs involved in making more fuel-efficient automobiles, especially for Detroit, which has relied heavily on the sale of SUVs for its profits. So I’ve proposed what I call the “Healthcare for Hybrids” bill, where we’d strike a grand bargain with U.S. auto-makers. We tell them we’re going to pickup part of the tab for the retiree healthcare costs, a tab which, by the way, ran 6.7 billion dollars last year but, in exchange, you’ve got to use the money to invest in transitioning to fuel-efficient cars. So that would be point number one.

                Point number two: we should just replace the use of oil altogether as America’s fuel of choice. This doesn’t mean singing the praises of ethanol, and hoping that it finds its way into our fuel supply on its own. It means taking some serious steps now to put a national bio-fuel infrastructure into place. Already some cars on the road have flexible fuel tanks necessary for them to run on E85, which is a cheaper, cleaner blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline. But millions upon millions of cars still don’t have these tanks. So its time for auto-makers to install those tanks in every single car that they make and the government can help cover this small cost which currently runs at just around $100 per car. It’s also time to start making E85 fueling stations more available to the American public. Currently only 681 out of the 170,000 fueling stations in America offer E85 pumps. That’s not acceptable. Every American should have the choice when they pull up to fill up their car with E85. That should be true at any fueling station and the oil companies should stop standing in the way and join us in making this happen. If the big oil companies would devote just one percent of their first quarter profits this year to install E85 pumps, more than 7,000 service stations would be able to serve E85 to motorists who could use it.

                Finally, we need to reduce the risk of investing in renewable fuels by providing loan guarantees and venture capital to those entrepreneurs with the best plans to develop cell-bio fuel and we should start creating a market for renewable fuels by ramping up the renewable fuel standard and creating an alternative diesel standard in this country, a national standard, that together would blend 65 billion gallons of renewable fuels into the petroleum supply every year.

                If we had taken all these steps decades ago, like Brazil did when the call for energy independence was first issued, we’d be immune right now to the whims of oil-rich dictators and surging gas prices. If we don’t take these steps now there’s going to be a day when we look back at that $3.05 or $3.15 gasoline as the good old days. At some point there’s not going to be a tax rebate that’s big enough or a tax holiday that’s long enough to solve these problems. The American people shouldn’t have to wait for this day to come. When it comes to reducing our dependence of foreign oil, the resources are there, the technology is there, the demand is there. Now we just need a little bit of political will and I hope that you guys will help me provide it.

                • WiIdChild

                  but what plan will BOBO have tomorrow LOL

              • Dave

                a little more recent:


                (commence with the snickering over Obama and not discussing a single thing he says)

            • LilRod

              This false sense of superiority is endemic and prevalent amongst these Obama followers.

              This false sense of superiority has been seen often throughout history amongst the followers of tyrants and other demagogues.

              They are easily attracted to a given movement by the rhetoric/identity of belonging to a privileged people..”We are the ones we have been waiting for”, for example. It feeds some inherent vacuous emotional/social/psychological wanting in their nature…it adds a value/significance to their latent deficiencies.

              Critical thought, deductive reasoning, free will and common sense are rendered the victims of circular thinking rationalizations.

        • Ferdberfle

          A little extra pocket money for luxuries like groceries? You are pathetic.

          • Dave

            Sorry turdbarfle (look I can call names too!)-
            unfortunately you would not see any extra pocket money.

            If you disagree, feel free to explain how the gas tax moratorium would immediately reduce gas prices. Come on…I know you can do it.

            Here’s my argument:

            If supply of oil is unresponsive to the price (which in short term it ALWAYS is- the price you see reported on the news is for oil FUTURES), the consumers’ price always rises until the quantity that is demanded falls to match the supply.
            When you cut the taxes all that happens is that the pretax price rises by the same amount. Hillary’s plan would be a giveaway to oil companies- and only idiots who don’t understand economics would see it as saving them money.
            If this was proposed, say, a year ago, then we’d have a different story.

            • Dave

              I’m sorry guys…I see my words are much too big for you.

              • imustprotest

                No Dave, Hillary’s plan had the Oil companies pay the taxes…the higher the price the higher their tax bill.

                • Dave

                  So I guess now all you’d have to do is prove that the taxes would exceed the additional profits they’d make from those higher prices…of course that’s ignoring the entire original argument which was whether or not this would help Joe American AT ALL when all is said and done.

                  • Ferd Berfle

                    The Oracle (TM) speaketh under the name of Dave. (Methinks his table structure is compromised).

                    • Dave

                      so insightful…but slightly off message- McCain campaign staffers refer to him as “The One”- not the Oracle.
                      Good for one cookie though!

                    • Ferd Berfle

                      And you refer to him as Messiah, I’m sure. You really must make use of that degree to build your self a box from whence you can’t come out so that we may be away from your misery

                  • imustprotest

                    Seems to me Dave that by requiring the Oil Companies to pay the tax would create a disincentive to raise the pretax price. The higher the pretax price the higher the tax, since tax is a percentage of the original price. So it helps consumers by keeping the price low and eliminating the tax too.

              • Ferd Berfle

                No, your words are trite. It is your ego that we don’t understand. Perhaps you could build a gibberish translator with all that engineering information you claim to possess.

            • Ferd Berfle

              Your argument smacks of the fallacy of the unknown fact. You also didn’t distribute your middle term.

              In addition, economics is no science. It isn’t even art. I’d call it gibberish, and fraudulent gibberish, at that.


