SCHIP A Step Towards Socialism
by Mike Franc
Posted: 07/27/2007
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=21705
Friday, May 30, 2008
Everybody Upset With Pastor Number Two or Hillary?
Hillary is the answer.
Don't ya just love it - anybody who can see type people would answer it's Hillary Rodham Clinton, her self, that's what people have a gut feeling if not a direct observation by seeing her for who she really is. She's certainly displayed who she is and what she'll say and do to claim her spot in the history books.
Pfleger Apologizes For Mocking Clinton
http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/fleger.obama.clinton.2.736268.html
MSNBC's Morning Joe with Mika B. and Mike Barnacle co-hosting with Willie Geiss, too (and Joe Scarborough is blissfully for us absent which while we wish him well on the birth of a baby we hope the network execs can him for hypocricsy) put Chris Matthews on the spot this morning and asked him about Trinity Church guest preacher, Father Michael Pfleger.
Matthews: ...Afraid a Baptist got in the room somehow... it's spoof... sarcasm... except for the white part... Hillary clinton doesn't think she's entitled because she's white, says Matthews... pandering on the issue... sarcasm the boo-hoo part... Matthews asks would Michelle Obama running for President, a black woman have gotten this far... the hardest thing to separate out is the Clintons... they have their own baggage...
We agree. The Pastor was spoofing the Clintons. He was inaccurate to claim clinton believes she's entitled to the nomination because she is white.
No, Hillary Clinton believes she is entitled to the nomination because she is Hillary Clinton. She believes she is entitled because she is a woman.
Her claim of sexism in the contest for the Democratic nomination for President was debunked even before the woman began her official campaign.
Over a year ago, she was considered the frontrunner, no matter who ran against her in the Democratic Primaries across the United States.
Early on after she announced her candidacy, Clinton was the favored frontrunner. Polling showed that status, but along with it, her negatives continued.
Recall, it wasn't until after Super Tuesday and Barack Obama won something like a dozen contests in a row, that Obama became the frontrunner.
Debates with all initial candidates included before Super Tuesday in February were clearly indicative Hillary Clinton was considered the candidate to beat.
So her claim there's been sexism against her is debunked by her early wins and her clear frontrunner status at that time.
After Super Tuesday, everything began to change.
Somebody has to prod Hillary to the realization she is creating for herself a caricature of herself.
That's why pundits can over and over replay this pastor's show and claim everybody is upset with the pastor, but really everybody is becoming upset with Hillary Clinton. Few in the Democratic Party will nudge her too hard. The woman thinks she deserves the Presidency of the United States, even if she doesn't win the majority of committed delegates, the popular vote including the caucus states who don't announce the popular vote but distribute delegates based on it (which were won by Obama), and even if she doesn't anywhere near approach whatever the final number of all delegates are necessary to claim the nomination of the Democrat Party.
She's now 200 delegates behind Barack Obama in committed delegates and last week Obama could claim he'd garnered an absolute majority in that category of delegates.
Even if Clinton were to win all of the committed delegates in the three remaining contests, she could not reach an absolute majority as there are not enough remaining committed delegates for her to accomplish that.
We haven't veered from our assessment of Hillary Clinton for the decades we've observed her actions from afar.
She's been caught during this campaign in a few outright lies including the Bosnia trip where she claimed she and her daughter came under sniper fire. Her explanations about that will never satisfy us. No journalist asked Clinton why she would knowingly put her daughter in harm's way on a trip to Bosnia in the first place. She's never had to directly answer if she thought she was in danger facing sniper fire why she had her daughter by her side on the ground, let alone why she even alighted the plane if indeed the pair had to wear flak jackets at some point.
The verbal firestorm will never decrease from those upset with Hillary Clinton and her lies. We wonder whether she will return to her Senate seat and face defeat the next election by an electorate who has been awakened to the true character of Hillary Rodham Clinton.
spoofs and sacasm are the least of punishments for HRC.
Hillary Clinton was caught in more than one lie, but one sticks out for its neglect by the mainstream media.
Meanwhile when the first female Speaker of the House of Representatives indicates the candidate with the majority of committed delegates will receive the nomination, there isn't much room to claim sexism from colleagues, either.
Net the Truth Online
Don't ya just love it - anybody who can see type people would answer it's Hillary Rodham Clinton, her self, that's what people have a gut feeling if not a direct observation by seeing her for who she really is. She's certainly displayed who she is and what she'll say and do to claim her spot in the history books.
Pfleger Apologizes For Mocking Clinton
http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/fleger.obama.clinton.2.736268.html
MSNBC's Morning Joe with Mika B. and Mike Barnacle co-hosting with Willie Geiss, too (and Joe Scarborough is blissfully for us absent which while we wish him well on the birth of a baby we hope the network execs can him for hypocricsy) put Chris Matthews on the spot this morning and asked him about Trinity Church guest preacher, Father Michael Pfleger.
Matthews: ...Afraid a Baptist got in the room somehow... it's spoof... sarcasm... except for the white part... Hillary clinton doesn't think she's entitled because she's white, says Matthews... pandering on the issue... sarcasm the boo-hoo part... Matthews asks would Michelle Obama running for President, a black woman have gotten this far... the hardest thing to separate out is the Clintons... they have their own baggage...
We agree. The Pastor was spoofing the Clintons. He was inaccurate to claim clinton believes she's entitled to the nomination because she is white.
No, Hillary Clinton believes she is entitled to the nomination because she is Hillary Clinton. She believes she is entitled because she is a woman.
Her claim of sexism in the contest for the Democratic nomination for President was debunked even before the woman began her official campaign.
Over a year ago, she was considered the frontrunner, no matter who ran against her in the Democratic Primaries across the United States.
Early on after she announced her candidacy, Clinton was the favored frontrunner. Polling showed that status, but along with it, her negatives continued.
Recall, it wasn't until after Super Tuesday and Barack Obama won something like a dozen contests in a row, that Obama became the frontrunner.
Debates with all initial candidates included before Super Tuesday in February were clearly indicative Hillary Clinton was considered the candidate to beat.
So her claim there's been sexism against her is debunked by her early wins and her clear frontrunner status at that time.
After Super Tuesday, everything began to change.
Somebody has to prod Hillary to the realization she is creating for herself a caricature of herself.
That's why pundits can over and over replay this pastor's show and claim everybody is upset with the pastor, but really everybody is becoming upset with Hillary Clinton. Few in the Democratic Party will nudge her too hard. The woman thinks she deserves the Presidency of the United States, even if she doesn't win the majority of committed delegates, the popular vote including the caucus states who don't announce the popular vote but distribute delegates based on it (which were won by Obama), and even if she doesn't anywhere near approach whatever the final number of all delegates are necessary to claim the nomination of the Democrat Party.
She's now 200 delegates behind Barack Obama in committed delegates and last week Obama could claim he'd garnered an absolute majority in that category of delegates.
Even if Clinton were to win all of the committed delegates in the three remaining contests, she could not reach an absolute majority as there are not enough remaining committed delegates for her to accomplish that.
We haven't veered from our assessment of Hillary Clinton for the decades we've observed her actions from afar.
She's been caught during this campaign in a few outright lies including the Bosnia trip where she claimed she and her daughter came under sniper fire. Her explanations about that will never satisfy us. No journalist asked Clinton why she would knowingly put her daughter in harm's way on a trip to Bosnia in the first place. She's never had to directly answer if she thought she was in danger facing sniper fire why she had her daughter by her side on the ground, let alone why she even alighted the plane if indeed the pair had to wear flak jackets at some point.
The verbal firestorm will never decrease from those upset with Hillary Clinton and her lies. We wonder whether she will return to her Senate seat and face defeat the next election by an electorate who has been awakened to the true character of Hillary Rodham Clinton.
spoofs and sacasm are the least of punishments for HRC.
Hillary Clinton was caught in more than one lie, but one sticks out for its neglect by the mainstream media.
Meanwhile when the first female Speaker of the House of Representatives indicates the candidate with the majority of committed delegates will receive the nomination, there isn't much room to claim sexism from colleagues, either.
Top Dems to push for swift end to primary race
By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent
Fri May 30, 12:58 AM ET
WASHINGTON - Top Democratic leaders intend to push for a quick end to the battle for the presidential nomination when primaries are over next week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Thursday, adding that he, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and party chairman Howard Dean will urge uncommitted delegates to choose sides.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080530/ap_on_el_pr/democrats
Obama campaign used party rules to foil Clinton
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080530/D90VTEV00.html
Net the Truth Online
Friday, March 14, 2008
Mythbusting Hillary: Experience (SCHIP Edition)
...But privately, some lawmakers and staff members are fuming over what they see as Clinton's exaggeration of her role in developing SCHIP, including her campaign ads claiming she "helped create" the program. The irritation has grown since Nov. 1, when Clinton - along with fellow senators and presidential candidates Barack Obama, Chris Dodd, and John McCain - missed a Senate vote to extend the SCHIP program, which was approved without the votes of those lawmakers.
[ … ]
McDonough, a Democrat who has not endorsed a presidential candidate, also said it was Kennedy who developed the SCHIP idea after that meeting. "I don't recall any signs of Mrs. Clinton's engagement," McDonough said. "I'm sure she was behind the scenes, engaged in lobbying, but it is demonstrably not the case" that she was driving the effort, he said...
http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/2008/03/mythbusting-hillary-experience-schip.html
SCHIP A Step Towards Socialism
by Mike Franc
Posted: 07/27/2007
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=21705
Hillary and the SChip program
http://youtube.com/watch?v=HNFBVVgAog8&feature=related
Hillary Clinton's Lies
Sun Mar 16, 2008 12:56 AM EDT
Hillary has also continually taken credit for getting SCHIP passed. She says it is an initiative that she "helped to start." In reality, the Clinton Administration fought the SCHIP effort which was being advocated by Senators Edward Kennedy and Orrin Hatch, because of fears that it would derail a bigger budget bill. Several lawmakers and staff have stated that Hillary Clinton had no role in helping to write the SCHIP legislation, which was modeled on a similar program in Massachusetts. According to Hatch, "The White House wasn't for it. We really roughed them up." Hatch said of Clinton, "I do like her, we all care about children. But does she deserve credit for SCHIP? No - Teddy does, but she doesn't."
http://kevindicks.newsvine.com/_news/2008/03/16/1369138-hillary-clintons-lies
Hillary Vindicated on SCHIP
By NG - April 2, 2008, 10:23AM
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/hillary-vindicated-on-schip.php
March 26, 2008
Hillary's List of Lies
By Dick Morris
The USA Today/Gallup survey clearly explains why Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) is losing. Asked whether the candidates were "honest and trustworthy," Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) won with 67 percent, with Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) right behind him at 63. Hillary scored only 44 percent, the lowest rating for any candidate for any attribute in the poll.
Hillary simply cannot tell the truth. Here's her scorecard:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/hillarys_list_of_lies.html
New York Post
From Bad to Verse March 31, 2008 -- SARAJEVO, Bosnia - The Bosnian girl who famously read a poem to Hillary Rodham Clinton during her 1996 visit to the war-torn country is shocked - and her countrymen infuriated - that the former first lady claimed to have dodged sniper fire that day.
Emina Bicakcic, now 20 and studying to become a doctor, told The Post she stood on the tarmac at the air base in Tuzla, greeted Clinton and even had time to share the lines of verse she'd written - all without fear of attack from an unseen enemy.
"I was surprised when I heard this," Bicakcic said, referring to Clinton's assertion that she braved snipers upon landing, ducking and sprinting to military vehicles.
Other Bosnians said they had one of two reactions to Clinton's debunked action-hero account of her visit: laughter or anger.
"It's an exaggeration," said former acting President Ejup Ganic, who was present during Clinton's visit. "No one was firing. There were no shots fired."
Sema Markovic, 22, a student, said she has long respected Hillary as a strong leader but was angered by her remarks.
"It is an ugly thing for a politician to tell lies,' she said. "We had problems for years, and I don't like when someone lies about them. It makes us look bad."
Clinton has since admitted she "misspoke."
http://www.nypost.com/seven/03312008/news/worldnews/from_bad_to_verse_for_hill_104288.htm?page=0
Pennsylvania Renewable Energy
PCNTV Broadcast
PennFuture Clean Energy Conference
10:00 AM Renewable Energy Funding
12:40 PM PA Energy Policy Forum
3:00 PM The Smart Grid
3:40 PM Demand Side Management Markets
4:15 PM The Carbon Challenge
5:05 PM Clean Energy Job Creation
http://www.pcntv.com/schedule_daily.html
PennFuture Clean Energy Conference
10:00 AM Renewable Energy Funding
12:40 PM PA Energy Policy Forum
3:00 PM The Smart Grid
3:40 PM Demand Side Management Markets
4:15 PM The Carbon Challenge
5:05 PM Clean Energy Job Creation
http://www.pcntv.com/schedule_daily.html
Mon-Fayette Expressway Completion Cost Debated
Still being debated for environmental concerns, cost, effective plan, etc.
Debate held at University of Pittsburgh
Public Debate on the Future of Transportation in Pittsburgh: Should the Mon-Fayette Expressway Be Completed?
Presenter(s):Andrea Boykowycz, Colin Esgro, Richard Pittman
podcast
Rebroadcast at PCNTV
http://www.pcntv.com/schedule_daily.html
Debate held at University of Pittsburgh
Public Debate on the Future of Transportation in Pittsburgh: Should the Mon-Fayette Expressway Be Completed?
