Just stop, that was disgusting, stop spreading the disgusting racism. Bill Shaheen had the decency to resign from the Clinton Campaign. You should stop posting on General Clark's site. And no, Fox won't define this race.

I am not. Or have ever been a racist! Let me make that clear.
Now this is coming from a woman over 40 years old. I have been discriminated against because I am a woman. And I have been discriminated against for being a woman over 40. (My male counterparts make more money then myself doing the same kind of work).(Also no promotions for being a woman). I have worked with and had friendships with African Americans as well as Vietnamese and Mexicans.
What I am saying is that it has always been the medias job to build people up just to tear them down. No matter whether they are politicians or someone in the entertainment industry. I for one don't like it.Sorry but it is there and it happens, it's reality. I for one don't believe a lot of what I see or hear in the press. But unfortunately a lot do.
I am just afraid that is what will happen should Obama be our nominee.
I WILL vote for him in the GE if he is the nominee. If I were a racist as you claim then I would just stay home.
Sorry if you took it the wrong way.
And if it isn't Faux news that defines the race it will be others in the media that will. That is the way Corp Press operates.

Hello Howard:

You know that I do not use smears in any of my posts and that I do not agree with anyone who may be using them!

But this is something that definitely needs to be addressed RIGHT NOW BEFORE the primary is over because IF Obama is the nominee, then Rush Limbaugh and the other side will eat him up alive with "Smears" just like how they did to John Kerry in 2004!

The "Smears" you think that you see here from a few people will be magnified many thousands of times over by the other side in the general election on Obama just like how an entire bank account is many thousands of times bigger than whatever loose change is in your pocket right now!

If Obama has not done anything yet to deal with these kind of attacks except but to complain about them, then what will he do in the general election when he gets in 2008 probably even worse treatment than what John Kerry got in 2004?

This is a valid point in my opinion and it is very clear evidence that Obama is probably NOT electable in the general election short of some kind of lucky break happening in his favor such as a conservative leaning third party candidate absorbing GOP votes, the GOP nominee making a fatal mistake in the line of George Allen's "Macacca moment" or John Kerry's "botched joke," or Bush messing up so badly that it rubs off on the GOP nominee!

What specific answer(s) do you have to address this issue Howard because what I discuss in this post about Obama's lack of electability because he does not understand how serious that the attacks will be from the other side and what kind of an effect that they will have on him in the general election is the real issue that needs to be settled right now in the primary as far as I am concerned!

Nobody yet who disagrees with me and who supports Obama has specifically answered any of my points yet about Obama's lack of electability!

Mitch

are just going to annoy people this year, he can slime Obama but odds are it will just make people mad.

You know why swiftboating worked? Because people deep down were never really thrilled with Kerry anyway, it was all about beating Bush, you know the polls, don't tell me it isn't so.

People who are for Obama are for Obama because they actually like Obama or at the very least they like the idea of Obama. It has nothing to do with the electability meme that was a centerpeice of Kerry's nomination.

Rush's antics could well backfire if people like the candidate on a personal level. The natural responce will be that by attacking Obama people will feel that Rush attacked them. They will feel victimized and personally offended.

Rush may well end up getting dumped if he slimes a popular Obama in the GE. Merely by virtue of being who he is Obama will call the Republicans bluff and force them to take a stand.

And the more vile vitrol they spew about Obama the more it will prove our point that they are in fact xenophobic bigots who need to be given the boot. It will force the Republican nominee to either stand by Rush or disown him.

They use Rush to play "good cop bad cop." Rush is always the bad cop.

But this time around Rush will be pushing his luck, regardless of the nominee, Rush's botched attack on Micheal J Fox was a PR disaster for the Republicans and it cost them votes, in fact we can probably thank Rush for putting us over the top in MO.

Rush Limbaugh is a double edged sword, he slices both ways, his over the top rhetoric could hurt Republicans badly in cycle that has people on both sides fed up with all things Bush and Rovian in nature.

And I'd like to see Rush try to smear Obama in the GE, it will be Rush Limbaugh's "Macaca" moment, and if Virginia gave Allen the boot I think America will react the same way to Limbaugh and the GOP smearing Obama in a racist bigoted fashion.

Not even something I'd want to entertain.

But I will almost guarantee that the media will make sure they try to use this against him. And I will tell you why. I have a very right wing cousin that sends me trashy things all the time trying to cut down what he calls the evil Muslims as well as the evil Mexicans that are coming over the border. Some even come with pictures which I am sure have been doctored.(Some people can't tell the difference but I can). I have got so sick of these e-mails I just delete them anymore (before reading). I know that he is a Republican and he knows that I am a Liberal Democrat. But that does not stop him from sending them.
It is so unreal when things like this get started and it's hard to stop it. I even received an e-mail from another cousin that was mass e-mailed to several people claiming that Thompson was the next Ronald Reagan and they considered him the next Messiah. I don't believe any of this. But some do.
In fact I don't believe all Muslims are bad. Just like I don't believe all African Americans are bad. Every ethnic background has their bad apples even whites.
Bush has done a very good job at dividing the country. In spreading the hate. :(

extremely important context & there is no way this could be confused with pushing this smear, far from it. Just my opinion of course but please do not act as if she is putting the rag of the email here with the purpose of cutting & pasting or something. 