    • WiIdChild

      Point 2, Hillary was right to suggest a gas tax holiday. Liberals have been arguing since Ronald Reagan that the moving the tax burden from the corporations and the wealthy to the people was unjust for all it did was to further consolidate wealth in the first two groups. Hillary’s plan to shift the gas tax from the people to the corporations is entirely consistent with that argument. You, BOBO and the “economists” on the other hand embraced Reagan’s supply side argument to defeat Hillary.

      Was your position change we can believe in? No, it was nothing more than Reaganomics with a name change to BOBOnomics.

      • Hope Floats

        There’s an even better argument, Dave.

      • Anon22

        The incidence in this case falls on the gasoline consumer. Price elasticity of supply for oil is low, thus the price remains the same (or perhaps falls and then quickly rebounds), but the excess untaxed revenue becomes profit for the oil company. If you understood this issue, you’d understand that it was Clinton’s proposal, not Obama’s opposition to it, that benefited big companies at the expense of working families. At best, you make it up with the windfall tax on the oil companies, which gives you a big net zero, government handing money out to the oil companies with one hand and taking it right back with the other hand. Either way, American consumers realize no benefit; at worst, they see a loss because they have to make up the lost revenue with higher taxes elsewhere.

        • WiIdChild

          So I say that you, BOBO and the “economists” made the supply side argument to defeat Hillary (Which you did so don’t start denying it now)…and you come back and use the supply side argument to defend the supply side argument that You , BOBO and the economists used to defeat Hillary.

          Hillary’s proposal includes a reprieve from the gas tax for all American’s and made up the tax difference with a wind fall profits tax on big oil. So when you say at best you can make up the lost gas tax revenue with a windfall profits tax, that was Hillary’s intent. You should have paid attention rather than doing a defensive swan dive into the ogre barrel of kool-aid. The windfall profits tax is easily enforceable, so that it isn’t passed on to the consumer, by using the regulatory agencies in the US government. Your contention that we cant use a windfall profits tax because that would be like giving big oil money and then taking it away is mind boggling. The other alternative is just to give them money in the from of subsidies, let them keep their monster profits but the take money out of the pockets of the little guy to keep America moving. Like I said before, we liberals have been arguing against that since Reagan. Hillary and her supporters stepped up to correct the injustice. BOBO, and you BOBOweenies stepped up to enforce it.

          Reaganomics has become BOBOnomics…LOL and you have become fringe

          • imustprotest

            Voo-doo economics.

          • Ferd Berfle

            Indeed. I would add that any use of the terms economics and argument in the same sentence creates a logical fallacy as well as an oxymoron.

    • MIDem

      Fraudbama is a gimmick, a facade, a cheap trick.
      No vote for you Fraudbama.
      Get over it, sweetie.

      • Anon22

        I’ll get over it pretty quickly, since more people in this country are on my side than on yours. He’s going to be our next President. Get over it, sweetie.

        • MIDem

          Then why is your fraud doing so poorly in the polls?
          This is supposed to be his honeymoon period.
          Just wait until the republicans start in earnest.

          • Anon22

            God, you just don’t get it, do you? The Republicans don’t have some secret weapon. They’re a party in disarray with a nominee no one likes. The past month has been them attempting to “start in earnest,” and repeatedly falling flat on their faces. Obama will get a post-convention boost, he’ll probably do better than McCain in the debates, and I guarantee you election night isn’t going to be very suspenseful, despite the media’s best efforts to make it so. You will go to bed on Nov. 4 knowing that Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States.

            • WiIdChild

              Welpp, then we’ll just have to live through four more years of bullshit, except this time it will be under the democratic label

              • Anon22

                Ah, it won’t be so bad. A couple years into his term, you’ll finally get over your post-primary bitterness, and you may even find that you like him.

                • WildChild

                  Bush wasn’t so bad, but we never stopped opposing him because the way we saw the constitution wasn’t the same way he saw it. So no we won’t get to like BOBO. He’s been embracing Bush ever since he became the presumed nominee. Had BOBO done that during the primaryies… LOL BOBO wouldn’t now be the presumed nominee.

        • Ferd Berfle

          You must live on planet Claire with the pink air and no one with a head. Wow.

    • Ferdberfle

      Barky got all his talking points from following Clinton on every question during the debates. Try again, Goober, and this time with feeling.

    • SoldierofChrist

      You need a good scolding, child.

      If Obama accomplished everything that he said he would do, we, at this equation of the world, we salute him, and we will say thank you for your efforts but we really prefer Hillary and if not, Mccain will do. So, far Obama has voted these last weeks up to now, just like Mccain, so what is the difference?. Everything the liberals wanted, he has failed them. That is a Politician at work. The native Americans call him Fork Mouth Flip Flop for a reason. In our faith, ours that is, we follow one scripture, and that is “For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul? Matthew 16:26. Unfortunately, some people frequently don’t recognize a bad bargain until it is too late. We usually learn from such experience, however, and become more wary in the future. This happened when Bush junior was put into office. Did we fight and shout and told the world he was not ready? Did you fight with every piece of strength to alert the flock and no one listened? Look at the mess we are in. WE also say this with Mr. Obama. He is a man of sinful iniquities, he is a man that has associations that are evil and are anti-Americans, He is man who even in his own words of his book states that he “he has issues with whites”, why then do we cheer and flock around him? Yes, you are thinking right about , “”, but the biggest smear has not been put there, wonder why? We all know why. Give ex-Hillary’s supporter credit, child.