Presenter(s):Andrea Boykowycz, Colin Esgro, Richard Pittman
podcast
Rebroadcast at PCNTV
http://www.pcntv.com/schedule_daily.html
PennFuture
Podcast of the Week: Debating the Mon-Fayette
Not fully convinced the Mon-Fayette Toll Road is dubious pork eminently worthy of pig-in-a-poke skepticism? Then pull up a chair and listen to Monday night's debate at the University of Pittsburgh's William Pitt Debating Union entitled "Should the Mon-Fayette Expressway be Completed?"
PennFuture outreach coordinator Andrea Boykowycz and Pitt student Richard Pittman squared off against Lynn Heckman, Assistant Director of Planning for Allegheny County Economic Development and Pitt student Colin Esgro. The participants made presentations and took questions from student panelists and the audience.
http://www.pennfuture.org/media_sd_detail.aspx?MediaID=888&TypeID=4
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Document Puts Stamp Lie on Florida Democrat Party It's Republicans' Fault
Dated August 7, 2007, the document straight from the Florida Democratic Party includes not one word about disagreement with "moving up" the date of the Primary in the state which in doing so brought about well-known 'punishment' of a potential loss of some percentage of delegates for not following the National Party Rules.
Net the Truth Online
Net the Truth Online
PRESS RELEASE from the Florida Democratic Party
Thurman Announces Party's Official Adoption of 2008 National Delegate Selection Plan
Approved by State Executive Committee, Plan Now Heads to DNC for Consideration
For Immediate Release: August 7, 2007
For comments in Spanish, please contact Mark Bubriski at 850-222-3411 to arrange an interview.
TALLAHASSEE - Party Chairwoman Karen Thurman is proud to announce the Florida Democratic State Executive Committee's formal adoption of the state's Delegate Selection and Affirmative Action Plan to the 2008 Democratic National Convention. The Plan, which sets Florida's Democratic Presidential Preference Primary for January 29, 2008, was approved on Saturday at a meeting in Orlando.
Today the Party submitted the Plan to the Rules and Bylaws Committee of the Democratic National Committee for final approval.
"The State Executive Committee supports the Plan overwhelmingly, and we respectfully request that the Rules and Bylaws Committee approve it as well, with our full delegation to the National Convention intact," Thurman said.
"The Democratic Party is a party of inclusion, and that's why I am so proud to announce that the Plan will help us send the most diverse delegation to the National Convention in Florida's history," Thurman said. "For the first time, the Party will make an extra effort to recruit Democratic military service members and veterans, Democrats with disabilities, and young Democrats to participate in the process that will determine the next President of the United States of America."
Overview of Florida's Plan:
The "first determining step" of Florida's delegate selection process will occur on Tuesday, January 29, 2008, with a "binding" Presidential Preference Primary.
Florida has a total of 210 delegates and 36 alternates
121 district-level delegates and 25 district-level alternates. The post-primary congressional district caucus is on Saturday, March 1, 2008.
40 at-large delegates and 11 at-large alternates.
24 pledged Party Leader and Elected Official (PLEO) delegates.
Florida will select three unpledged add-on delegates.
Florida has been allocated eight members on each of the three standing committees for the 2008 Democratic National Convention for a total of 24 members. The committees are Credentials, Platform and Rules.
Florida is allotted one Delegation Chair and five individuals to serve as Florida's Convention Pages.
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2008/chrnothp08/fdp080707pr.html
MSNBC Chuck Todd Predicts Fl & MI half committed full super delegates
Chuck Todd, discussing the upcoming Democratic Party Rules committee meeting coming up said he believes members will seat 50 percent or half of the committed delegates and the full amount of superdelegates for both Florida and Michigan.
How would Michigan work out since Barack Obama's full name or even part of his name was not on the Michigan ballot?
It seems unfair if Hillary Clinton would get even half of the committed delegates that went with her "win" in Michigan, and in Florida, recall voters were disenfranchised as the Primary took place since many simply stayed home believing their vote would not matter anyway since it was known beforehand the state Party had broken the rules.
At any rate, it's a political party game which we hope will be gone the way of the dinosaurs once independents and Third Party contenders are given equal access to state running of political party nomination elections.
Imagine if the Constitutional, Libertarian, Socialist, Green, et al, contenders for their Party nomination for President were all squeezed onto the same ballot in a Primary election funded in large measure by the state holding the election?
The winners in those contests would all get the same media treatment and validity to their candidacies.
The two majority parties don't want to see this happen because they would lose party participants to the Third Parties.
Eventually, a Third Party candidate might even take the prize, the White House.
Can't have that.
So watch the games being played. Enjoy.
Net the Truth Online
How would Michigan work out since Barack Obama's full name or even part of his name was not on the Michigan ballot?
It seems unfair if Hillary Clinton would get even half of the committed delegates that went with her "win" in Michigan, and in Florida, recall voters were disenfranchised as the Primary took place since many simply stayed home believing their vote would not matter anyway since it was known beforehand the state Party had broken the rules.
At any rate, it's a political party game which we hope will be gone the way of the dinosaurs once independents and Third Party contenders are given equal access to state running of political party nomination elections.
Imagine if the Constitutional, Libertarian, Socialist, Green, et al, contenders for their Party nomination for President were all squeezed onto the same ballot in a Primary election funded in large measure by the state holding the election?
The winners in those contests would all get the same media treatment and validity to their candidacies.
The two majority parties don't want to see this happen because they would lose party participants to the Third Parties.
Eventually, a Third Party candidate might even take the prize, the White House.
Can't have that.
So watch the games being played. Enjoy.
Net the Truth Online
Delegate Dispute Could Alter Democratic Endgame
by FOXNews.com
Thursday, May 22, 2008
With those states, a 2,210 delegates would be the new threshold for the nomination, Ickes noted.
If that’s the case, then Obama would no longer be within 61 delegates of locking down the nomination. The latest Associated Press delegates tallies show Obama at 1,965 and Clinton considerably behind at 1,780.
But Obama is looking for a compromise that is a gesture to Clinton and both states — not one that would alter the balance of the race.
Plans before the DNC committee could be generous to Obama. The Michigan Democratic Party has proposed giving 69 of its 128 delegates to Clinton and 59 to Obama, a net gain of 10 delegates for Clinton.
A proposal from Florida would halve its 185 delegates. From that, Clinton would get 52.5 and Obama 33.5, a 19-delegate boost for Clinton.
And even if all the two states’ 313 pledged delegates were allocated, with no votes for Obama from Michigan, Clinton would get 178 to Obama’s 67, closing the gap by 111 votes, according to The Associated Press.
That means Clinton’s best-case scenario still wouldn’t catch her up, since she’s trailing, as of Thursday, by 185 total delegates.
Wolfson acknowledged that even if the Clinton campaign gets everything it wants from the committee, her path to the nomination still relies on convincing uncommitted superdelegates that she’s the stronger general election candidate.
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/22/delegate-dispute-could-alter-democratic-endgame/
How Clinton Shifted on Michigan, Florida Delegates
by David Greene
All Things Considered, May 28, 2008 · When Michigan and Florida moved their primaries ahead of the dates set by the Democratic National Committee, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton supported the party's decision to strip those states of their delegates.
Democratic Party officials are meeting this weekend to decide the fate of those delegates, and Clinton's campaign has been pressing to get at least some of them back. Clinton won both states, and having delegates reinstated would help her numbers.
But the senator's position on the delegate issue has shifted over time.
In September 2007, the crowd of Democrats running for president signed a pledge not to campaign in Florida or Michigan. The Democratic Party had punished those states for shifting their primaries and diluting the importance of early-voting states such as Iowa and New Hampshire.
At the time, Clinton was the front-runner, and she signed the pledge. Most candidates, like Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, went so far as to take their names off the ballot in Michigan. Clinton left hers on the ballot. During an interview on New Hampshire Public Radio, a caller asked Clinton what was up.
"Now, just this week most of your Democratic competitors removed their names from the Michigan primary ballot. But you didn't, and my question is why?" said the caller, who identified herself as Elaine. "It strikes me as this is politics as usual, where the politicians say one thing and they end up doing something else."
Clinton responded that she stayed on the Michigan ballot because she didn't want to totally dismiss voters in an important swing state.
"It's clear this election they're having is not going to count for anything," Clinton said. "But I personally didn't want to set up a situation where the Republicans were going to be campaigning between now and whenever. Then, after the nomination, we have to go in and repair the damage to be ready to win Michigan in November 2008."
But really, Clinton said, leaving her name on in Michigan wasn't a big deal.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90907222&ft=1&f=1001
Florida and Michigan May See Delegates Halved
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
Published: May 29, 2008
An analysis by lawyers for the Democratic Party says party rules call for Florida and Michigan to lose at least half their delegate strength at the party’s convention in August, an outcome that could close off Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s last opportunity to cut significantly into Senator Barack Obama’s lead in delegates...
The legal analysis, sent late Tuesday to the party’s rules committee, is expected to guide a meeting this weekend where the committee will try to settle one of the most contentious issues remaining in the Democratic presidential race: what to do with delegates from Florida and Michigan, which violated party rules by moving up their primaries ahead of Feb. 5.
Mrs. Clinton had hoped for the full Florida and Michigan delegations to be seated, and for their votes to be apportioned according to the results in their primaries, which she won. But the lawyers’ analysis said that as punishment for the primaries’ being held early, party rules allowed the states nothing more than that their delegations be cut in half, or that the full delegations be seated with each delegate getting only half a vote.
As a result, Mrs. Clinton would appear to need all the more superdelegates to swing her way if she has any remaining hope for the nomination.
To that end, she stepped up her appeal Wednesday to superdelegates, the Democratic officeholders and party officials who could ultimately decide the nomination. In a letter, she argued that she would be a stronger nominee than Mr. Obama against Senator John McCain in the fall.
She leads in polls in swing states, the letter said, has support from regions and demographics that the Democrats need, is ahead of Mr. McCain in Gallup national tracking polls while Mr. Obama is behind him, and is better positioned to win in the Electoral College, mainly because she leads Mr. McCain in polls in Ohio and Florida.
The Democratic nominating battle has only three primaries left, and all take place over the next week, in Puerto Rico on Sunday and in Montana and South Dakota on Tuesday. Mr. Obama may be poised to claim the nomination after those contests, though he will need additional superdelegates to do so.
Mr. Obama is now a mere 51 delegates short of the 2,026 needed for the nomination. Those numbers do not count Florida and Michigan, and so they could be altered somewhat by the results of the rules committee’s meeting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/us/politics/29dems.html
Fayette Budget Less Than Expected Surplus Provides Excuse
Fayette County officials will hold a "special meeting," Tuesday at 9:30 AM (presumably at the Public Service Building, in Uniontown) to discuss the 2008 General Fund Budget.
Watch as the less-than-expected budget surplus county officials in Fayette will explain will be used as an excuse to hold-off on paying off the 3-year loan the county had to arrange in order to pay for the acquistion of a supplemental voting system.
The system uses precinct scanners to handle paper ballots voters can choose to use during an election and is one of two the vendor a previous board chose can employ in counties which adopt both systems.
A few years back, county commissioners at the time chose to adopt Hart InterCivic's "eSlates." The wholly electronic machines use a unique daisy wheel turn-a-dial feature to highlight selections on a screen. The system is called Direct Recording Electronic and does not require a paper trail or paper record voters review before casting their electronic ballot.
Voters review a screen of selections before casting the ballot electronically.
During Primary and General Muncipal Elections held over a year ago, the DREs were exclusively employed. The ballot was long, some nine pages on screen, and many voters were hesitant with the technology. After the elections, officials fielded many public complaints about long lines and difficulty for some using the machines.
After a new Administration was seated, including newcomer Democrat Vincent Zapotosky, who became Chairman, a majority of commissioners, Democrat Vincent Vicites, and Zapotosky, were convinced the second system Hart InterCivic provides, scanners and paper ballots, called eScans, could help ease the problematic situations that might arise during what became for Pennsylvania, a contentious Presidential Primary, especially the Democratic contest.
Commissioner Angela Zimmerlink abstained from a vote on adopting the paper based system, explaining she didn't feel she had enough information including how the county was going to pay for the $580,000 acquistion.
After adopting the system, the majority of the board (Vicites/Zapotosky) later entered into a financial agreement to purchase approximately 113 eScans which spans 3-years with an interest rate over 4 percent.
Some $170,000 from a general fund carryover derived from previous Help America Vote Act funding was used for the first-year payment on the loan.
When the board first publicly noted the existence of a hefty budget surplus during a May 6 Agenda Meeting, we commented the extra should be spent first on a purge of the voter registration database and the cost of acquiring the eScans, then on other necessities. We estimated costs might be estimated around $600,000 to pay off both the loan and costs of the mailings for the purge completely.
We didn't object to a portion of the surplus monies (then noted as some $1.7 million) being placed in a "lock-box" of sorts, a proposal made by Commissioner Zimmerlink which could be untouchable except for true emergencies.
During public comment at a following business meeting, when the board was to consider how the monies would be used, and/or saved for emergencies, we expresed there was an emergency situation currently, it's called voting and elections, and a bloated voter registration list. News outlets didn't pick up the quote.
(Instead, but legitimately, local media focused on the windmill turbines and the enormous amount of public comment during the meeting from both sides of the issue)
When the agenda item came up, Commissioner Zimmerlink made a motion to table the item.
There was no other information provided at the time the item was tabled.
Reports the next day highlighted the surplus was found to be less than stated.
Subsequent reports in part identify an accounting error for the shortfall in the surplus.
We're anxious to learn how the error occurred, but aren't missing the heart of the matter. There's now approximately less than half of the expected surplus $1.7 million available to spend on "emergency" situations now.
