-
Website
http://www.americablog.com/ -
Original page
http://www.americablog.com/2008/05/congressional-leaders-promise-that.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
June 4th is my limit for them to be content.
If they are content after that date, they will simply be stupid fu*kers.
bought a two-story, red brick, 128-year-old, $440,000 row house in Baltimore. The nearly 2,000-square-foot house "is believed to have been a dry cleaners and a candy shop," has exposed brick walls, a fireplace, hardwood floors and an attached garage.
http://www.statesman.com/life/content/life/stor...
The vitriol and hatred focused within the Dem party has been very unsettling!
i want to know who to vote against in the 2010 dem primary.
Good on ya buddy!
I don't agree with the statement but I like the fact that you are willing to tell it like (you think) it is!
Our only consolation is that after Obama loses badly to McCain, we can join the bandwagon and scapegoat everything on the Clintonistas. The reputation of the Democratic Party now depends on perpetuating the GOP meme that the Clintons were/are to blame for everything. Some of us will be quietly giggling as you once again fail to take responsibility for your hateful fanaticism when the great Saint Obama loses due to slick negative ads from the Republipigs.
Harold Ickes: "beware the Obama October surprise"
Harold Wolfson: "Obama can't win because white people are racist and won't vote for him and we don't care about black voters"
McCain is a dead fish.
But I guess that is why you chose him for us.
Getting a little pushy with our power aren't we, dear?
Get a grip.
Clinton won the Jan. 15 Michigan primary and was to get 73 pledged delegates under state party rules, while Obama was to get 55. The state also has 29 superdelegates.
The state party's executive committee voted Wednesday to ask the national party's Rules and Bylaws Committee to approve the 69-59 delegate split when it meets May 31. The plan would allow the state's 157 delegates and superdelegates to be seated at the convention.
A separate plan submitted to the rules committee by Democratic National Committee members Joel Ferguson of Michigan and Jon Ausman of Florida, both superdelegates, apparently will be withdrawn now that the Michigan executive committee has settled on the 69-59 plan. Under their proposal, delegates would have been allocated based on the primary election results, but have had only half a vote each. The superdelegates would have had full voting rights.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080508/ap_on_el_pr...
I would really like to see Hillary without all the input from those guys. Maybe she is what I think but what if she is not? As pissed off as that woman makes me (can't use hate anymore) I would like to see the Hillary without all the bad advice. If she is a true politico she should be able to run a campaign on issues.
You have been here awhile and you too Busboy. Didn't constantcomment have a couple of different names before this new Disqus thing?
I don't know, maybe, but I still would like to see Hillary without all the "advice". As far as Obama, can't/ won't agree to that, just don't think so. I was impressed he disagreed with the gas tax holiday when it would have been so easy to pander the same thing to get votes.
Look at what the Republicans say..David Brooks:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Newsjunkie2007
Nite and sweet dreams about how you are going to convert to being a Democrat.
"Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/7/23742/84...
Can you believe that? hard-working Americans = white Americans. Implying that Obama's support is comprised of shiftless lazy minorities. This is the most blatant race bait yet and it's straight from her mouth, not even a surrogate.
Where's my pitchfork?
As Hillary Clinton came under increasing scrutiny for her story about facing sniper fire in Bosnia, one question that arose was whether she has engaged in a pattern of lying.
The now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Hillary when she worked on the Watergate investigation, says Hillary"s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther " and goes much deeper " than anyone realizes.
Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy"s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation " one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman"s 17-year career.
Why?
"Because she was a liar," Zeifman said in an interview last week. "She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYDawVh1-sM&feat...
---donotmakeme
any colour you like!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T04im0MLqrw
I will not be free until she retires to Paraguay with the rest of the Neocons.
She is so many different things to so many different people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ap-OO0xqTe4
na-na-na-na
hey hey
goodbye!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=De9No1idr_g&feat...
There's a battle ahead
Many battles are lost
But you'll never see the end of the road while you're traveling with me....
Hey now.. don't dream it's over
You know that they won't win - never let them win...
Now I'm towing my car...
There's a hole in the roof....
Where will the Hillbots go after Hillary do you think? What is the next logical step in their evolution?
:)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQZHCTIDwrw&feat...
Won't Get Fooled Again?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3mi-bKtDGA
If I said the name you would never believe me. But yes I did back in 1998. She was pretty, smart, seemed to have deep feelings, great in the sac and also (unfortunetly) had a husband. I was hart broken when she said good buy. This was when I made my torshus interference rule: No husbands and no kids. It prevented me from getting into something that had the chance to be disrupted by a third party. (A child or Husband)
For all the good it did me.
Soon as I find the right woman she gets cancer...
You know some times you just cant win. No matter how hard you try...
I understand how Hillery feels.
It kind of stings like a leach...
Had they made it in February.
When this thing was first over.
Before it took on such a negative tone.
lead-ers?
I'm getting fed up with the big names who haven't endorsed yet, too. Al Gore? Wes Clark (who I'd like to see in the VP spot with Obama)? JOHN EDWARDS?! I understand not wanting to run afoul of the Clinton machine, but we have to get serious if we're going to beat McCain in November. Never forget that the Republican's still control the voting machines. We have to turn out such huge numbers that they don't dare try to steal it. We've only got 5 months.