      There is nothing wrong in these things in themselves, if that is the life you which to have , but, ultimately they will all prove bad bargains if we have invested in the highest goods. That, my friend, was Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton. But, cumulatively, over this year, unless there is a thorough and progressive investigation, this man will become our new nominee in August. I, for one, and the people that I am involved in, will use our pen soldiering, our Internet access and our knowledge to expand the information , because dear child, my country is much more important than a deceitful party that has selected this man with a fist in the delegate’s faces. Now, to add more injury to our wound, the party is asking for unity and having our golden girl march and smile with the Man who was selected by the evildoers. It will be a sad day for the Hillary’s lovers to see her scoop that low, holding his hands at the convention, and waving with him to unite us. It will never happen. So, yes we wish that she would run independent, or even get on the ticket with Mccain to slap them for their deceitfulness. But to unite? They are very wrong, just like the Hispanic delegate who told us there is three things to do ” get on the bus, get behind it, or in front of it. He decided to get on it, and maybe you have too. The grassroots will not get on the bus even with her as a VP. You see, we are Americans, first, after that Democrat.

    • Mary

      You may see it as pandering on the gas tax removal, but here in Dayton Ohio that very week when a gas station had lowered the price by just 10 cents, there was a line long enough to stop traffic – so obviously it will help some people.

      I am sure that the reduction of 18 cents per gallon may not affect a lot of Americans, but there are a lot of people who live paycheck to paycheck and if that reduction can any way assist in that burden even for a few months, I think it is a great idea. There is so much waste going on is Washington it would not hurt to help Americans who are trying to get back and forth to work. Of course your messiah wouldn’t see it that way – he is already having problems buying arugula (sp) 10000 a year piano lessons.

      • Anon22

        No, you don’t understand. Perhaps an 18-cent-a-gallon reduction would make a meaningful impact on working people’s lives; perhaps not. The point is, they wouldn’t get 18 cents. They’d get almost nothing, maybe a couple of cents at most. The short-run price elasticity of supply for gasoline is very low. The oil companies are already pumping at capacity everywhere. They can’t just magically pull more oil out of thin air. Thus, there is a short price drop at the beginning of the “holiday,” demand shoots up, and the price returns to where it was with the tax. Care to take any guesses as to where that extra money which is now being reflected in the price but not taxed ends up? That’s right, oil companies’ deep pockets.

        • Dave

          Someone else here graduated high school!?!?!

          No way…Anon22…you copy/pasted that didn’t you, you little sneaky con man, you.

          Don’t you care about the little person and their imaginary 18 cents?

          • Ferd Berfle

            Dave will build them a house of cards with his engineering degree and they will come and it will be called Green Manor, named for the neophyte occupants thereof.

    • Lou

      There are clauses to those blew it!
      Everyone could have had some mice cheap medical insurance..FOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLS

      • Anon22

        Can’t tell if you’re being serious or not. Anyway, mandates were better, but Congress is going to determine the final shape of any health care reform package, meaning the candidates’ positions on the finer policy details are mostly irrelevant. Not, in my view, a sufficient reason to support Clinton over Obama, but I respect those who disagreed. I don’t respect those who disagreed, then declined to support the actual nominee out of spite and sore losers’ syndrome.

        • imustprotest

          I’m not a sore loser. The only loser is Barry Obama. He’s a weak man, a weak candidate. He is an arrogant fool and America will reject him in November if the SDs don’t come to their senses in Denver.

    • ginaswo still says no Uhhbama

      you are half wrong on number 1

      Uhhbama calls for mandates for children only

      the differences are all over the place

      Uhhbama coopted Hills plans that were appealing to the base and now he is running to the right of center so he no longer resembles Hills platform at all

      HILL is against private contractors In IraQ
      Uhhbama is not (in fact he wants them here in the us also!)

      HILL is against FISA
      Uhhbama is not

      go google if you r really interested but if you didnt have CDA you wouldnt be asking such a silly question……

  • Larse12

    My friend at the nursing home (92 years old) said, “The media are assholes. It will go down in History that way! Just fools.” My how I totally agree with him.

    • Hope Floats

      William Randolph Heart and Joseph Pulitzer would be proud. Remember the Maine!

  • Raven

    Just made a contribution to Hillary’s debt. It is
    a long way from over. Let’s reve up the engine!

    • ginaswo still says no Uhhbama


      I am hitting it again Friday :0>

  • ritamary

    I will not vote for an Obama/Clinton ticket; I would hold my nose and vote Clinton/Obama. Whatever CNN or MSNBC or the other shills for Obama say, it does not matter one iota to me. I have not watched television in more than three years. Try it yourself. You will be much happier without the propaganda being beamed into your home.

    • Susan

      I wouldn’t vote for Clinton/Obama either, I have to admit. She would not be safe!

    • db

      Me too. And much happier for it!

      • jmk

        Yeah, considering what he’s already done and tried to do with Hillary’s supporters – to say “watch your back” just wouldn’t do it – if she were ever in office with him anywhere around.

  • Great post. I’m so cotdamn angry with the MSM right now, I can’t calm myself down enough to actually write a post about it! This is unprecedented media bias where a presidential election is concerned and it is ridiculous. They will have themselves to thank, in part, for Obama’s undoing as well, so for that I am happy. But, the railroading of Hillary was just horrific to witness.

  • Pragmatist

    Americans have got to get serious about stopping Obama (to heck with the Democrats). This is about our country.

  • Sharon

    It was interesting how they had a (AA) WOMAN “journalist” Hillary-hater on to provide “counterbalance” to their “oh so positive” coverage. Of course, the woman spewed out the most vile opinions (not even close to facts, but intended to be accepted as such) about Hillary. And it seemed to me she had at least triple the air-time of Begala. Don’t even get me started on Carl Bernstein’s performance…

    The whole thing seemed to me to be a hit-job on Hillary, peppered with a few “feel good” moments that we “low information, post-menopausal dead-enders” could savor, after which we enthusiastically fall in line.