One encouraging situation: a majority of the board (Vicites/Zapotosky) have already directed the Election Bureau director to proceed with the formal and official purge of voter registration database, and the cost of that would be well under $90,000 approximately, even with the increase in postage costs to mail out letters to all voter registrants to determine status of residency, and other requirements for being registered to vote in the county. (Like being alive)
Net the Truth Online
The Fayette County Commissioners are responsible for the county's budget and finances. View the 2008 Adopted General Fund Budget
http://www.co.fayette.pa.us/fayette/cwp/view.asp?a=2098&q=507209
Watch as the less-than-expected budget surplus county officials in Fayette will explain will be used as an excuse to hold-off on paying off the 3-year loan the county had to arrange in order to pay for the acquistion of a supplemental voting system.
The system uses precinct scanners to handle paper ballots voters can choose to use during an election and is one of two the vendor a previous board chose can employ in counties which adopt both systems.
A few years back, county commissioners at the time chose to adopt Hart InterCivic's "eSlates." The wholly electronic machines use a unique daisy wheel turn-a-dial feature to highlight selections on a screen. The system is called Direct Recording Electronic and does not require a paper trail or paper record voters review before casting their electronic ballot.
Voters review a screen of selections before casting the ballot electronically.
During Primary and General Muncipal Elections held over a year ago, the DREs were exclusively employed. The ballot was long, some nine pages on screen, and many voters were hesitant with the technology. After the elections, officials fielded many public complaints about long lines and difficulty for some using the machines.
After a new Administration was seated, including newcomer Democrat Vincent Zapotosky, who became Chairman, a majority of commissioners, Democrat Vincent Vicites, and Zapotosky, were convinced the second system Hart InterCivic provides, scanners and paper ballots, called eScans, could help ease the problematic situations that might arise during what became for Pennsylvania, a contentious Presidential Primary, especially the Democratic contest.
Commissioner Angela Zimmerlink abstained from a vote on adopting the paper based system, explaining she didn't feel she had enough information including how the county was going to pay for the $580,000 acquistion.
After adopting the system, the majority of the board (Vicites/Zapotosky) later entered into a financial agreement to purchase approximately 113 eScans which spans 3-years with an interest rate over 4 percent.
Some $170,000 from a general fund carryover derived from previous Help America Vote Act funding was used for the first-year payment on the loan.
When the board first publicly noted the existence of a hefty budget surplus during a May 6 Agenda Meeting, we commented the extra should be spent first on a purge of the voter registration database and the cost of acquiring the eScans, then on other necessities. We estimated costs might be estimated around $600,000 to pay off both the loan and costs of the mailings for the purge completely.
We didn't object to a portion of the surplus monies (then noted as some $1.7 million) being placed in a "lock-box" of sorts, a proposal made by Commissioner Zimmerlink which could be untouchable except for true emergencies.
During public comment at a following business meeting, when the board was to consider how the monies would be used, and/or saved for emergencies, we expresed there was an emergency situation currently, it's called voting and elections, and a bloated voter registration list. News outlets didn't pick up the quote.
(Instead, but legitimately, local media focused on the windmill turbines and the enormous amount of public comment during the meeting from both sides of the issue)
When the agenda item came up, Commissioner Zimmerlink made a motion to table the item.
There was no other information provided at the time the item was tabled.
Reports the next day highlighted the surplus was found to be less than stated.
Subsequent reports in part identify an accounting error for the shortfall in the surplus.
We're anxious to learn how the error occurred, but aren't missing the heart of the matter. There's now approximately less than half of the expected surplus $1.7 million available to spend on "emergency" situations now.
One encouraging situation: a majority of the board (Vicites/Zapotosky) have already directed the Election Bureau director to proceed with the formal and official purge of voter registration database, and the cost of that would be well under $90,000 approximately, even with the increase in postage costs to mail out letters to all voter registrants to determine status of residency, and other requirements for being registered to vote in the county. (Like being alive)
Net the Truth Online
Fayette officials to explain $750,000 accounting error
By Liz Zemba
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Fayette County commissioners intend to hold a public meeting next week to explain in detail how a $750,000 accounting error occurred in their 2008 budget.
Commissioners Vincent Zapotosky, board chairman, and Vincent Vicites said Tuesday they are in the process of gathering documents related to the error, which will be released at the meeting.
"We want everybody in Fayette County to know what transpired," Zapotosky said. "We're not associating blame. We just want the folks of Fayette County to know what happened."
Commissioner Angela Zimmerlink was out of the office yesterday, but when contacted by phone acknowledged that the meeting might be necessary...
...The accounting error was uncovered last week, forcing commissioners to delay action on Zimmerlink's proposal to reallocate a 2006 budget surplus of approximately $1.7 million into various accounts. Because of the error, the county will have less of a surplus to divvy up.
Commissioners last week said the error occurred when a $750,000 loan to the county's Children & Youth Services was listed in the 2008 budget as revenue. The loan is to be paid back to the county, once CYS receives its state and federal funding.
Zapotosky said the loan should have been listed as a "balance" item, not as revenue.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribunereview/news/fayette/s_569643.html
County to explains $750,000 accounting error
By Amy Zalar, Herald-Standard
05/29/2008
Updated 05/29/2008 12:23:43 AM EDT
Exactly how an accounting error involving $750,000 occurred in the Fayette County budget will be explained during a special public meeting that has been called by commission Chairman Vincent Zapotosky.
The meeting will be held at 9:30 a.m. Tuesday.
The purpose of this meeting is to provide for openness and insight to the severity of this matter," Zapotosky said.
In calling for the meeting, Zapotosky said exactly what happened and the impact it had on the county budget must be explained. He said the date was selected because of the availability of Sam Lynch of Susquehanna Group Advisor Inc., who discovered the error. Susquehanna Group works with the controller's office.
In late 2007, the county gave a temporary loan to Children and Youth Services in the amount of $750,000 that would be repaid in 2008. However, in the 2008 budget the amount was incorrectly listed as revenue when it should have been listed as a receivable amount.
The issue first came to light last week when the commissioners were set to take action on creating a separate account for capital projects using an account balance from the end of 2006 that was estimated to be $1.7 million.
Lynch said the audited 2006 financial statement has a fund balances of $1.7 million and of that amount about $200,000 is reserved for capital programs and $1.5 million is unreserved.
Lynch said he has reviewed the 2008 budget, which lists the $750,000 as revenue. However, he said when the money is repaid the receipts will be credited to the accounts receivable line due from Children and Youth.
"This item will not be treated
as a revenue item in 2008. The 2008 budget has a $750,000 reimbursement as a revenue item that is not revenue,
actually has created as shortfall in revenue for 2008. In order to balance the 2008 budgeted expenditures, the short fall amount will be taken from fund balance." Lynch said.
Because of the change, Lynch said the 2006 unreserved fund balance will be reduced this year by $750,000, and will drop from $1.5 million to about $790,000.
Lynch said he would recommend transferring surplus funds to either a capital or operating reserve account but cautioned that the county cannot transfer any more than $791,983 because of budgeting the Children and Youth Services as a revenue item when the reimbursement is actually a receivable amount...
...Vicites pointed out that even if the $750,000 is taken away from the $1.5 million, there is still a surplus of nearly $800,000.
Commissioner Angela M. Zimmerlink, who initiated the plan to create funds for special projects, said she initially thought the surplus as of the end of 2006 was $1.7 million, but apparently it is $1.5 million, with $200,000 already earmarked for capital projects.
Additionally she said now the recommendation is to take the $750,000 from the surplus and allocate it to the operating reserve fund and the capital reserve fund.
"We also must keep in mind that fiscal year ending 2007 there is an estimate of a surplus as well," Zimmerlink said...
http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19728039&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6
Scott McClellan: Loyalty to the Truth
Now that's our kind of talk. Loyalty to the truth.
It makes our eyes tear up. Really does.
But what truth is McClellan telling.
The Bush Administration used "propaganda" to sell the idea to the public and to Congress that a threat was 'imminent' to the United States from Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and the threat was imminent because Hussein possesses 'weapons of mass destruction?'
What is propaganda, but selling your position using only that information or material that proves your position is the correct position?
Now if McClellan can come up with proof, absolute proof, that nobody advising the President, nobody believed Hussein either possessed weapons of mass destruction or was near to possessing weapons of mass destruction then we'd say yes the truth is out.
But McClellan isn't saying that. All he's saying is propaganda was used by the Bush Administration to convince the public and the Congress to support the resolution to use force against Hussein/Iraq.
Misleading the public to go to war - is not enough. Every President who used any force, including Bill Clinton, misled the public.
Every single one.
McClellan needs to be asked point blank: Do you have any evidence George W. Bush was advised absolutely and with proof Saddam Hussein/Iraq had no resources to make weapons of mass destruction and/or Hussein/Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction?
Without that, McClellan's "this was propaganda" argument is not loyalty to the truth.
It's everything but.
It makes our eyes tear up. Really does.
But what truth is McClellan telling.
The Bush Administration used "propaganda" to sell the idea to the public and to Congress that a threat was 'imminent' to the United States from Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and the threat was imminent because Hussein possesses 'weapons of mass destruction?'
What is propaganda, but selling your position using only that information or material that proves your position is the correct position?
Now if McClellan can come up with proof, absolute proof, that nobody advising the President, nobody believed Hussein either possessed weapons of mass destruction or was near to possessing weapons of mass destruction then we'd say yes the truth is out.
But McClellan isn't saying that. All he's saying is propaganda was used by the Bush Administration to convince the public and the Congress to support the resolution to use force against Hussein/Iraq.
Misleading the public to go to war - is not enough. Every President who used any force, including Bill Clinton, misled the public.
Every single one.
McClellan needs to be asked point blank: Do you have any evidence George W. Bush was advised absolutely and with proof Saddam Hussein/Iraq had no resources to make weapons of mass destruction and/or Hussein/Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction?
Without that, McClellan's "this was propaganda" argument is not loyalty to the truth.
It's everything but.
Lanny Davis: Hillary Clinton Will Win Popular Vote
There's Lanny Davis appearing on MSNBC's Morning Joe (where Joe Scarborough is blissfully for us absent for almost a month, blah blah, yah, yeah), spouting again, after Sunday, after Tuesday, with Hillary Clinton winning some contests, she'll be ahead in popular votes, and in a dead heat, or slightly under, the amount of delegates claimed by Obama.
Will this be over in a week?
Davis says you know we know you are in Clinton's camp.
Mika: our family is diverse we hold different positions.
2,210 the new magic number says Davis.
Davis continues predicting the future win of Hillary Clinton, not Barack Obama against John McCain.
Don't we all wish we could predict the future like that, we'd all be betting behind the scenes, but hey, if we all won, there wouldn't be much to split, would there?
Will this be over in a week?
Davis says you know we know you are in Clinton's camp.
Mika: our family is diverse we hold different positions.
2,210 the new magic number says Davis.
Davis continues predicting the future win of Hillary Clinton, not Barack Obama against John McCain.
Don't we all wish we could predict the future like that, we'd all be betting behind the scenes, but hey, if we all won, there wouldn't be much to split, would there?
Why Would They Want to Go to War
Tucker Carlson, on MSNBC's Morning Joe (where Joe Scarborough is for us blissfully absent for almost one month, that's why we're a watching Mika, co-host Mike Barnacle, and all of Mika's guests, including Pat Buchanan who we also note has been as neglectful as Scarborough in his analysis of current events and raising decent, provocative questions) said the question hadn't been answered in Scott McClellan's book.
Why would they want to go to war, asks Carlson.
Tucker Carlson is a Libertarian.
The question arose after Mike Barnacle, co-host with Mika B., noted Scott McClellan's charge in his just-released book about his stint in George W. Bush's Administration, as Press Secretary, that the Administration "relied on 'propaganda' to sell the war on Iraq."
Scott McClellan, in a clip shown on Morning Joe from the Today show, is shown saying he gave Bush the 'benefit of the doubt."
The former Press Secretary to the "Decider" George W. Bush will appear on a few more network programs today to discuss the material he's provided in his book entitled:
WHAT HAPPENED
We wondered when we heard the title why it wasn't called WHAT REALLY REALLY HAPPENED, so as not to interfere with a website (near conspiratorial) called What Really Happened.
After hearing and reading some of what all is included in the book, we wondered why McClellan didn't simply entitle the book: The Truth About George W. Bush, Carl Rove, etc. or Leave Me Out, or LET ME OUTTA HERE, or LET ME OUTTA HERE, YOU'RE BAD PEOPLE.
Seriously, you're an employee of well anybody in a postition of holding what's called "the public trust," you observe and watch all sorts of near unethical things going on, or absolutely unethical things going on, and you choose to what, stay?
Stay for longer than a few months, or stay for over a year, or two, or four?
Nope. You choose somehow, someway, to get the hell out of there as soon as you possibly can.
You can either keep quiet about all the unethical things you've observed by your elected public officials who hold the public trust, or you speak up.
If you choose to remain silent, you have to live with the guilt if you believe the ethically challenged just keep on keeping on, and in the process hurt the public, or you have to live without guilt and with the hope that sometimes, yes sometimes, people do change, recognize their own unprincipled actions, or you live without guilt knowing that sooner or later the public thankfully elects replacements who aren't as ethically challenged, at least not when they're first elected to office.
But if you observe near unethical or unethical activity going on in the public arena, where persons do take an oath to uphold the Constitutions of the state and the U.S. Constitution, and you darned well choose to speak up, if that's what you choose to do, you better not leave any darned dangling participants.
Like if you worked for the President of the United States, or technically in the President's Administration, and you've observed and are aware of unethical activity, you know for instance, the process used to convince the public and the Congress to support your idea to go to war was not only "propaganda" but is without the justification provided, that is, no weapons of mass destruction, no mushroom clouds threat in reality, you darn well better be clear a 'saran wrap' exposing the lies.