Obama is more than a candidate - he's the personification of a movement. He needs to have the nomination set in stone if we're going to maximize the growth of the movement. Hillary is holding it back. She needs to get out of the way, and do it now.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2...
"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."
"There's a pattern emerging here," she said.
Clinton rejected any idea that her emphasis on white voters could be interpreted as racially divisive. "These are the people you have to win if you're a Democrat in sufficient numbers to actually win the election. Everybody knows that."
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/...
1984 Walter Mondale 90% Ronald Reagan 9%
1988 Michael Dukakis 90% George H.W. Bush 10%
1992 Bill Clinton 83% George H.W. Bush 10%
1996 Bill Clinton 84% Bob Dole 12%
2000 Al Gore 90% George W. Bush 9%
The percentages tell a story of party loyalty that is now being twisted into a story about race.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/05/building...
They ought to censure her in the Senate! Worthless, mean bitch that she is.
http://praxxus.blogspot.com/2008/05/i-got-polle...
OK superdelegates, Hillary has gone negative. What are you going to do??
constantcomment
Just when I think your comments cannot get more idiotic, you surprise me with a truly repulsive one.
Actually, the only racists I've noticed in the campaign so far are the black voters that vote 92% for Obama. If there's a group of voters that are guided purely by race, it's black voters.
btw: I think cmpnwtr was telling us his/her opinion of Congress...and I agree with him/her.
John&Team inform with facts and info for activism. I am appreciative of their daily efforts to WAKE THIS COUNTRY THE HELL UP!
Get ready for months of the blatant racism. At least for now, that's all the Fox-types have.
And whassup with TVs in front of treadmills and in hotel lobbies, etc...Fox is the channel of choice. It must be like food vendors paying supermarkets to place their products in prominent locations. Payola?
aquarius2,
Yeah, people like constantcomment think their weak thoughts become more weighty if they use multiple commenting names...and they think we won't catch on.
hahaha
Busboy.
There are times when I feel an urge to write a big phat FU to you, and this is one of them.
"AQ-2, I think she is an empty suit, just like McCain. Obama is also starting to look like an empty suit. He's not supplying much red meat to his followers."
Come on, come back to the real world. We are talking about politics in America, the land of American Idol, supersizing, Nascar, and "debate" about whether creationism should be taught in public schools! The old "run on the issues" meme is getting very tired. All successful politicians are empty suits of sorts, it's the nature of the business. The American electorate is just not that sophisticated, as much as we want to believe otherwise.
IF by "empty suit" you mean pandering for votes, then that seems like a job requirement, not a fault. On the other side, all 3 of them seem like genuinely intelligent people and it's kind of arrogant for people to so flippantly dismiss how smart they really must be to have gotten where they are . I have 3 college degrees and I'm not sure I'd have the intellectual ability to give multiple speeches on a littany of topics while all the while having the media/public throwing random questions at me and parsing every word and action as some deep picture into my soul. Now imagine doing that for over a year and it gives you an idea of how tough and smart all of these people have to be to have gotten where they are. Even Bush, who is pretty darn stupid compared to his peergroup, would probably be regarded as somewhat talented when compared to joe-blow-the-great-unwashed that makes up most of the electorate (being able to manipulate and foster relationships for personal and professional gain is an invaluable skill, and like him or not, Bush has the black book full of cultivated connections to have gotten him elected POTUS).
It's time to come back to reality, if everyone could withstand running for POTUS, the job wouldn't be as prestigious as it is.
"I think you're full of crap, Zenn. If you say what you mean and mean what you say?; then you don't need prompter cards or surrogates running around the next day to explain things."
Lol, and you have what to back up your assertion? I have the better part of the last 100 years of pandering, system manipulation, and vacuous promises by politicians to support my arguement that most politicans are in the "business" of winning office, not of being actual public servants. Your opinion makes for a nice high school social studies thesis but reality just doesn't back it up. With very rare exceptions (like Bill Clinton), we have gone out of our way as an electorate to seek out the least "policy-wonk" oriented politician in every singly POTUS contest I can remember (Bill was lucky enough to be a wonk but have enough personal charm to make people forget that). So, while the media fawns over Clintons and Obamas bowling games or muses about where Clinton or Obama can do shots better in a bar, I hope your delusional notion that most people want or seek out the policy oriented candidate keeps you warm at night.
As an aside, both the democrats have very clearly articulated platforms, and have made them publically available in multiple locations. I think your problem is that you want, nay need, to think that the candidates have nothing substantative to say because it reinforces your myopic view of the world. I think the bigger issue is that when Obama is filling up a stadium people aren't coming to hear his white paper on economic stimulus in post NAFTA America, no, they are coming to "feel" invigorated and emotionally tied to him as a person. Even Clinton, who is by far the biggest policy wonk of those left standing, makes sure to pepper her wonkish statements with plenty of pork-filled pandering so the masses feel like she's thinking about them (for instance that obvious pandering with the gas tax). Any wonder she is also the one about to be shown the door? Kind of reinforces my point about the US electorate selecting against wonks doesn't it?