    It was one of the most disgusting displays of blatant manipulation (attempted, at least) I’ve ever seen. Anybody who falls for that crap deserves obambi.

    • Susan

      I just shake my head, so much so I now have an injury! I just love that they think we’ll come around. LMAO! Oh, and I loved the Supreme Court deal, like if we elect Obama he’ll put our Saint Hillary in a black robe. Ha, ha, ha, ha. Do I care? Hillary would be great on the SCOTUS, but she doesn’t seem like a behind the scenes type. also, even if Barky signed in his own blood that he would appoint her, we all know his word means nothing, except to kool aid drinkers! Oh, tee hee, that Special was funny.

      It might have been satire!

      Could they make a cartoon???

      Oh, when Barackula returns from his Baracky Horror Picture show on Air Farce One, can they send him somehwhere else? Maybe on the space shuttle? I just love knowing he’s gone. America has a much lighter feel to it. The birds are singing, the clouds are gone. It’s so much more pleasant without Satan here! Keep him touring the world for all eternity!

      And do not for one moment believe there is any circumstance for which I would have to vote Bacracky Ospineless. It just ain’t gonna happen!

      Do you hear me CNN? I hate to burst your bubble and all (wel, actually I don’t), but you can’t win this chick back with anything other than Clinton for POTUS ’08 and nofraudma for nothing. Nothing!

      For me without Clinton, it is Hero over Zero!

      • Darryl

        Obama will nominate a very conservative judge you mark my words.

        • Lou

          barryO will nominate members of the nation of islam and nancy nincompoop will be long gone.

          check this out. Dems to raise Oil taxes 50%. DOH!
          The most distasteful and contrarian effort yet, stories are surfacing through news agencies this morning of a private congressional talks that would actually raise the Federal Gas Tax by approximately 50%. That’s right, a 50% increase in the federal gas tax at a time when Middle Class and Lower Class Americans, along with the backbone of our economy, the trucking industry, are suffering from oil prices that have more than doubled since the beginning of 2007.

          • imustprotest

            Obama will nominate no one, he’s gonna lose. He may confirm President Hillary Clinton’s nominee if he’s not too bitter.

            • Dave

              Hahaha- WHO is bitter?!?

              • Anon22

                Possibly people who think their candidate, who has already conceded, is going to be her party’s nominee or on any ballot anywhere for President of the United States.

                No, wait. That’s “delusional.”

                • WiIdChild

                  LOL you BOBOweenies keep confusing suspension with concession. Why are we trusting you with power again?

              • WiIdChild

                according to BOBO it’s rural Americans

    • Thanks, Sharon – glad you saw the CNN monsterpiece – and saw through it too- the undercurrent of its agenda is continuing through MSM on many levels – that’s how they work, you know.

  • ownaa

    The MSM are just shameless, overpaid wh****s. I wish there is a way we can make them suffer. I know the only way is through their pockets, they don’t have any morals or ideals to appeal to. I hope some one will come up with a way to take them to court over the destruction of the american election proccess, or some thing. At least it will give their small brains some to think a bout. Why there are no campains to stop watching the news channells, I wonder.

    • Northwest rain

      watching tv is an addiction.

      The only way to stop is to go cold turkey.

      I stopped watching tv several years ago — when the switch is made to HDTV — I’ll not have to rush out to buy a tv.

      I get better news using multiple sources on the Internet.

      IF a whole lot of people just stopped watching tv — especially the entertainment (news) programs — then the media just might take notice.

      Now if I could only get the dish tv services to STOP calling . . .

      • db

        Me too. And much happier for it.

      • Darryl

        Yeah, I did the same thing. When I do watch the news occasionally, I go on the internet and get mutiple sources for the info.

        Like about a month ago there was a story about a teacher in CA who got fired for teaching Malcom X in her class. The news made it seem like that was what her class was about, but low and behold after I did some research on it I found out that she was teaching 6th grade literature and that she would change her pre-approved curriculum and all kinds of no no’s for a teacher. They told the story but left out major details.

    • There are several campaigns to protest media bias. Just trying googling and you’ll find some. Sorry I don’t have the links.

      Or start your own- write CNN and Anderson Cooper- tell them what you think of their Summer Spinbama- trying to lure US with Hillary as VP.

  • Ted

    Wow. Bower’s numbers sure don’t match what Hillary is reporting – still $25 million in debt.

    I bet Hillary loves to here this guy say she doesn’t need any more money.

    • Indy

      If I recall, the big Puma push for wiping Hillary’s debt started at the beginning of July. That is when I donated -first week of July. Those numbers won’t be reflected until August 20 or so.

      Nice try Ted.

      • basil


        Still trying for your GED?


      • Ted

        Yes, you are right. The $25 million number was through the end of June. Bower said the money raised was in the “week leading up to the 4th of July”, so part of it would have been in July. But it is odd that virtually none of it showed up in June.

        • Hope Floats

          Misrepresenting the facts by quoting old stats. It has a ring to it.

        • Pollpatrol

          Of course it didn’t show up. The first big push was over the July 4th weekend – the 2-6 of July. That’s when everyone donated. There was a second push the following weekend.

          • Ted

            OK, but that is not Bower said. If you listen to the clip – which is what I was responding to – he says the push was in the week leading up to the 4th. To me, the week leading up to the 4th is the week before the 4th.

            In any event, a month from now I’m sure we will be told that the debt is gone and $25 million was raised. Which is good. Except for Marl Penn, everyone deserves to get paid what they are owed.