McClellan appears to have told only part of the story.
Tucker Carlson rightly and uniquely points this out.
McClellan should be asked point-blank: did George W. Bush seek to initiate a war against Iraq to leave behind a historical Presidential legacy?
we'll track if McClellan comes face to face with Tucker Carlson, or someone else who asks and demands an answer to that question.
The answers to other questions matter, but the answer to this question matters more.
Now that McClellan has spoken about unethical practices in the Bush Administration, McClellan must be absolutely clear about the Iraq War and precisely what led to its initiation since he appears to know the answer. He must tell.
Why would they want to go to war, asks Carlson.
Tucker Carlson is a Libertarian.
The question arose after Mike Barnacle, co-host with Mika B., noted Scott McClellan's charge in his just-released book about his stint in George W. Bush's Administration, as Press Secretary, that the Administration "relied on 'propaganda' to sell the war on Iraq."
Exclusive: McClellan whacks Bush, White House
By MIKE ALLEN | 5/27/08
Among the most explosive revelations in the 341-page book, titled “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception” (Public Affairs, $27.95):
• McClellan charges that Bush relied on “propaganda” to sell the war
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10649.html
Scott McClellan, in a clip shown on Morning Joe from the Today show, is shown saying he gave Bush the 'benefit of the doubt."
The former Press Secretary to the "Decider" George W. Bush will appear on a few more network programs today to discuss the material he's provided in his book entitled:
WHAT HAPPENED
We wondered when we heard the title why it wasn't called WHAT REALLY REALLY HAPPENED, so as not to interfere with a website (near conspiratorial) called What Really Happened.
After hearing and reading some of what all is included in the book, we wondered why McClellan didn't simply entitle the book: The Truth About George W. Bush, Carl Rove, etc. or Leave Me Out, or LET ME OUTTA HERE, or LET ME OUTTA HERE, YOU'RE BAD PEOPLE.
Seriously, you're an employee of well anybody in a postition of holding what's called "the public trust," you observe and watch all sorts of near unethical things going on, or absolutely unethical things going on, and you choose to what, stay?
Stay for longer than a few months, or stay for over a year, or two, or four?
Nope. You choose somehow, someway, to get the hell out of there as soon as you possibly can.
You can either keep quiet about all the unethical things you've observed by your elected public officials who hold the public trust, or you speak up.
If you choose to remain silent, you have to live with the guilt if you believe the ethically challenged just keep on keeping on, and in the process hurt the public, or you have to live without guilt and with the hope that sometimes, yes sometimes, people do change, recognize their own unprincipled actions, or you live without guilt knowing that sooner or later the public thankfully elects replacements who aren't as ethically challenged, at least not when they're first elected to office.
But if you observe near unethical or unethical activity going on in the public arena, where persons do take an oath to uphold the Constitutions of the state and the U.S. Constitution, and you darned well choose to speak up, if that's what you choose to do, you better not leave any darned dangling participants.
Like if you worked for the President of the United States, or technically in the President's Administration, and you've observed and are aware of unethical activity, you know for instance, the process used to convince the public and the Congress to support your idea to go to war was not only "propaganda" but is without the justification provided, that is, no weapons of mass destruction, no mushroom clouds threat in reality, you darn well better be clear a 'saran wrap' exposing the lies.
McClellan appears to have told only part of the story.
Tucker Carlson rightly and uniquely points this out.
McClellan should be asked point-blank: did George W. Bush seek to initiate a war against Iraq to leave behind a historical Presidential legacy?
we'll track if McClellan comes face to face with Tucker Carlson, or someone else who asks and demands an answer to that question.
The answers to other questions matter, but the answer to this question matters more.
Now that McClellan has spoken about unethical practices in the Bush Administration, McClellan must be absolutely clear about the Iraq War and precisely what led to its initiation since he appears to know the answer. He must tell.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Florida Resolution Will Leave Hillary Clinton Legacy of Lies
Florida's Democratic Party delegate seating, whether by half, or in whole, will leave Miss Mathmatically-Challenged Hillary Clinton no recourse than to continue to claim like Al Gore in 2000 she captured a majority of the popular vote, but not the nomination or candidacy.
Problem is, Gore did by all accounts obtain slightly more in what is regarded as the the popular vote in 2000. The difference between then and now? Gore obtained more popular vote in the General Election over George Bush.
In a U.S. Presidential General Election, the Electoral College factors into the final outcome. Gore lost enough states and Bush won enough states to give Bush the edge in the final tally of Electoral College numbers to Gore.
Despite all the controversy of 2000, the facts are the Supreme Court of the United States had to step in during the recount process which began statewide because the counters in the counties were not using a uniform method to determine "intent of the voter."
On the other hand, Hillary Clinton bases her claim of a popular vote majority on only the state Democratic Primaries she's won.
She excludes the caucus states Barack Obama won. If those were counted by Clinton as to the final amount of popular votes, Obama would come out ahead. Maybe not by much, but ahead.
Case in point, Texas.
Clinton won the Primary there, but in divvying up the delegates between the Primary and the caucus held in Texas, which Obama won, Obama actually netted more delegates from Texas than Clinton.
If Clinton were to include the caucus popular votes, she'd be lacking by thousands in the popular vote overall.
But because the DNC will likely seat 50 percent of the Florida delegates, who knows how they'll determine what is fair for Michigan where Obama's name wasn't on the ballot, Clinton will claim she obtained more popular votes in primaries than Obama.
The key word Clinton will leave out in her own count, caucus states where Obama won.
She'll simply lie.
It will remain to be seen whether any but her, her husband, her daughter, and her supporters, continue to enable her to lie, and lie themselves.
We're not holding our breath for the truth on this one.
NET The Truth Online
Related
Sunday, May 25, 2008
RECOUNT Film Democratic Propaganda
http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2008/05/recount-film-democratic-propaganda.html
Problem is, Gore did by all accounts obtain slightly more in what is regarded as the the popular vote in 2000. The difference between then and now? Gore obtained more popular vote in the General Election over George Bush.
In a U.S. Presidential General Election, the Electoral College factors into the final outcome. Gore lost enough states and Bush won enough states to give Bush the edge in the final tally of Electoral College numbers to Gore.
Despite all the controversy of 2000, the facts are the Supreme Court of the United States had to step in during the recount process which began statewide because the counters in the counties were not using a uniform method to determine "intent of the voter."
On the other hand, Hillary Clinton bases her claim of a popular vote majority on only the state Democratic Primaries she's won.
She excludes the caucus states Barack Obama won. If those were counted by Clinton as to the final amount of popular votes, Obama would come out ahead. Maybe not by much, but ahead.
Case in point, Texas.
Clinton won the Primary there, but in divvying up the delegates between the Primary and the caucus held in Texas, which Obama won, Obama actually netted more delegates from Texas than Clinton.
If Clinton were to include the caucus popular votes, she'd be lacking by thousands in the popular vote overall.
But because the DNC will likely seat 50 percent of the Florida delegates, who knows how they'll determine what is fair for Michigan where Obama's name wasn't on the ballot, Clinton will claim she obtained more popular votes in primaries than Obama.
The key word Clinton will leave out in her own count, caucus states where Obama won.
She'll simply lie.
It will remain to be seen whether any but her, her husband, her daughter, and her supporters, continue to enable her to lie, and lie themselves.
We're not holding our breath for the truth on this one.
NET The Truth Online
May 28, 2008, 8:15 AM
Clinton Casts Wide Net of Exaggeration, Claims to Lead in “Every Poll”
Posted by Fernando Suarez
During an evening rally in Montana’s largest city Tuesday night, Hillary Clinton explained to the crowd why she should be the Democratic Party’s nominee, but what ensued was a list of overstatements and exaggerations as she made her case. “You have to ask yourself, who is the stronger candidate? And based on every analysis, of every bit of research and every poll that has been taken and every state that a Democrat has to win, I am the stronger candidate against John McCain in the fall,” she said.
The problem is, there are a number of polls that show Clinton in a close race with John McCain, many within the margin of error, not including a few that show Barack Obama beating McCain by a larger margin than Clinton. The comment was intended to prove to voters that despite Obama’s popularity, she has what it takes to beat John McCain. Clinton said that voters have to ask themselves, “Who is the stronger candidate against John McCain? We have not gone through this exciting, unprecedented, historic election, only to lose,” she said.
For days, Clinton has been grasping at almost anything to make her case to voters as the clock in the campaign winds down. Most recently Clinton compared the plight of Florida and Michigan voters to the struggles of the early suffragists and likened the primaries of those states to the fraudulent election that took place in Zimbabwe...
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/05/28/politics/fromtheroad/entry4130842.shtml
Related
Sunday, May 25, 2008
RECOUNT Film Democratic Propaganda
http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2008/05/recount-film-democratic-propaganda.html
Mars: Organic Compounds
Evidence of life?
Mars landing: Touchdown, then mission begins search for life
James Sturcke and agencies guardian.co.uk, Monday May 26 2008 Article history
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/26/mars.spaceexploration1
Mars landing: Touchdown, then mission begins search for life
James Sturcke and agencies guardian.co.uk, Monday May 26 2008 Article history
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/26/mars.spaceexploration1
Obama Hints at Naming Rivals to Cabinet Suggest Lou Dobbs
Barack Obama cited the Goodwin book, Team of Rivals, which is apparently being parsed by Governor Ed Rendell to mean he's on the verge of considering Hillary Clinton as his Vice President.
We have a different take on the comment.
Clinton is not among Obama's "bitterest" rivals. Not in the least. sure, Clinton proceeds to remain in the campaign for the Democratic Party nomination for President. And yes, Clinton has used psychological warfare against Barack Obama (according to Carl Bernstein, both Clintons are engaged in such psychological warfare) throughout this nomination process.
And while Clintons have used every trick in the book, their own playbook, maybe parts of Carl Rove's too, it's all really not been a "personal" rivalry.
Who among a list of bitterest rivals would have to be at the top of the list?
Lou Dobbs, CNN's host of Lou Dobbs Tonight.
Obama's got to be, got to be, including Lou Dobbs in his cabinet picks, or if he's as politically savvy as we think, he'll pick Lou Dobbs as his Vice President.
Why should Obama pick Dobbs as his Vice President? Dobbs, a heartbeat away from being President of these United States of America?
Obama has tagged Dobbs unequivocally (along with Rush Limbaugh) as being responsible for the rise in hate crime against Hispanics.
while that statement is more than difficult to prove by the evidence for a variety of reasons, it stands as a view diametrically opposed to how Dobbs views his efforts to stall "illegal immigration."
Dobbs solution is for the United States government to do its duty on the federal level, first and foremost, before beginning any active process that includes "comprehensive" immigration reform.
Dobbs says "comprehensive" reform is a buzzword for a fast track to legal citizenship for millions of illegal aliens.
Obama on the other hand, sees things far differently.
Dobbs had a rousing debate with Governor Bill Richardson last night on his program about border security first and foremost.
Richardson committed to Obama at just the right moment in the campaign publicly, and continues to support Obama's approach.
Imagine if there were a meeting of the minds of these three individuals on the issue of border security first and foremost, and a
Transcript
Dobbs mentioned Obama's statements about him to three panelists, who in turn, gave their take on Obama.
So there's one of Obama's bitterest rivals. In fact, it makes sense Dobbs would be among those Obama considers as bitter small-town Americans...
and who better to choose as a Cabinet level appointee, or a running mate.
Dobbs has the backing of millions of viewers. He's on a populist independent wave after publication of his book and he has an unwavering base of supporters.
An organization has started a draft Lou Dobbs for President campaign, complete with website and fundraising efforts.
Obama has also mentioned Rush Limbaugh recently, but Limbaugh could never be part of Obama's cabinet.
Dobbs, could, if Obama would mend "fences." Literally. Border fences, to start.
Net the Truth Online
Related
We have a different take on the comment.
Clinton is not among Obama's "bitterest" rivals. Not in the least. sure, Clinton proceeds to remain in the campaign for the Democratic Party nomination for President. And yes, Clinton has used psychological warfare against Barack Obama (according to Carl Bernstein, both Clintons are engaged in such psychological warfare) throughout this nomination process.
And while Clintons have used every trick in the book, their own playbook, maybe parts of Carl Rove's too, it's all really not been a "personal" rivalry.
Who among a list of bitterest rivals would have to be at the top of the list?
Lou Dobbs, CNN's host of Lou Dobbs Tonight.
Obama's got to be, got to be, including Lou Dobbs in his cabinet picks, or if he's as politically savvy as we think, he'll pick Lou Dobbs as his Vice President.
Why should Obama pick Dobbs as his Vice President? Dobbs, a heartbeat away from being President of these United States of America?
Obama has tagged Dobbs unequivocally (along with Rush Limbaugh) as being responsible for the rise in hate crime against Hispanics.
while that statement is more than difficult to prove by the evidence for a variety of reasons, it stands as a view diametrically opposed to how Dobbs views his efforts to stall "illegal immigration."
Dobbs solution is for the United States government to do its duty on the federal level, first and foremost, before beginning any active process that includes "comprehensive" immigration reform.
Dobbs says "comprehensive" reform is a buzzword for a fast track to legal citizenship for millions of illegal aliens.
Obama on the other hand, sees things far differently.
Dobbs had a rousing debate with Governor Bill Richardson last night on his program about border security first and foremost.
Richardson committed to Obama at just the right moment in the campaign publicly, and continues to support Obama's approach.
Imagine if there were a meeting of the minds of these three individuals on the issue of border security first and foremost, and a
Transcript
Dobbs mentioned Obama's statements about him to three panelists, who in turn, gave their take on Obama.