Just don't care about other people's religion unless it's teaching them to hate me for some reason. BTW, Christianity has a long history of intolerance with Manifest Destiny, etc... The evangelical rightwingers totally freak me out, so none of these scenarios work for me. Give me a secular candidate.

Obama outspent Hillaryh by about $2 million. She's in for the long haul -- all 50 states. Only 1.29% of the national delegates to the Convention have been determined so far. Some of her advisors even counseled skipping Iowa.

Stay tuned. Thee's lots of delegates remaining to be determineed. Her results tracked more or less right along with "expectations." But the media won't bother to mentiont that little fact.

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!

Hillary may yet win this, she's got years of planning, millions of dollars and thousands of political favors to call in. Hillary has a political machine that is going to be hard to beat.

However we are doing ourselves and the party a disservice by repeating Rush Limbaugh's talking points for him.

Senator Clinton is no more "electable" than Obama. Republicans hate her, and we can't win with Democrats alone. The lesson of 2006 is a candidate needs crossover appeal without sacraficing our party values.

Webb was able to do it because people were willing to listen to him, and people are willing to listen to Obama. Many people particuraly Republicans just tune Hillary out.

I'm not saying she can't win, because she can. But it's absurd to say Obama can't win, No matter who the nominee is they will get savaged by the press and GOP.

Obama has weaknesses, but they are no more substantial than Hillary's.

three-way tie - and that's just about what happened.

Just curious. Although I shouldn't be, because I only end up being startled again.

In various threads.

Current delegate count (not including super delegates):

Obama 16
Clinton 15
Edwards 14

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#IA

Consider it pixie dust of truth. :)

What is the big deal? Not much difference between the two. And Edwards got 14 delegates.

But this issue is perception, and we can howl and cry foul till we have no voice left but the media will spin this any way they like it and there is not a thing we can do about that.

And if Hillary can't handle barack in the primaries what evidence is there she is any better prepared than Obama to take on negative attacks.

Obama went on the attack against Hillary and he beat her, her supposed "electability" is a myth, her ability to handle attack politics and win under fire against more money is a myth. She isn't unelectable, I think she can win, but she is no more electable than Obama and to say otherwise is pretty obviously false after Iowa.

Send emails far and wide with the truth. Include the CNN link. Post to any blogs you visit. It's the only way it will get out there to the people who need to know that Obama didn't "win" anymore than Hillary "lost."

after Wes in 04 I'm all for people powered media and I will certainly be pointing out the facts to all who will listen.

But at the same time I doubt we have the credibility, we are viewed rightly or wrongly as biased in favor of Sen. Clinton.

We are no more a neutral party than the corporate madia is. And the perception is that tweety is more trustworthy than us, rightly or wrongly so people just don't trust campaign's to tell the truth.

the current total of delegates with a link that corroborates. Anyone who sees that as being some kind of partisan slant is too far gone for it to matter anyway.

That will mean Wes looking out for all of us along with an excellent team on day one. For us it has always been about the team. With Obama it is a candidate (plus Oprah and attractive family.) With JRE it's a candidate and his wife. With HRC, it's the A team. We want the A team on Jan. 20th, 2009. They know how the phones work and where the bathrooms are. These things are important. We don't have time for orientation post BushCo. Your friends will really praise you if the A team is working for them on Day One.

Hi Scott:

This statement that you made is not accurate in my opinion:

"I don't give the GOP attack machine that much credit. I recall that Dems swept the House and Senate in 06 and I know the GOP tried all their usual tricks."

We were really very lucky to win the House and Senate in 06 because 18 of those House races we won were decided by less than 5000 votes. Jon Tester won by about 2000 votes and Jim Webb by about 8000 votes. Webb would probably not have won if it were not for George Allen's "Macacca moment" gaffe which hurt him in the polls!

Please see these posts to understand why the GOP attack machine is as powerful as it is and how it will relate to 2008:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/13578

ANALYSIS: Why Rush Limbaugh is so powerful & what many media pundits do not get!

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on October 10, 2007 - 1:47am.

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/8841

ANALYSIS: A great Washington Post article about how the media affects Democrats!

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on October 5, 2006 - 2:03pm.