            • B from Bloomington

              They had a push in the week of the 4th, but a bigger push the week after. Know I donated twice the week after the 4th. Wanted that t-shirt : )

            • Clarification on discussion above: Will was referring to the publicity for the drive – which did begin before July 4- the drive, itself, was to give $ over the 4th. There was NO drive to give $ in advance of that date – only publicity in advance to give over that weekend.

              There has been a second drive subsequently, which was posted here at NQ – to give $5 (instead of buying one Starbucks). That drive was the week after the 4th and there has been no announcement I know of, regarding the additional funds raised then – but I expect they were substantial as it was posted on many, many sites- and received many favorable comments.

              RISE HILLARY RISE!

      • Lou

        25 million is old web news.

    • Donna Brazile

      That’s hear! Ted H. How’s that teaching going?

      • basil


        You forgot your signature “Stop the Hate” tag!

        Mind if I say it?

        Stop the Hate! 😛

        • Donna Brazile

          I think we should all say it and maybe they’ll get the hint:

          STOP THE HATE:-)

          • Mary

            That’s right Stop drinking the “hateraid!”

        • Susan

          I don’t hate Obama, I loathe and despise him!

          It’s all about words in ’08, isn’t it?

          • imustprotest

            Words, just words………

        • Lou

          Donna is a Republican working for the DNC.
          Word is out.

          • imustprotest

            Karl Rove is her BFF.

    • Darryl

      Where is your link to that info. Are you completely brain dead or what. YOU ARE AN IDOT! How does it feel when you go to bed at night. Do you feel confidently retarded? Do you even realize how dumb you are? The issue was that her debt would be almost paid off AFTER —seee that word moron its AFTER—we give her the money. I mean DUH! Its called reading and listening comprehension. I bet you failed that section on your SAT.

      • Ted

        I see. Not very compelling news then is it. Let me try my hand at it:

        The earth will stop spinning after the spinning stops.

        Water will flow uphill after gravity reverses itself.

        Clinton’s debt will be eliminated after she is given enough money to eliminate her debt.

        OK, I think I’ve got it. In the meantime, I’ll keep looking at the data to see how much progress has been made toward each goal.

        • Hope Floats

          Huff on some hippie crack and start spinning till it seems like the earth stops. It seems perfectly normal in whatever mental institution you’re writing from.

        • Darryl

          Thanks for proving my point. LOL

    • Hope Floats

      The NYT Caucus blog on July 18 reported Hillary’s debt is down to $12.5 million. THe stories now are whining about how Obama supporters are expected to repay the remaining $11 million. So, far, they’ve coughed up a mere $100,000. But He wants all her donors and voters.

      Clinton senior adviser Ann Lewis this evening revived the so-called HillGrams, the Clinton campaign’s e-mail communiqués to thousands of her supporters, and urged those on the list to donate to the cause of paying off the approximately $12 million that Mrs. Clinton still owes to her political consultants, vendors and small business owners hired for her campaign events.

      Nice to hear from you, believe. Now FOAD.

      • Ted

        Of course this is the money sheowes others, not herself, so it is the same figure that was objected to above.

    • ginaswo still says no Uhhbama

      one more time

      we didnt kick off our fundraising until July, it will be reflected in the JULY numbers not June

      thus you need to look at the August 20 FEC filing…

  • wodiej

    too little too late for CNN. Many Hillary supporters would not even support an Obama/Clinton ticket, and would hold their nose if BO was on it even as VP.

    They just keep underestimating us. First they didn’t need us and said we could stay home. After all, we’re just a bunch of old, poor, white women. But then we raised millions in a short period of time to pay off Hillary’s debt. Hmm.. then we formed PUMA/Just Say No Deal and and hundreds of other similar groups cropped up rapidly. Hmmm…..then Obama’s numbers started to slide despite all of his grandoise efforts. I think they just might need our votes.

    • Susan

      They do not understand that it is not all about Hillary, but it is all about Obama and the loathing!

      • If this was only about Hillary it would not continue to grow. If the DNC had given us a quailifed canidate none of this would be happening. The problem is not Hillary, its Obama! He is a bad canidate. When 18 million or more of his own party do not support him, how on earth do they think they can win a general???

    • Why?

      I dont get it- with all the pro Hillary Groups how come she still had to lend herself $1 million back in June??? and her debt continues to grow- i could be wrong with the amount but she only made something like $2 million from supporters.

      • ginaswo still says no Uhhbama

        we didnt kick off our drive until July


  • the latest polls and electoral map with some thoughts about them:

    • wodiej

      I don’t care what polls say, Obama won’t win Indiana. This is a conservative state and hasn’t went Democrat for President since 1964 for Lyndon Johnson.

      • Dave

        “I don’t care what polls say”

        haha, ever? Or only when they disagree with your preconceived beliefs?

        • LilRod

          We have seen over and over again in this election cycle that these polls are flawed.

          This is still too early. Most of these polls involve 700 – 1200 correspondents & they are easily manipulated.

          The fact that Obama is tied (within the error %) with McCain should be very alarming to the Obama camp.

    • Mel

      why are you taking as truth a Houston ABC station owned by the Chicago Tribune as a reliable source for this troll?


      There is no way Montana, Indiana, Pennsylvania will go for Obama. If you go in and change the parameters to show what the electoral map looked like in 2004 when Kerry ran, I’ll bet you it’ll look more like that. There is no way that some of the states that Tom Abrams shows blue are going to go that way. He’s dreaming.

      This is a great article entitle “It’s the Electoral Map Stupid.” Very good piece.

      • Lou

        What about the stolen votes?
        Their new strategy is anyone who stays home doesn’t vote will be checked off the lsit as voted for obama.