So there's one of Obama's bitterest rivals. In fact, it makes sense Dobbs would be among those Obama considers as bitter small-town Americans...
and who better to choose as a Cabinet level appointee, or a running mate.
Dobbs has the backing of millions of viewers. He's on a populist independent wave after publication of his book and he has an unwavering base of supporters.
An organization has started a draft Lou Dobbs for President campaign, complete with website and fundraising efforts.
Obama has also mentioned Rush Limbaugh recently, but Limbaugh could never be part of Obama's cabinet.
Dobbs, could, if Obama would mend "fences." Literally. Border fences, to start.
Net the Truth Online
Barack Obama lies about Lou Dobbs to support illegal immigration
March 12, 2008
http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/007540.html
Effort Launched to Draft Lou Dobbs as Presidential Candidate
Posted on Wednesday, January 16 @ 09:39:17 CST
Topic: Americans for Legal Immigration PAC
http://www.alipac.us/article-2872-thread-1-0.html
Related
Obama calls out two who stir up bad blood
By Ruben Navarrette Jr
Article Launched: 05/28/2008 01:33:14 AM PDT
Some of those who rail against illegal immigration can dish it out but they can't take it. Since most illegal immigrants come from Mexico or other parts of Latin America, critics sometimes say the sort of crude things that give the debate its anti-Latino flavor. But let someone call them on it and do they ever get defensive.
Speaking to supporters in Palm Beach last week, Barack Obama blasted a couple of media personalities by name.
"A certain segment has basically been feeding a kind of xenophobia. There's a reason why hate crimes against Hispanic people doubled last year," Obama said. "If you have people like Lou Dobbs and Rush Limbaugh ginning things up, it's not surprising that would happen."
It's about time. That some cable hosts and radio talkers grow their ratings by pandering to the anti-immigrant crowd is no big secret.
Statistics speak loudly
Not surprisingly, supporters of Dobbs and Limbaugh went on the attack. They insisted that Obama had overstated the statistics. In 2006, the FBI reported that hate crimes against Hispanics increased 10 percent from the previous year - 576 in 2006, 522 in 2005.
Nevertheless, Hispanics in 2006 were considered by the FBI as the No. 1 victim of hate crimes motivated by one's ethnicity or national origin, and by a margin that was the highest since records have been kept. Hispanics comprised 62.8 percent of victims of crimes motivated by a bias toward a victim's ethnicity or national origin.
http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_9400790
Imperfect Candidate
Barack Obama is not the perfect candidate. But he presented a vision early on which has been seized by a majority of onlookers that he is the perfect deliverer of a message. The message has taken hold of a majority of Democratic Party Primary voters that has placed Obama ahead in the popular vote (including whatever the final tallies of a few caucus states), ahead in committed delegates, and ahead in superdelegates.
When Barack Obama misstated the concentration camp which his great Uncle helped to liberate, the error was immediately twisted by the Republican National committee as something far more than it is.
the other two candidates should be saying Shame on You RNC. Obama's great Uncle served and served his country - the United States of America - well. Let it go.
There's more to the quote in the ad, however, it's left out of the RNC homepage site.
Isn't that suspicious?
Seriously, the RNC tagged Obamas misstatement an exaggeration and a distortion, and those, the RNC portrays are frequent which raises questions about Obama's judgment and raeadiness to lead as
commander in chief.
Can you believe the RNC's gall to equate a mistatement about a historical fact as reason one isn't readied to lead as commander in chief.
What about George W. Bush who on the morning of September 11, 2001 was told a plane had crashed into the World Trade Center before he entered a second grade classroom for a reading practice demonstration in Florida.
He's interrupted while listening to the childrean read and he's told we later learn:
a second plane struck the World Trade Center
America is under attack
Yet, President George Bush says nothing (as he's told to do from the back of the room moments later on a message on a large notecard displayed by one of his advisors. This according to Bill Sammon)
Bush continues allowing children to read while people in the World Trade Center towers are jumping out of windows to escape flames from a burning building.
Now Bush has been told America is under attack, yet he remains seated when in that instant of being told America is under attack he becomes in actuality Commander-in Chief.
Now if the RNC is using misstatements of historical events as a basis on which to judge someone's readiness to be Commander-in-Chief, they need look no further than John McCain's misstatements about Iraq, Iran, Shiite, Sunni and Hillary Clinton's misstatement about a trip to Bosnia where she claimed she and her daughter came under direct sniper fire.
If the RNC had any ethical standards, they'd immediately retract their remarks and pull the ad.
Net the Truth Online
When Barack Obama misstated the concentration camp which his great Uncle helped to liberate, the error was immediately twisted by the Republican National committee as something far more than it is.
the other two candidates should be saying Shame on You RNC. Obama's great Uncle served and served his country - the United States of America - well. Let it go.
Obama's mistaken mention of the camp on Monday quickly generated Internet chatter, ranging from puzzlement to outrage. The Republican Party demanded an explanation.
"It was Soviet troops that liberated Auschwitz, so unless his uncle was serving in the Red Army, there's no way Obama's statement yesterday can be true," said Alex Conant, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee.
http://www.rnc.org/
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080528/ap_on_el_pr/obama_nazi_camp
There's more to the quote in the ad, however, it's left out of the RNC homepage site.
Isn't that suspicious?
May 27, 2008, 5:57 pm
Obama Errs in Citing Auschwitz
Amy Chozick reports on the presidential race from Las Vegas, Nev.
Barack Obama’s dubious claim is inconsistent with world history and demands an explanation. It was Soviet troops that liberated Auschwitz, so unless his uncle was serving in the Red Army, there’s no way Obama’s statement yesterday can be true. Obama’s frequent exaggerations and outright distortions raise questions about his judgment and his readiness to lead as commander in chief,” said RNC Press Secretary Alex Conant.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/05/27/obama-errs-in-citing-auschwitz/
Seriously, the RNC tagged Obamas misstatement an exaggeration and a distortion, and those, the RNC portrays are frequent which raises questions about Obama's judgment and raeadiness to lead as
commander in chief.
Can you believe the RNC's gall to equate a mistatement about a historical fact as reason one isn't readied to lead as commander in chief.
What about George W. Bush who on the morning of September 11, 2001 was told a plane had crashed into the World Trade Center before he entered a second grade classroom for a reading practice demonstration in Florida.
He's interrupted while listening to the childrean read and he's told we later learn:
a second plane struck the World Trade Center
America is under attack
Yet, President George Bush says nothing (as he's told to do from the back of the room moments later on a message on a large notecard displayed by one of his advisors. This according to Bill Sammon)
Bush continues allowing children to read while people in the World Trade Center towers are jumping out of windows to escape flames from a burning building.
Now Bush has been told America is under attack, yet he remains seated when in that instant of being told America is under attack he becomes in actuality Commander-in Chief.
Now if the RNC is using misstatements of historical events as a basis on which to judge someone's readiness to be Commander-in-Chief, they need look no further than John McCain's misstatements about Iraq, Iran, Shiite, Sunni and Hillary Clinton's misstatement about a trip to Bosnia where she claimed she and her daughter came under direct sniper fire.
If the RNC had any ethical standards, they'd immediately retract their remarks and pull the ad.
Net the Truth Online
Obama mistaken on name of Nazi death camp
By CHRISTOPHER WILLS, Associated Press Writer
Wed May 28, 2:07 AM ET
NORTH LAS VEGAS, Nev. - The Barack Obama campaign said Tuesday the candidate mistakenly referred to the wrong Nazi death camp when relating the story of a great-uncle who helped liberate the camps in World War II.
The Democratic presidential candidate said the story is accurate except that the camp was Buchenwald, not Auschwitz.
"Senator Obama's family is proud of the service of his grandfather and uncles in World War II — especially the fact that his great-uncle was a part of liberating one of the concentration camps at Buchenwald," campaign spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement. "Yesterday he mistakenly referred to Auschwitz instead of Buchenwald in telling of his personal experience of a soldier in his family who served heroically."
Aides said Tuesday that his grandmother's brother, Charlie Payne, helped liberate a Buchenwald sub-camp in April 1945 as part of the 89th Infantry Division.
In a meeting Monday with veterans, Obama discussed the importance of improving treatment for soldiers suffering post-traumatic stress. To illustrate his point, he talked about his own family...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080528/ap_on_el_pr/obama_nazi_camp
Straight From the Mouth of McClellan: Bush Iraq Propaganda
Everyone's commenting on the excerpts from McClellan's book, entitled What Happened. Few have read it, they admit.
MSNBC's host Mika B. sitting in for Joe Scarborough (blissfully for us he's absent, wish him well on birth of his baby, but hope the network let's him fade into the far distance), wondered when anyone would read it as the excerpts were pretty-much all that were necessary to get it... Mcclellan told it all.
Mike Barnacle pointed out the title should have had a question mark after What Happened? Obviously, Barnacle said, McClellan had questions at the time, but said nothing until now.
Politico.com got hold of a pre-in-store copy, and released an analysis, which was picked up by network anchors last night, and continuing into this morning.
Let's see now, ethics vs job security/Patriot Act... ethics vs missing-in-action... ethics vs family wondering where I'm vacationing for 4 years and counting...
McClellan's motives for keeping silent at the beginning of the Iraq War, and throughout, until this point in time are not difficult to discern. The man feared not for how he'd look professionally, but how he'd fare in a rendition country.
Net the Truth Online
Related
MSNBC's host Mika B. sitting in for Joe Scarborough (blissfully for us he's absent, wish him well on birth of his baby, but hope the network let's him fade into the far distance), wondered when anyone would read it as the excerpts were pretty-much all that were necessary to get it... Mcclellan told it all.
Mike Barnacle pointed out the title should have had a question mark after What Happened? Obviously, Barnacle said, McClellan had questions at the time, but said nothing until now.
Politico.com got hold of a pre-in-store copy, and released an analysis, which was picked up by network anchors last night, and continuing into this morning.
Let's see now, ethics vs job security/Patriot Act... ethics vs missing-in-action... ethics vs family wondering where I'm vacationing for 4 years and counting...
McClellan's motives for keeping silent at the beginning of the Iraq War, and throughout, until this point in time are not difficult to discern. The man feared not for how he'd look professionally, but how he'd fare in a rendition country.
Net the Truth Online
Ex-press aide writes Bush misled U.S. on Iraq
McClellan says in new book that White House used propaganda to sell war
By Michael D. Shear
updated 12:57 a.m. ET, Wed., May. 28, 2008
Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan writes in a new memoir that the Iraq war was sold to the American people with a sophisticated "political propaganda campaign" led by President Bush and aimed at "manipulating sources of public opinion" and "downplaying the major reason for going to war."
McClellan includes the charges in a 341-page book, "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception," that delivers a harsh look at the White House and the man he served for close to a decade...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24848910
Related
Exclusive: McClellan whacks Bush, White House
By MIKE ALLEN | 5/27/08 6:18 PM EST
Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan writes in a surprisingly scathing memoir to be published next week that President Bush “veered terribly off course,” was not “open and forthright on Iraq,” and took a “permanent campaign approach” to governing at the expense of candor and competence.
Among the most explosive revelations in the 341-page book, titled “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception” (Public Affairs, $27.95):
• McClellan charges that Bush relied on “propaganda” to sell the war.
• He says the White House press corps was too easy on the administration during the run-up to the war.
• He admits that some of his own assertions from the briefing room podium turned out to be “badly misguided.”
• The longtime Bush loyalist also suggests that two top aides held a secret West Wing meeting to get their story straight about the CIA leak case at a time when federal prosecutors were after them — and McClellan was continuing to defend them despite mounting evidence they had not given him all the facts.
• McClellan asserts that the aides — Karl Rove, the president’s senior adviser, and I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, the vice president’s chief of staff — “had at best misled” him about their role in the disclosure of former CIA operative Valerie Plame’s identity.
A few reporters were offered advance copies of the book, with the restriction that their stories not appear until Sunday, the day before the official publication date. Politico declined and purchased “What Happened” at a Washington bookstore.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10649.html
MSNBC Mika to Write Book Six Years Out
Mika B. hosting MSNBC's Morning Joe in the absence of Joe Scarborough awaiting the birth of his baby (blissfully for us absent Joe hasn't been on the set for near a month. We can only hope the MSNBC execs see the light after Scarborough's inarticulateness when face-to-face with Democrat Presidential contenders Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama during a May 5 interview. Scarborough had been critizing Obama since his rejection of the Clinton (and McCain) gas tax holiday proposal.
Scarborough thought the holiday was a great idea. He continued to remark Obama was an elitist, out of touch with the regular person, well Joe. But when the opportunity arose to hammer Obama on the spot, Scarborough simply failed to take advantage of the opportunity even once.
With Hillary Clinton who followed in a separate on-air interview, Scarborough failed to ask how clinton's plan to basically determine the amount of profits oil companies would receive (and use the remainder to pay for the holiday) was different from "socialism" taking from those who have and giving to those you've determined are in need?
Scarborough just sat through the interviews as if it was a coup to just have the pair of Presidential contenders on his program one after the other.
Mica B. co-host has been relatively adequate over this month. We were ready to call for the Morning Mika show to replace Morning Joe.
Then came a day when Mika B. had opportunity to provide us with news we could use, and she didn't. Yet, we want to give her at least a chance at this new role for her.
She does have a unique background grounded in history in the making by grandfather and father throughout her childhood and into adulthood.
So we suggest the title of her book she's preparing to write in six years should be
Mika's Most Momentous Moments
Scarborough thought the holiday was a great idea. He continued to remark Obama was an elitist, out of touch with the regular person, well Joe. But when the opportunity arose to hammer Obama on the spot, Scarborough simply failed to take advantage of the opportunity even once.