Mark Halperin and John F. Harris summarize this important point very well in my opinion talking about both the 2004 and the 2008 elections in their book titled "The Way to Win: Taking the White House in 2008" which I recommend:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/03/AR2006100301030_pf.html

The Way to Win: Taking the White House in 2008
Chapter 1: The Way to Lose

By Mark Halperin and John F. Harris
Tuesday, October 3, 2006; 6:08 PM

"The bottom line was that the Bush campaign and its allies did a better job than the Kerry campaign and its allies in using the Freak Show -- its magnification of the personal and negative -- to define the opposing candidate. But the story as told in this chapter is a tactical one. What is more important for the next presidential election is the strategic reality that the Freak Show does not affect both parties equally.

The dynamic in 2008 will be the same as it was in 2004. There are structural issues in politics and media that now favor Republicans over Democrats. Freak Show politics will represent only a moderate threat to Republicans and give them a major advantage as they try to define the opposition on unfavorable terms. On the other side, Freak Show politics offers virtually no advantages for Democrats, but will again present a huge threat to any politician hoping to keep control of the narrative of his -- or her -- life story..."

Laura Ingraham, who is a top Neocon extreme right wing talk radio show host, seriously fears what Hillary Clinton will do to extreme right wing Neocon talk radio if she is elected President and correctly understood that "If we didn’t have talk radio in the last election, John Kerry would be president:"

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/threats_to_talk_radio/2007/09/13/32450.html

Laura Ingraham: Threats to Talk Radio Real

Thursday, September 13, 2007 5:25 PM

By: Phil Brennan

"If Hillary Clinton wins the presidency she’ll launch an all-out attack on conservative talk radio, top commentator Laura Ingraham warns...

NewsMax: Do you think the threat to revive the Fairness Doctrine is a serious one?

Ingraham: I do think it’s serious. I think that if Hillary Clinton becomes president, we’re going to see all sorts of moves to regulate political talk radio in a manner that would ultimately drive a lot of [talk] shows off the air because of the push to make individual stations “fair...”

If we didn’t have talk radio in the last election, John Kerry would be president..."

I agree that Kerry was a bad candidate but part of his being a bad candidate is that he did not understand about how the other side would try to define him and he did not understand the urgent need to fight back even after he lost the 2004 election:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/350fnrnt.asp?pg=1

Kerry Loves the Mainstream Media
From the March 21, 2005 issue: . . . And has contempt for the American people.
by P.J. O'Rourke
03/21/2005, Volume 010, Issue 25

Kerry was led back to the main point by a question from the audience: "How [do we] stop the media from creating and perpetuating the divisive red state/blue state situation?"

Kerry looked sympathetically at Oliphant--a representative of the mainstream media--and answered as if Oliphant himself had asked the question. "Tom, I swear I don't have the answer to that. And I'm looking for it just like everybody else is..."

Unfortunately, Obama does not understand this concept right now in 2008 just like how Kerry did not understand it in 2004:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21562193/

Democratic Presidential Candidates Debate for October 30
Read the transcript from the special coverage

updated 11:16 a.m. CT, Wed., Oct. 31, 2007

DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES PARTICIPATE IN A DEBATE

SPONSORED BY MSNBC

OCTOBER 30, 2007

BRIAN WILLIAMS, MSNBC ANCHOR: "Senator Obama, we’re going to transfer into a new area here. A question specifically for you because you’re in a rather unique position. It’s about religion and misinformation. Governor Romney misspoke twice on the same day, confusing your name with that of Osama bin Laden.

Your party is fond of talking about a potential swiftboating. Are you fearful of what happened to John McCain, for example, in South Carolina a few years back; confusion on the basis of things like names and religion?

OBAMA: No, because I have confidence in the American people.

OBAMA: And I don’t pay much attention to what Mitt Romney has to say—at least what he says this week. It may be different next week..."

Just like Kerry, Obama is NOT electable now in 2008 short of getting some kind of a very lucky break that happens in his favor the same way as how Kerry was not electable in 2004 because he allowed the other side to negatively define him as a candidate which turned votes in middle America!

As far as a resume is concerned, John Kerry was much more qualified to be President in 2004 than Obama is right now in my opinion with his obvious lack of foreign policy experience and after saying "that his "strongest foreign relations experience was living overseas as a child:"

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/13948

Obama said strongest foreign relations experience was living overseas as a child

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on November 21, 2007 - 9:17am.

I personally have no confidence that Obama is ready to become President right now and fix the huge foreign policy mess that Bush will leave behind because I have not seen him do or say anything yet to show me that he is ready!

Overconfidence like this is a very dangerous thing and could be very costly to us in my opinion when you said:

"But 2008 will be the year of the Democratic candidate no matter our candidate or what the swift-boater types do."

My philosophy is that I believe in fighting as hard as I possibly can right to the end of the fight regardless of what any polls say and regardless of what any circumstances at the moment are. Polls and circumstances can change at any moment so I never take any lead for granted at any time!

Mitch