        VOTE-anyone will do if you can’t vote for McCain

      • Anon22

        No, PA’s pretty much a lock. There’s always breathless speculation about it going for the Republican, and then it always disappoints. Obama has about the same chance of flipping North Carolina as McCain does of flipping Pennsylvania.

        Indiana and Montana are both longer shots, but I don’t think Obama will end up needing them. If he takes either or both, he’ll already be having such a good night that he’ll have OH and VA, in addition to the Kerry states plus Colorado, Iowa, and New Mexico.

        • barack who?

          McCain has a good chance of picking up PA.

          Kerry won PA by two points in 2004. That’s not a commanding margin. (It could be argued the PA is more purple than solid blue.)

          Obama’s bittergate comments were made shortly before the PA primary. He PO’d a lot of Pennsylvanians. I live in PA. I was subjected to the 24-7 onslaught of Obama media, all Obama all the time. And HIllary still took the state by 9 points. He outspent her 3-1. Obama couldn’t even carry Bucks County, home of the latte liberals.

          If Obama remains the dem nominee, and a substantial number of Hillary voters go for McCain, you may as well put the Keystone State in McCain’s bucket.

          • Anon22

            Kerry won PA by two points in 2004. That’s not a commanding margin. (It could be argued the PA is more purple than solid blue.)

            This is not 2004. The adjusted polling averages for Obama have his projected margin at 4.7% in PA. (I don’t know what Kerry’s projected margin was, because we didn’t have 538 in ’04.)

            Obama’s bittergate comments were made shortly before the PA primary. He PO’d a lot of Pennsylvanians. I live in PA. I was subjected to the 24-7 onslaught of Obama media, all Obama all the time. And HIllary still took the state by 9 points. He outspent her 3-1. Obama couldn’t even carry Bucks County, home of the latte liberals.

            Won the state by 9 points after being up by 20 points in polling after the March primaries. PA was a very demographically favorable state for Clinton; that doesn’t translate into votes for McCain, at least not directly.

            If Obama remains the dem nominee, and a substantial number of Hillary voters go for McCain

            He’s already the nominee. And they won’t. The available data shows Obama as the 3-1 favorite in PA.

          • Boxer Mum 06

            I seriously doubt Obama will win PA. There are many conservatives who live in the burbs and lets not forget all the bitter folks clinging to their guns and religion.

            PA has voted for many Republicans in the past, especially those that are moderate (Ridge, Specter) and I really believe McCain will take PA.

            There are many PUMA supporters here who won’t fall in line and have put Country before Party!

            • Anon22

              You can “believe” whatever you like, but there are not “many PUMA supporters” anywhere. You’re a fringe group (or movement, if your prefer) with few members and even less influence. All the available information (I know you guys don’t like information, but that’s what sensible people use to make decisions and predict outcomes) points to an Obama victory in PA. 3-1 favorite, statistically speaking, yet you apparently think his odds are worse than 50-50.

              Oh well. We can meet back here on Nov. 5 and see how that bold prediction turned out.

              • B from Bloomington

                Hi believe.

      • Clinton Fan

        He needs money to “earn” states in New England, too. You know, the ones that always were reliably BLUE? They aren’t so reliable.

        He might not get NY, either. I think he’s gonna have a tough time in FL, certainly.

        I think these “cakewalk” clowns are going to be surprised at the end of the day.

        • Dave

          “He might not get NY, either.”

          OK, seriously now- remember this comment the next time you guys accuse US of being on crack.
          This is the first comment I’ve seen that was so patently absurd I couldn’t even muster a laugh.

        • Anon22

          Obama currently has a 96% projected chance of winning New York. Obama is more likely to flip Texas than John McCain is to flip New York.

          Oh well. We can meet back here on Nov. 5 and see how that bold prediction turned out.

      • Clinton Fan

        My vote is going to be repub instead of the diehard dem of years past (unless the DNC corrects their error). And I am but one of millions, and our numbers, I believe, are not reflected in these polls.

        I don’t think they’re appreciating this. Or realizing it. Or admitting it.

        I don’t know if I’ll vote for McCain, but I KNOW I won’t vote for Obama. Based on my history, to include party registration over the years, activism, volunteering, and so forth, I am quite sure anyone looking at a list of Diehard Dem voters would “ASSume” I would toe that line. I always have before, even when the candidates didn’t make me leap for joy.

        I’ve got news for Howard Dean–this time, my toe isn’t up against that line…my toe is UP HIS ASS.

        I’m not voting for that egomanaical “Presumptuous Nominee.” He’s just too stupid for me. And his supporters are, well, assholes. Mean, snarky, snide, and, uhmmmmm, unnnhhhhh, hmmmm (to quote their hero)…stupid. And the greatest of these is STUPID. I’ve never seen such a bunch of political neophytes and punks who slept through US history in my life. Ya don’t learn it, ya repeat it!

        I’ll do my bit to keep the Hill blue, but I can’t support this hubris-laden “57 state/ten year Presidency” nitwit. Those aren’t gaffes, that’s a pisspoor knowledge base. And he graduated from HARVARD LAW? What a disgrace!

        No, I can’t.

        No, I won’t.

        I’ve just gotta say… NO.

    • B from Bloomington

      Thank you Tom. Appreciate your informative posts. I don’t, however, see how the polls can properly measure the number of dems who will be crossing over to repub this year. It’s my understanding that polls look at voting records and assume they will be the same as in the past, and then add in some variables. Accurately predicting what will happen in November is more difficult this time around. My vote is going to be repub instead of the diehard dem of years past (unless the DNC corrects their error). And I am but one of millions, and our numbers, I believe, are not reflected in these polls.