With Hillary Clinton who followed in a separate on-air interview, Scarborough failed to ask how clinton's plan to basically determine the amount of profits oil companies would receive (and use the remainder to pay for the holiday) was different from "socialism" taking from those who have and giving to those you've determined are in need?
Scarborough just sat through the interviews as if it was a coup to just have the pair of Presidential contenders on his program one after the other.
Mica B. co-host has been relatively adequate over this month. We were ready to call for the Morning Mika show to replace Morning Joe.
Then came a day when Mika B. had opportunity to provide us with news we could use, and she didn't. Yet, we want to give her at least a chance at this new role for her.
She does have a unique background grounded in history in the making by grandfather and father throughout her childhood and into adulthood.
So we suggest the title of her book she's preparing to write in six years should be
Mika's Most Momentous Moments
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Chris Matthews: Changes Mind Hourly Support Obama/Clinton Ticket
Again on Morning Joe. Mika B. hosting solo with co-anchors in tow, Mike Barnacle, Willie Geist. (Joe Scarborough awaiting the birth of a baby, is for us, blissfully absent for maybe week number four. We can hope the best for Joe on the personal level, well wishes, but hope MSNBC sees the light and lets Joe Go, permanently, no returns. He's had his chance, and he blew it big time during a non-interview of both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on May 5, 2008. See our post about that)
She's a big plus in some states, Matthews says, but if he's gonna win in Virginia Montana, I'm not sure she helps, but she helps in the older states... older people... Hillary Clinton is more like us... seems less upper crust.
Here we go again.
She's doing well, Chris, in states where many Democrat white voter are stuck in the politics of the past, the far-far, past.
Matthews predicts Harold Ickes and other Hillary supporters will ask for it all during the rules committee meeting to determine the fate of Florida and Michigan.
Predicts her supporters will want to go to the credentials committee in July. She believes this is a one shot only.
Miller why not give clinton as much grief over her RFK comments as we all gave Obama over his bitter small-town America comments?
Surely, Mika B. sitting in for Joe Scarborough (blissfully for us for hopefully another week, the only reason whe're watching), should know by now the Clintons did get hold of certain FBI papers, people.
Papers they should not have obtained. They know things. And the Press knows things about the Clintons they have not yet revealed.
The only journalist, true journalist, who came clearly closer than any other to exposing the Clintons: Carl Bernstein.
he called the Clintons' tactics against Barack Obama: psychological warfare.
Net the Truth Online
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Carl Bernstein: Psychological Warfare Observed
During a CNN interview wherein David Gergen was a guest, and talking about the duo of Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, and the Wisconsin campaign and charges of plagiarism made within the last day concerning a Barack Obama speech, coming from the Clinton campaign, Carl Bernstein uttered the phrasing:
psychological warfare...
http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2008/02/carl-bernstein-psychological-warfare.html
Check it out, and see if Berstein hasn't got it exactly correct, before he made the comment, and since. Watch the Clintons every move, every word.
Every argument the Clintons have made, including her comment about RFK and assassination is carefully, very carefully, crafted. There are no gaffes, they are too practiced. Both have ambition like any other we've witnessed or are likely to ever witness in the politics of the United States of America.
The first husband and wife team in the history of the United States to claim the ultimate prize in history, the Presidency of the United States, and the Press does not ever, not even once, except for Berstein, call them out for playing every card in the deck, their own deck.
The Press is nowhere near giving Hillary Clinton the same 'negative' coverage for her RFK assassination comment as they've given Barack Obama for his bitter white small-town voters. (By the way, it was Democrats Obama was talking about. It is Democrats Hillary Clinton is talking about and trying to convince)
What the Press has missed: Clinton's reference to the two examples she chose are simply historically inaccurate.
She had to have known her own history in 1992, known her husband had sewn up the nomination before June and there was nobody remaining in the race even close.
She had to know the history of the campaign of 1968, and known, back then, the campaign didn't even start until March, so by June things were pretty much just getting going, and RFK had the nomination sewn-up going into June, when his campaign was irrevocably stopped by an assassin's bullet.
To play up those two references as examples of campaigns going clear into June without a clear nominee is psychological warfare.
Bernstein should come out now and explain exactly how.
Net the Truth Online
She's a big plus in some states, Matthews says, but if he's gonna win in Virginia Montana, I'm not sure she helps, but she helps in the older states... older people... Hillary Clinton is more like us... seems less upper crust.
Here we go again.
She's doing well, Chris, in states where many Democrat white voter are stuck in the politics of the past, the far-far, past.
Matthews predicts Harold Ickes and other Hillary supporters will ask for it all during the rules committee meeting to determine the fate of Florida and Michigan.
Predicts her supporters will want to go to the credentials committee in July. She believes this is a one shot only.
Miller why not give clinton as much grief over her RFK comments as we all gave Obama over his bitter small-town America comments?
Surely, Mika B. sitting in for Joe Scarborough (blissfully for us for hopefully another week, the only reason whe're watching), should know by now the Clintons did get hold of certain FBI papers, people.
Papers they should not have obtained. They know things. And the Press knows things about the Clintons they have not yet revealed.
The only journalist, true journalist, who came clearly closer than any other to exposing the Clintons: Carl Bernstein.
he called the Clintons' tactics against Barack Obama: psychological warfare.
Net the Truth Online
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Carl Bernstein: Psychological Warfare Observed
During a CNN interview wherein David Gergen was a guest, and talking about the duo of Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, and the Wisconsin campaign and charges of plagiarism made within the last day concerning a Barack Obama speech, coming from the Clinton campaign, Carl Bernstein uttered the phrasing:
psychological warfare...
http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2008/02/carl-bernstein-psychological-warfare.html
Check it out, and see if Berstein hasn't got it exactly correct, before he made the comment, and since. Watch the Clintons every move, every word.
Every argument the Clintons have made, including her comment about RFK and assassination is carefully, very carefully, crafted. There are no gaffes, they are too practiced. Both have ambition like any other we've witnessed or are likely to ever witness in the politics of the United States of America.
The first husband and wife team in the history of the United States to claim the ultimate prize in history, the Presidency of the United States, and the Press does not ever, not even once, except for Berstein, call them out for playing every card in the deck, their own deck.
The Press is nowhere near giving Hillary Clinton the same 'negative' coverage for her RFK assassination comment as they've given Barack Obama for his bitter white small-town voters. (By the way, it was Democrats Obama was talking about. It is Democrats Hillary Clinton is talking about and trying to convince)
What the Press has missed: Clinton's reference to the two examples she chose are simply historically inaccurate.
She had to have known her own history in 1992, known her husband had sewn up the nomination before June and there was nobody remaining in the race even close.
She had to know the history of the campaign of 1968, and known, back then, the campaign didn't even start until March, so by June things were pretty much just getting going, and RFK had the nomination sewn-up going into June, when his campaign was irrevocably stopped by an assassin's bullet.
To play up those two references as examples of campaigns going clear into June without a clear nominee is psychological warfare.
Bernstein should come out now and explain exactly how.
Net the Truth Online
Bill Clinton: Hillary Winning the General Election
Now. Yep. Red-nosed former President Bill Clinton said that directly. Hillary Clinton is winning the General Election, now.
Oh really.
Who knows which states McCain will win or lose to whomever the Democrat candidate ultimately becomes?
Bill Clinton went on to say the Press is against Hillary Clinton.
Well, uh, Bill, she is not the frontrunner. They are going to couch their comments in the language, it looks like she's losing to Obama in current popular vote, delegates, and recently super delegates.
When Clinton was winning states early on, the Press treated Barack Obama exactly the same. They treated her as the frontrunner, and him as wannabe who was behind in the metrics,or measures.
Now the tables are turned yhe Clintons are using everything, everything, even claiming that by winning certain states, no matter by a few thousand votes, she has won the Presidency already by winning the states with enough electoral delegates.
For real.
Net the Truth Online
Related
Oh really.
Who knows which states McCain will win or lose to whomever the Democrat candidate ultimately becomes?
Bill Clinton went on to say the Press is against Hillary Clinton.
Well, uh, Bill, she is not the frontrunner. They are going to couch their comments in the language, it looks like she's losing to Obama in current popular vote, delegates, and recently super delegates.
When Clinton was winning states early on, the Press treated Barack Obama exactly the same. They treated her as the frontrunner, and him as wannabe who was behind in the metrics,or measures.
Now the tables are turned yhe Clintons are using everything, everything, even claiming that by winning certain states, no matter by a few thousand votes, she has won the Presidency already by winning the states with enough electoral delegates.
For real.
Net the Truth Online
Related
May 25, 2008
Categories: Hillary Clinton
Clinton responds in The New York Daily News
The New York Daily News, which piled on Clinton's RFK statements, has published a response entitled "Why I continue to run":
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/Clinton_responds_in_The_New_York_Daily_News.html
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Obama: 56 Delegates To Go for 2026
After June 3rd when the last remaining states, Montana and South Dakota, have election results in, and Florida and Michigan will have been resolved by divvying up 50 percent of the delegates so there is no net gain to anyone, just watch as Hillary Clinton claims she has received the most popular votes, historically so.
Again.
Clinton has already made this claim without Florida and Michigan being resolved.
The superdelegates who publicly supported Clinton will come out enmasse and change their minds about her. She'll go into the convention with no public support from superdelegates. The committed delegates will remain with her throughout, but the superdelegates won't want history to show they played a part in the insanity of Hillary Clinton who simply couldn't face defeat gracefully.
Count on it. Enough is enough, as Keith Olbermann said.
Net the Truth Online
Again.
Clinton has already made this claim without Florida and Michigan being resolved.
Hillary Clinton says she will fight to make Florida's votes count
Clinton added a new wrinkle to her argument: Not only should Florida's vote count - but all of the state's 210 delegates should be seated according to the results that gave her a 17-percentage point victory.
"I believe the Democratic Party must count these votes," Clinton said to a crowd of about 700 at the Century Village retirement community, to chants of "Count our votes." "They should count them exactly as they were cast."
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/elections/sfl-0521clinton,0,2737983.story
The superdelegates who publicly supported Clinton will come out enmasse and change their minds about her. She'll go into the convention with no public support from superdelegates. The committed delegates will remain with her throughout, but the superdelegates won't want history to show they played a part in the insanity of Hillary Clinton who simply couldn't face defeat gracefully.
Count on it. Enough is enough, as Keith Olbermann said.
Net the Truth Online
Obama Says Clinton Focus on Florida Is Her `Last Slender Hope'
By Kim Chipman
May 25 (Bloomberg) -- Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said his rival Hillary Clinton is trying to incite anger in Florida because it's her last hope to justify claims that she can still win her party's nomination.
``The Clinton campaign has been stirring this up for fairly transparent reasons,'' Obama, 46, told reporters on his campaign plane yesterday when asked about anger in Florida over not having votes in the state's Democratic primary count toward determining the party's nominee.
In Miami earlier this week, Clinton pressed the case for counting her victories both in Florida and Michigan. The two states were stripped of their delegates after holding primaries in January in violation of party rules. Clinton this week compared the situation to a recent post-election dispute in Zimbabwe that's threatening to provoke a military coup.
``This is, from their perspective, their last slender hope to make arguments about how they can win,'' said Illinois Senator Obama, referring to the Clinton campaign. ``I understand that.''
Obama dismissed suggestions that bitterness over the matter might unravel the likelihood of Democratic voters uniting behind a single presidential contender in November.
Once delegates are seated ``this is going to be a story nobody is thinking about in August,'' Obama said. The senator's campaign said yesterday he is 56 delegates short of the 2,026 needed to secure the nomination.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aPfRIH6QbYbo
2006: Half Overseas Ballots Not Counted
Fox News Morning reporting
Eric Shawn
Soldiers votes may not be counted... military mail may not make it overseas and in time to be returned.
Defense to handle the ballots, Kevin McCarthy.
Robert Brady... D PA opposed by U.S. Postal Service
Arizona to start a new special program...
Related
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Few states allow overseas troops to vote by e-mail
By LOLITA C. BALDOR
http://www.townhall.com/news/politics-elections/2008/04/27/few_states_allow_overseas_troops_to_vote_by_e-mail
Eric Shawn
Soldiers votes may not be counted... military mail may not make it overseas and in time to be returned.
Defense to handle the ballots, Kevin McCarthy.
Robert Brady... D PA opposed by U.S. Postal Service
Arizona to start a new special program...
Related
Net gives Americans abroad a stronger political voice
By Eric Sylvers Published: January 4, 2008
Thanks to the Internet, Americans who belong to the Democratic Party are getting a voice of their own in the presidential nomination, as the party has agreed to allow expatriates to choose 22 delegates to the national convention as part of the so-called Super Tuesday voting next month.
Everyone Counts, a company based in San Diego that specializes in online voting, is running the Internet voting for the Democrat primary for overseas residents. Everyone Counts handled the voting by Internet for local elections in British cities in 2003 and 2007 as well as the online voting for the Australian election in November, handling voting by soldiers stationed in Iraq and other spots overseas.
The Democratic primary for Americans abroad will start Feb. 5, the Tuesday when 21 states will hold primaries, and run until Feb. 12. In addition to voting by Internet, people can also cast ballots by mail, fax or - in 34 countries - they can vote in person.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/04/business/NETVOTE07.php
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Few states allow overseas troops to vote by e-mail
By LOLITA C. BALDOR
http://www.townhall.com/news/politics-elections/2008/04/27/few_states_allow_overseas_troops_to_vote_by_e-mail
RECOUNT Film Democratic Propaganda
Beltway Boys replay on Sunday morning, early, featuring Bill Sammon and Mort Kondrake discussed the new HBO feature movie: UNCOUNTED.