      The electoral map is great. So glad it’s adjustable as that is certainly necessary. They are incorrect in listing IN and FL as toss ups as they will surely be repub. And when these are fixed as well as a few others, it’s close, but a repub win is very possible!

      • Anon22

        No, polls are polls. They ask respondents who they’ll be voting for. Thus, they do pick up defectors like you. The modeling assumptions you appear to be referring to deal with party ID. The pollsters who weight heavily tend to show worse numbers for Obama; those who take their samples more or less as they find them in terms of partisan identification tend to perform better for Obama, due to the unsurprising fact that there are many more Democrats now than there were in 2004. But splits within party groupings are derived from current polling, not projections based on past numbers.

        • B from Bloomington

          Oh really? According to one polling site, PUMAs are more of a liability to McCain than an asset because we are “crazies”. We can be called with a “dog whistle” so that pretty much says, they think we’re in the bag.

          Any PUMAs here that come by a dog whistle? ….

          Nope, we are a different species altogether.

          • Anon22

            That’s pretty ridiculously unresponsive. Can I assume you don’t dispute what I said, which is that current polls are picking up the (rather insignificant) Democratic defector effect, and that Obama is leading anyway?

  • Deelee

    I just did some research for my wife regarding Suffragists, and it blew my mind.

    For any women out there thinking of voting for Obama should read this first. He wil be no different than Woodrow Wilson, and he’ll game the system if you cross him.

    • Thank you for posting that. Very thoughtful.

    • Lou

      Women were forced to own slaves. They were not allowed to free them. This was the motivator for getting women to get to vote. They also wanted to be in control of helping schools and families saying that if things were left up to the men, their quality of life woud be compromised since they said that men only care about war and politics.
      Their property was torched and they were told to shut up. They never backed down. The keeping of slaves from owning land was what kept slavery alive.
      The women said it was immoral to own slaves and fought hard to get the right to vote so they could vote against it.
      Today voters want to save the children from obama and are being shut up too..very similiar times.

  • Linda

    Re-“While they pointed out (in their version) that, although she ran a terrible campaign which got off on a failing footing – due to her “arrogant” presumption of entitlement to office (a perspective the MSM, not Senator Clinton, generated) – it’s now come to light that the Clintons hold sway with millions of voters. ”

    No, no, no. That was the talking point put out by Camp Obama…and looks like Robert Gibbs with Axelrod, that the media gladly went with. That was around the same time of “Hilly is not truthful” and “Hillary will say anything”….And, again I say, Camp Obama is like a BIG PROJECTION SCREEN. Just insert Barky where ever they put Hillary. Like his mentor Joe Lieberman and the NeoCons, they accuse of what they themself do.

    • Darryl

      The clip was bias, and I can’t believe that guy let him get away with it. Hillary and Bill aren’t worth 100 of millions of dollars. They made 109 million dollars in a decade. Further more, she put some of that money into her campaign, and she is not asking for THAT money back.

      How low has America gone that we can’t get HONEST people on the news anymore. What does it say for our children when they will be brought up in a nation full of hypocrits and liars, only interested in selling a fabrication.

      • Jackie

        Yhea so that’s what Obama has revealed is that he is an underhanded out right liar…..That’s where the “Flip Flop” cliche comes from….

    • tish

      more communist agenda from y our wonderful democratic party
      Monday, July 21, 2008

      Nancy Pelosi just said “yes” to the Fairness Doctrine that could muzzle Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and other conservative radio talk show leaders.

      Pelosi is now clearly on record supporting government censorship of our free speech rights. She also insinuated that The Broadcaster Freedom Act wouldn’t see the light of day, and added there is strong, support for a revival of the “Fairness Doctrine.”

      Our friends at the Media Research Center have launched a national petition to counter this and overwhelm her with a message that grassroots Americans want their Free Speech Rights defended and protected from government intrusion.

      Already, over 100,000 citizens have signed. Please go here to have your name added to this vital petition.

      Again, Pelosi made it clear that she will work to silence the voice of conservatives on the airwaves through the fairness doctrine.

      Please take action. Services

      • Diana


      • Susan

        I heard a while back that Barackula was against the Fairness Doctrine. Now that would only matter, of course, if I knew he’d stay against it, but he’s against it until he’s for it which Nancy should get him to do any moment now.

        Honestly, I am surprised that they haven’t had PUMAs’ internet servers shut off by now! I’m sure they’d like to have a our cable shut off since we are watching FOX news, but they don’t want us to miss the sales pitch in case we turn on CNN.

        I am glad I am a democrat (for McCain) and not a dumbocrat like the party leaders!

        They make me sick. I just can’t see that I’ll ever be able to go back to the party! Only with Clinton ’08 or ’12!

        The death of the democratic party is at hand. Hillary should run Independent now. In 2012 I think she’ll have to run in a new party so just do it now!

        Pllllleeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaasssssssssseeeeeeeeeeee Hillary, stop the madness!

        WTF is going on this year!

        We are all going to have to do a class action lawsuit against the DNC for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder!

        • Dawnelle

          Will Bower and Larry Johnson will co-host Patriots and Puma News.

          PPN yea! 😉

        • Seattle Moss

          Great comment Susan!
          How do we know where Obama stands
          on anything including the fairness doctrine.
          If he gains power Obama will enforce a Brownshirt version of the Fairnes Doctrine which would enable his Marxist agenda.
          Very Scary situation!

      • eebaltimore

        Do you have a link to the petition? Can’t find it.

      • derridog

        I am for the Fairness Doctrine. When we used to have it, before the Rethugs got rid of it, it kept the kind of bias from Reporters we saw in this primary and the last two elections from happening.