Sammon said he was the first to write a book about the Year 2000 Presidential Election.
The UNCOUNTED film is handfisted, over top, he said. Had the process continued, the NY Times review concluded George Bush would have won anyway.
Mort Kondrake said the process should have been allowed to go to Hhouse of Representatives and Bush would have won anyway but would have been by Constitutional means.
Well, neither of these award-winning analysts focused on the reason the United States Supreme Court had to step in:
to determine the Constitutionality of recount.
Recall, the initial recount started in three counties because the spread of the results were within the narrow percentage which permitted for a candidate to request a recount. In those three counties, as the recount got underway, the Gore team pressed for additional recounts in other counties because of reports of potential irregularities, including the butter-fly ballot which reportedly caused confusion.
Then, came reports of malfunctioning punchcard voting machines.
It was at that point, the Gore Team took their case to the Florida Supreme Court which in turn determined a state-wide recount could begin.
As the process got underway, it became obvious the recount was not uniformily conducted among all of the counties in the state of Florida, ergo, it was unconstitutional. Being unconstitutional, the recount had to end.
Period, end of drama.
The UNCOUNTED spokesman and actor Kevin Spacey admitted the film was offered from the one-sided viewpoint of the Democrats. He's a Democrat himself, he admitted in an interview.
He isn't going to trash his own movie, mind you, so that's as close to the truth as you're going to get.
But here is what the movie UNCOUNTED really is:
Propaganda. the manipulation of public opinion.
http://library.thinkquest.org/C0111500/whatis.htm
Related
Sammon said he was the first to write a book about the Year 2000 Presidential Election.
The UNCOUNTED film is handfisted, over top, he said. Had the process continued, the NY Times review concluded George Bush would have won anyway.
Mort Kondrake said the process should have been allowed to go to Hhouse of Representatives and Bush would have won anyway but would have been by Constitutional means.
Well, neither of these award-winning analysts focused on the reason the United States Supreme Court had to step in:
to determine the Constitutionality of recount.
Recall, the initial recount started in three counties because the spread of the results were within the narrow percentage which permitted for a candidate to request a recount. In those three counties, as the recount got underway, the Gore team pressed for additional recounts in other counties because of reports of potential irregularities, including the butter-fly ballot which reportedly caused confusion.
Then, came reports of malfunctioning punchcard voting machines.
It was at that point, the Gore Team took their case to the Florida Supreme Court which in turn determined a state-wide recount could begin.
As the process got underway, it became obvious the recount was not uniformily conducted among all of the counties in the state of Florida, ergo, it was unconstitutional. Being unconstitutional, the recount had to end.
Period, end of drama.
The UNCOUNTED spokesman and actor Kevin Spacey admitted the film was offered from the one-sided viewpoint of the Democrats. He's a Democrat himself, he admitted in an interview.
He isn't going to trash his own movie, mind you, so that's as close to the truth as you're going to get.
But here is what the movie UNCOUNTED really is:
Propaganda. the manipulation of public opinion.
http://library.thinkquest.org/C0111500/whatis.htm
Related
25 June 2001
Our current howler (part IV): Seeing no evil
Synopsis: Bill Sammon wrote an indefensible book. And Big Pundits know not to say so.
At Any Cost
Bill Sammon, Regnery Publishing, 2001
http://dailyhowler.com/h062501_1.shtml
Clinton Unfazed By Anderson Cooper Wrong Facts Charge
Nobody in the Press appears to have caught on to the fallacies in Hillary Clinton's premise that the campaigns of 1992 and 1968 continued uncharacteristically into June in those campaign years.
Anderson cooper noted Clinton's mistake about her husband's campaign during his introductory remarks.
Net the Truth Online
Anderson cooper noted Clinton's mistake about her husband's campaign during his introductory remarks.
Net the Truth Online
May 24, 2008, 4:14 pm
How Clinton’s Comments Didn’t — Then Did — Catch Fire
Matt Phillips reports on the presidential race from Brandon, S.D.
...Clinton concluded her meeting at the Argus Leader and arrived at the supermarket, where a few hundred onlookers assembled in the produce section, when the RFK comments began to reverberate around the Internet.
As the New York senator was delivering her stump speech in the grocery store, reporters began receiving messages on their BlackBerrys from editors wondering about a New York Post story posted prominently on the Drudge Report that referenced the senator’s mention of the assassination.
The bulk of the press corps soon gathered around a Clinton spokesman asking for comments and clarification on the Kennedy quotes. Seemingly taken aback by the direction the questions were going, the spokesman explained that Clinton had merely been trying to emphasize the point that Democratic primary fights had stretched into June in the past.
Later Clinton spokesman Mo Elleithee offered an official statement, saying “any reading into it beyond that is inaccurate.” After a few more minutes he came back, suggesting that his quote should be amended to add “and outrageous.”
After finishing her appearance, Clinton herself returned to offer her own brief apology for the remarks.
Clinton aides pointed to the fact that she had made previous references to both her husband’s 1992 campaign and Kennedy’s 1968 campaign before to stress that these primary fights have pushed into June in the past. The Associated Press cited a March interview with Time magazine, in which she said, “Primary contests used to last a lot longer. We all remember the great tragedy of Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June in L.A. My husband didn’t wrap up the nomination in 1992 until June, also in California. Having a primary contest go through June is nothing particularly unusual.”
And while a couple reporters — who had managed to stick with the streaming press conference — mentioned that they found her assassination reference slightly strange, few on the trail thought it would be the lead on any of their stories that day.
The fact that it did become big news is illustrative of journalistic competition in the Internet age. The entire pack of reporters sent to watch Clinton’s every move had somehow gotten beat, and forced into following a New York Post reporter who was nowhere near the campaign, but who, apparently, had a much-better Internet connection.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/05/24/how-clintons-comments-didnt-then-did-catch-fire/
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Noonan: Sex and the Sissy
Sex and the Sissy
Peggy Noonan
Wall Street Journal
May 23, 2008
http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html
Hillary Clinton's candidacy has done feminism no favours
By Camille Paglia
Last Updated: 12:01pm BST 24/05/2008
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/05/24/do2411.xml
Peggy Noonan
Wall Street Journal
May 23, 2008
http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html
Hillary Clinton's candidacy has done feminism no favours
By Camille Paglia
Last Updated: 12:01pm BST 24/05/2008
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/05/24/do2411.xml
Buchanan: Hillary Clinton Comment Not Malicious but Unthinking
Just what we need an unthinking President, awakening at 3 AM in the morning, not caring to check her facts before she speaks or acts on behalf of this nation in a matter of life or death. Or one who misuses past historical events - misstating the facts of events - to convince someone of her position or her bravery in the face of danger.
We're not saying Clinton should get out of the race before June 1st - the date of Peurto Rico's 'presidential preference' election, or before June 3rd, when Montana and South Dakota votes.
Nobody has said Clinton should drop out, or few have said that, according to Keith Olberman's list of items he says the nation (or Democrats) have forgiven her for before now.
She should stay in with her comments based on misstating facts tagging along.
It will be interesting to see if the remaining voters lean her way in larger, or smaller, numbers.
Read our posting we followed up on a lead first noted to our knowledge by Anderson Cooper on his programming Friday evening. He flat out said Hillary Clinton was wrong about her husband's campaign in 1992... Anderson Cooper (get the transcript) says Clinton was actually wrong about her husband's campaign in 1992, he had the nomination sewn up before then. In 1984, it was different and went into June...
Cooper edged into his introduction by stating Clinton was wrong that her husband's campaign in 1992 had gone into June.
We also followed up on the Drudge Report's notice Friday stating the 1968 campaign didn't begin until March... that Primary was only 3 months long... and Kennedy was assassinated June 5...
What struck us: Hillary Clinton either didn't fact check before she made the references, or she disregarded the facts and used those two examples to support her premise presidential campaigns could run into June without a clear nominee.
either way, she's discredited herself.
Net the Truth Online
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Hillary Clinton Inaccurate on Both Historical Facts
http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2008/05/hillary-clinton-inaccurate-on-both.html
Friday, May 23, 2008
Press Coddling HRC's JFK Assassination Statement
http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2008/05/press-coddling-hrcs-jfk-assassination.html
Friday, May 23, 2008
Keith Olbermann: Enough Hillary Clinton Enough
http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2008/05/keith-olbermann-enough-hillary-clinton.html
Maps and Charts
http://politicalmaps.org/state-of-the-2008-democratic-primary/
Take a look at the fundraising chart - it claims Clinton has more funding by some 20 million.
Open Secrets
N/A for amount raised numbers for amount spent
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/finance/candidates/hillary-clinton/
Totals by Quarter
Hillary Clinton
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?id=N00000019&cycle=2008
Barack Obama
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638
Clinton campaign debt $21 million not $31 million
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/05/clintondebt.html
Related Opinion
Hillary's Nonsensical, Historical Excuse for RFK Assassination Crack
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6111215
We're not saying Clinton should get out of the race before June 1st - the date of Peurto Rico's 'presidential preference' election, or before June 3rd, when Montana and South Dakota votes.
Nobody has said Clinton should drop out, or few have said that, according to Keith Olberman's list of items he says the nation (or Democrats) have forgiven her for before now.
She should stay in with her comments based on misstating facts tagging along.
It will be interesting to see if the remaining voters lean her way in larger, or smaller, numbers.
Read our posting we followed up on a lead first noted to our knowledge by Anderson Cooper on his programming Friday evening. He flat out said Hillary Clinton was wrong about her husband's campaign in 1992... Anderson Cooper (get the transcript) says Clinton was actually wrong about her husband's campaign in 1992, he had the nomination sewn up before then. In 1984, it was different and went into June...
Cooper edged into his introduction by stating Clinton was wrong that her husband's campaign in 1992 had gone into June.
COOPER: It's worth mentioning here that what Senator Clinton said about her husband isn't actually true. Bill Clinton had the primary all but sewn up long before June of 1992.
The 1984 primary campaign truly did run into June. So did the 1980 primary, with Jimmy Carter losing a string of races to Ted Kennedy. In her apology, she made no mention of Barack Obama, you might have noticed, as Joe Johns pointed out. He's received early Secret Service protection because of death threats.
Digging deeper, CNN's Candy Crowley, Tony Perkins at the conservative Family Research Council and author of "Personal Faith, Public Policy," and Jennifer Palmieri, a former Clinton White House staffer and John Edwards '04 campaign staffer...
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0805/23/acd.01.html
We also followed up on the Drudge Report's notice Friday stating the 1968 campaign didn't begin until March... that Primary was only 3 months long... and Kennedy was assassinated June 5...
What struck us: Hillary Clinton either didn't fact check before she made the references, or she disregarded the facts and used those two examples to support her premise presidential campaigns could run into June without a clear nominee.
either way, she's discredited herself.
Net the Truth Online
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Hillary Clinton Inaccurate on Both Historical Facts
http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2008/05/hillary-clinton-inaccurate-on-both.html
Friday, May 23, 2008
Press Coddling HRC's JFK Assassination Statement
http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2008/05/press-coddling-hrcs-jfk-assassination.html
Friday, May 23, 2008
Keith Olbermann: Enough Hillary Clinton Enough
http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2008/05/keith-olbermann-enough-hillary-clinton.html
Maps and Charts
http://politicalmaps.org/state-of-the-2008-democratic-primary/
Take a look at the fundraising chart - it claims Clinton has more funding by some 20 million.
Open Secrets
N/A for amount raised numbers for amount spent
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/finance/candidates/hillary-clinton/
Totals by Quarter
Hillary Clinton
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?id=N00000019&cycle=2008
Barack Obama
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638
Clinton campaign debt $21 million not $31 million
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/05/clintondebt.html
Obama closes in on Democratic nomination
www.chinaview.cn 2008-05-21 14:08:06
Special Report: U.S. presidential election 2008 By Yang Qingchuan
WITHIN REACH
It is still premature for Obama to declare himself the Democratic nominee at this point, but he is approaching that goal by nearly every measure.
He has won 32 of the past 53 Democratic primaries and caucuses, versus Clinton's 21.
He has won more popular votes, as the votes in Michigan and Florida are not counted in punishment for the two states' violation of Democratic Party election rules.
Meanwhile, Obama continues to pull in the backing of superdelegates, which is necessary to formally put him ahead in the Democratic contest.
Among the superdelegates, many former Clinton supporters are switching to Obama.
Even in national polls, he is expanding his lead against Clinton.
The latest Gallup poll shows Obama is currently favored by 55 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, to Clinton's 39 percent.
He also has a huge advantage in terms of campaign finance.
Obama's campaign reported Tuesday the Illinois senator raised more than 31 million U.S. dollars in April, with 37 million dollars of cash on hand.
That is in sharp contrast to the 21-million-dollar debt of the Clinton campaign, which is unwilling disclose how much cash is on hand.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-05/21/content_8220102.htm
Related Opinion
RazBerryBeret (1000+ posts) Sat May-24-08 12:13 PM
Response to Original message
193. THIS is all I'm sayin':
In the context of Obama, Clinton's words broke a double taboo, because since the beginning of his candidacy, some of Obama's supporters have feared that his race made him more of a target than other presidential hopefuls. Obama was placed under Secret Service protection early, a full year ago.
To be unaware that one's words tap into a monumental fear that exists in a portion of the electorate -- a fear that Obama's race could get him killed -- is an unusual mistake for a serious and highly disciplined presidential candidate.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6108152
Hillary's Nonsensical, Historical Excuse for RFK Assassination Crack
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6111215
Keith Olbermann Forgive Forget Pulled for Number 25
What was so fascinating about Keith Olbermann's Special Comments? His listing of all of the actions or comments in Hillary Clinton's campaign up to this point (of her remarks using the word assassination) which he says Democrats forgave her for.