        Not everything is a free speech issue. The airwaves are public property and, as a result, reporters and networks should not be biased in favor of one candidate. The Fairness Doctrine did not suppress speech, it merely said that, if there was favorable treatment of one candidate, then the other got equal time.

        I’m very disturbed that people on this site are spouting right wing talking points and very misleading ones at that.

        • Seattle Moss

          You only have to look at communist countries over the past hundred years to realize that the Fairness Doctrine is the killer of free speech and democracy for people.

          If the fairness Doctrine had been enforced under Obama any talk of victory for Iraq would have been silenced.
          The New York Times, Obama and his supporters all wish for defeat for America.
          Thanks to free speech the Surge was able to precede and now..
          We have a McCain victory in Iraq!

          • John

            Actually, Corporate Dominance of the airwaves is a bigger threat to free speech than the Fairness Doctrine.

            Go to any of thousands of communities in the US where your “choices” on the dial include G Gordon Liddy, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Schlesinger, Laura Ingraham, Michael Reagan, etc. etc. etc. That’s a monopoly on the airing of ideas, and nothing to do with Communism.

        • ginaswo still says no Uhhbama

          Now that I have seen the stunning bias in the so called liberal media, I am against against against it

          say NO to the Fairness Doctrine, it is about as well named as the Clean Air Act that did everything except get us cleaner air….

          • As the author of this post- I’d add that the only Fairness Doctrine in MSM that is needed these days has to do with the FCC finally imposing fairness on the major networks- in the use of free air time for candidates. These mass manipulators are given free use of the airwaves- based on the supposition of free public service information – and all at NQ know by now how they choose to interpret “public service information.”

            They are exercising massive abuse of power and have been for some time. They no longer provide “news” at all- only parsed propaganda for their own purposes- about which they have become as blatant and arrogant as obama himself.

            For other prior posts on the Media go to archives at:


        • missE


          Do you believe Pelosi will insist that McCain get equal air time?

        • John

          I totally agree with you- the Public Airwaves belong to US, not General Electric, etc. The fact that more than ninety percent of talk radio is right-wing means that the public airwaves are not providing the service that was intended when the first licenses were being issued.

          As a Hillary supporter who will not vote for Obama, I too am becoming more and more concerned at the direction this blog is taking- more and more I read “Drill Now,” “Ted Kennedy is a murderer,” and now anti-Fairness Doctrine posts that seem better suited to sites dedicated to worship of Sean Hannity. I hope we can continue as Progressives and Liberals as we reject Obama.

          Refusing to support Obama, and my decision to vote for McCain, doesn’t make me a Right-Wing Republican.

      • Lou

        OMG. Who’s in San Fran helping Cindy Sheehan collect signatures by Labor to be put on the ballot against Nancy Pelosi. Cindy Sheehan is a firewall and not a fixture. It could work since she is a staunch supporter of the constitution.
        She’s not perfect but she’s better than nancy nincompoop.

        • sowsear

          She needs money if you can spare a few $$$.

          • Dave

            Hahaha…this is a joke…right?


            “I wish I could be proud of a nation that tortures people and imprisons them without basic legal rights. I wish I could be proud of a nation that has a sitting president that has been responsible for killing almost a million innocent Iraqi people in a misadventure that was based on lies and is for profit. I wish I could be proud of a nation that rapes its poor people to feed the already rich in a demented reverse Robin Hood affect. I wish I could be proud of a country where over a million children are homeless and hungry every night. I wish I could be proud of a nation that left our black brothers and sisters hanging off of their roofs after Katrina.”

            “I sit here behind my computer screen in solidarity with Rev. Wright. Not only do I not denounce him, but I support him in telling the truth.”

            Thanks but no thanks.

        • JudyinMO

          Check on Sheehan, I heard she is a barky supporter

      • DaleA

        Silencing the ‘voices of conservatives’ is a good thing. Why on Earth do you think bringing this up at a liberal blog, a Hillary Blog, would result in any support. Believe it or not, Pelosi has fucked up by endorsing an actual Progressive point. Who’d a thunk it?

        Conservative voices are not ‘silenced’ by this. They are simply not allowed to be the only voice.

    • Hope Floats

      Joe Lieberman’s no friend of Obama’s, but that hasn’t stopped other Bush fans from climbing abourd the crazy train AKA Hopey Changey Express.

    • Lou

      This is the talking point for EVERY candidate that obama took off the ballot. He said that about Alice Palmer and the others who ran against him.
      Just because this mack daddy gamed the system, doesn’t mean the rival ran a bad campaign. Who goes into a campaign prepared for their opponent to be stealing votes and creating irregularities to win?
      Hillary’s campaign was based on a fair election until she found out what obama was doing.

    • MaryPat

      I still hold out hope that the unconscionable favoritism the MSM has shown for one candidate will come back to haunt them, and their Chosen One.

      For instance, Jack Cafferty on CNN undercuts what little credibility that network has left with the glowing pro-Obama slant he gives every single one of his poll questions. He royally ticks off not only the anti-Obama forces, but also the all-important independent voters who get their backs up whenever media bias rears its ugly head.

      And it looks like there is a growing backlash against the NY Times, which gave Obama space for an op-ed piece explaining his views but have denied the same courtesy to McCain. I believe they declined to print McCain’s article because it doesn’t include the Iraq timeline strategy the paper favors. Since when does the MSM get to declare it’s our way or the highway?

      Since they all sold their souls to Barry, that’s when. They all need to go back to journalism school. Perhaps the three network anchors will have time to consider that option while they are following the rockstar around Europe like the drooling and worshipful little puppy dogs they are.