How many forgives do you count?
What specifically is Olbermann forgiving? Lies? Distortions? Misrepresentations? Mis-speaking.
Get in on the game.
Net the Truth online
How many forgives do you count?
What specifically is Olbermann forgiving? Lies? Distortions? Misrepresentations? Mis-speaking.
Get in on the game.
Net the Truth online
Clinton, you invoked a political nightmare
God knows, Senator, in this campaign, this nation has had to forgive you, early and often...
And despite your now traditional position of the offended victim, the nation has forgiven you.
We have forgiven you your insistence that there have been widespread calls for you to end your campaign, when such calls had been few.
We have forgiven you your misspeaking about Martin Luther King's relative importance to the Civil Rights movement.
We have forgiven you your misspeaking about your under-fire landing in Bosnia.
We have forgiven you insisting Michigan's vote wouldn't count and then claiming those who would not count it were Un-Democratic. (6 and 7)
We have forgiven you pledging to not campaign in Florida and thus disenfranchise voters there, and then claim those who stuck to those rules were as wrong as those who defended slavery or denied women the vote. (8 and 9)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24797758/page/2/
We have forgiven you the photos of Osama Bin Laden in an anti-Obama ad...
We have forgiven you fawning over the fairness of Fox News while they were still calling you a murderer.
We have forgiven you accepting Richard Mellon Scaife's endorsement and then laughing as you described his "deathbed conversion." (12 and 13)
We have forgiven you quoting the electoral predictions of Boss Karl Rove.
We have forgiven you the 3 a.m. Phone Call commercial.
We have forgiven you President Clinton's disparaging comparison of the Obama candidacy to Jesse Jackson's.
We have forgiven you Geraldine Ferraro's national radio interview suggesting Obama would not still be in the race had he been a white man.
We have forgiven you the dozen changing metrics and the endless self-contradictions of your insistence that your nomination is mathematically probable rather than a statistical impossibility. (18 and 19)
We have forgiven you your declaration of some primary states as counting and some as not.
We have forgiven you exploiting Jeremiah Wright in front of the editorial board of the lunatic-fringe Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.
We have forgiven you exploiting William Ayers in front of the debate on ABC.
We have forgiven you for boasting of your "support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans"...
We have even forgiven you repeatedly praising Senator McCain at Senator Obama's expense, and your own expense, and the Democratic ticket's expense.
But Senator, we cannot forgive you this.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24797758/page/3/
Hillary Clinton Inaccurate on Both Historical Facts
Of the cable network channels covering Hillary Clinton's remarks during an editorial interview yesterday, and her explanation of the reference to the RFK assassination a few hours afterwards, one stands out for an immediate and glaring fact-check before engaging guests on commenting on the controversy Clinton created.
Anderson Cooper 360 outed Hillary Clinton for her comments which she defends were merely a historical rundown of how long Primaries could run... stretching and stretching... into June... and candidates such as her husband and JFK stay until.
It's the until part that brought on the controversy throughout the day.
In Robert Kennedy's case an ending that was final and brought on by an assassination.
But what should have stopped Clinton in her tracks: she was not stating historical facts.
Cooper edged into his introduction by stating Clinton was wrong that her husband's campaign in 1992 had gone into June.
Most in the media today are tagging Clinton's comments, a gaffe.
No, her comments are simply wrong and historically inaccurate. This is a candidate for President of the United States of America who twists history to suit her own grand design.
Cooper didn't mention the facts of the 1968 campaign. No guest we heard during Keith Olbermann's Countdown, Chris Matthews Hardball, Wolf Blitzer's The Situation Room and Fox's Hannity and Colmes appeared to flatly say Hillary Clinton was simply wrong using these two instances to support a historical contention that Primaries can go over-long and run into June with candidates remaining until the very, well, end.
Here in part is what Hillary Clinton said in defense of her remarks:
The Democrat Party Primary campaign of that year was grueling, according to historycentral.
The site information continues:
Eugene McCarthy, an early opponent of the war in Vietnam, almost upset President Johnson in the New Hampshire primary. This convinced Johnson not to run for re-election. At that point Vice President Humphrey announced his candidacy for the nomination. A primary battle followed, with Robert Kennedy pulling in the lead until his assassination. At this point Humphrey was able to sew up the nomination...
What does this bit of historical fact show?
Clinton was wrong in the implication that candidates remained to campaign that year because there wasn't a 'clear' frontrunner.
There was a clear frontrunner in June 1968, and his name was Robert Francis Kennedy. By June RFK was the shoo-in candidate in a Primary that according to wikipedia was among those which had historically begun in New Hampshire in March.
By June, some only 3-months from the start of the Democrat Party Primary process that year, RFK had pulled into the lead until his assassination.
So for Hillary Clinton to claim she's referencing those to make the point that we have had nomination primary contests that go into June. That's a historic fact.
She's simply wrong and inaccurate on the historical facts.
The facts are:
the 1968 campaign had started with the first Primary state, New Hampshire, in March.
So by June, RFK was in the lead, assassinated, and clearly following that horrendous event, Humprey was able to sew up the nomination.
Reading this in this way, Hillary Clinton's remarks are even more disturbing.
The clear frontrunner, RFK, was murdered, and that fact, not the fact of a "longer" Primary, put another candidate in a position to become the shoo-in for the nomination.
What speaker in America on a national platform would not check facts before stating them in a historical context to prove a point?
Who would trust a President who won't check facts before making statements which rely on those historical facts as support for a specific point?
In the case of Primaries, they didn't always start in February, but as wikipedia lays out:
According to the Arlington National Cemetery website
Warning: the following could be too gruesome for some readers
Who reading the facts in perspective can now claim Hillary Clinton just made a gaffe.
social blunder: a clumsy social mistake or breach of etiquette, e.g. an insensitive remark
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861614099/gaffe.html
What Hillary Clinton did wasn't an insensitive remark or any other of the definitions of gaffe.
What Hillary Clinton did was another example of an outright lie - a distortion - of factual events or information to suit her own grand design to become President.
Coupled with Clinton's outright misrepresentation of her Bosnia trip where she claims she and by virtue of her daughter accompanying her on the trip, her daughter, it's no wonder savvy (in this case) Keith Olbermann in his Special Section remarks was more than harsh on Hillary Clinton.
His comments stamped the words Last Straw, Final Cut, Exit Stage Left, on her campaign for President of these United States.
Yesterday.
Net the Truth Online
Related
May 23rd, 2008 4:42 PM Eastern
Hillary Brings Up Kennedy Assassination, Press Freaks Out
by Aaron Bruns
http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/05/23/hillary-brings-up-assassination-press-freaks-out/
Anderson Cooper 360 outed Hillary Clinton for her comments which she defends were merely a historical rundown of how long Primaries could run... stretching and stretching... into June... and candidates such as her husband and JFK stay until.
It's the until part that brought on the controversy throughout the day.
In Robert Kennedy's case an ending that was final and brought on by an assassination.
But what should have stopped Clinton in her tracks: she was not stating historical facts.
Cooper edged into his introduction by stating Clinton was wrong that her husband's campaign in 1992 had gone into June.
COOPER: It's worth mentioning here that what Senator Clinton said about her husband isn't actually true. Bill Clinton had the primary all but sewn up long before June of 1992.
The 1984 primary campaign truly did run into June. So did the 1980 primary, with Jimmy Carter losing a string of races to Ted Kennedy. In her apology, she made no mention of Barack Obama, you might have noticed, as Joe Johns pointed out. He's received early Secret Service protection because of death threats.
Digging deeper, CNN's Candy Crowley, Tony Perkins at the conservative Family Research Council and author of "Personal Faith, Public Policy," and Jennifer Palmieri, a former Clinton White House staffer and John Edwards '04 campaign staffer...
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0805/23/acd.01.html
Most in the media today are tagging Clinton's comments, a gaffe.
No, her comments are simply wrong and historically inaccurate. This is a candidate for President of the United States of America who twists history to suit her own grand design.
Cooper didn't mention the facts of the 1968 campaign. No guest we heard during Keith Olbermann's Countdown, Chris Matthews Hardball, Wolf Blitzer's The Situation Room and Fox's Hannity and Colmes appeared to flatly say Hillary Clinton was simply wrong using these two instances to support a historical contention that Primaries can go over-long and run into June with candidates remaining until the very, well, end.
Here in part is what Hillary Clinton said in defense of her remarks:
"I was discussing the Democratic primary history, and in the course of that discussion mentioned the campaigns both my husband and Senator Kennedy waged California in June in 1992 and 1968," she said in Brandon, South Dakota. "I was referencing those to make the point that we have had nomination primary contests that go into June. That's a historic fact.
The Democrat Party Primary campaign of that year was grueling, according to historycentral.
The site information continues:
Eugene McCarthy, an early opponent of the war in Vietnam, almost upset President Johnson in the New Hampshire primary. This convinced Johnson not to run for re-election. At that point Vice President Humphrey announced his candidacy for the nomination. A primary battle followed, with Robert Kennedy pulling in the lead until his assassination. At this point Humphrey was able to sew up the nomination...
What does this bit of historical fact show?
Clinton was wrong in the implication that candidates remained to campaign that year because there wasn't a 'clear' frontrunner.
There was a clear frontrunner in June 1968, and his name was Robert Francis Kennedy. By June RFK was the shoo-in candidate in a Primary that according to wikipedia was among those which had historically begun in New Hampshire in March.
By June, some only 3-months from the start of the Democrat Party Primary process that year, RFK had pulled into the lead until his assassination.
So for Hillary Clinton to claim she's referencing those to make the point that we have had nomination primary contests that go into June. That's a historic fact.
She's simply wrong and inaccurate on the historical facts.
The facts are:
the 1968 campaign had started with the first Primary state, New Hampshire, in March.
So by June, RFK was in the lead, assassinated, and clearly following that horrendous event, Humprey was able to sew up the nomination.
Reading this in this way, Hillary Clinton's remarks are even more disturbing.
The clear frontrunner, RFK, was murdered, and that fact, not the fact of a "longer" Primary, put another candidate in a position to become the shoo-in for the nomination.
What speaker in America on a national platform would not check facts before stating them in a historical context to prove a point?
Who would trust a President who won't check facts before making statements which rely on those historical facts as support for a specific point?
In the case of Primaries, they didn't always start in February, but as wikipedia lays out:
Since 1977, New Hampshire law has stated that its primary is to be the first in the nation (it had been the first by tradition since 1920).[4] As a result, the state has moved its primary earlier in the year to remain the first. The primary was held on the following dates: 1952-1968, second Tuesday in March; 1972, first Tuesday in March; 1976-1984, fourth Tuesday in February; 1988-1996, third Tuesday in February; 2000, first Tuesday in February (February 1); 2004, fourth Tuesday in January (January 27). The shifts have been to compete with changing primary dates in other states. The primary date for 2008 continued the trend; it was held January 8, the second Tuesday in January.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_primary
According to the Arlington National Cemetery website
Robert Francis Kennedy
He died from the effects of an assassin's bullets on June 6, 1968 at Los Angeles, California while campaigning for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States...
http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/rfk.htm
Warning: the following could be too gruesome for some readers
June 8, 1968
Robert Kennedy buried
In 1968, he was urged by many of his supporters to run for president as an anti-war and socially progressive Democratic. Hesitant until he saw positive primary returns for fellow anti-war candidate Eugene McCarthy, he announced his candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination on March 16, 1968. Fifteen days later, President Johnson announced that he would not seek reelection, and Vice President Hubert Humphrey became the key Democratic hopeful, with McCarthy and Kennedy trailing closely behind. Kennedy conducted an energetic campaign and on June 4, 1968, won a major victory in the California primary. He had won five out of six primaries and seemed a shoo-in for the Democratic nomination and, some thought, the presidency.
Shortly after midnight, Kennedy gave a victory speech to his supporters in the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles. At 12:50 a.m., while making his way to a press conference by a side exit, he was shot three times in a hail of gunfire that wounded five others. One bullet entered Kennedy's brain. The shooter, a Palestinian drifter named Sirhan Sirhan, had a .22 revolver wrested from his grip and was promptly arrested. Kennedy was rushed to the hospital, where he fought for his life for the next 24 hours. At 1:44 a.m. on the morning of June 6, he died. He was 42 years old.
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=Article&id=6922
Who reading the facts in perspective can now claim Hillary Clinton just made a gaffe.
social blunder: a clumsy social mistake or breach of etiquette, e.g. an insensitive remark
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861614099/gaffe.html
What Hillary Clinton did wasn't an insensitive remark or any other of the definitions of gaffe.
What Hillary Clinton did was another example of an outright lie - a distortion - of factual events or information to suit her own grand design to become President.
Coupled with Clinton's outright misrepresentation of her Bosnia trip where she claims she and by virtue of her daughter accompanying her on the trip, her daughter, it's no wonder savvy (in this case) Keith Olbermann in his Special Section remarks was more than harsh on Hillary Clinton.
His comments stamped the words Last Straw, Final Cut, Exit Stage Left, on her campaign for President of these United States.
Yesterday.
Net the Truth Online
Related
May 23rd, 2008 4:42 PM Eastern
Hillary Brings Up Kennedy Assassination, Press Freaks Out
by Aaron Bruns
http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/05/23/hillary-brings-up-assassination-press-freaks-out/
Friday, May 23, 2008
Keith Olbermann: Enough Hillary Clinton Enough
Keith Olbermann Special Comment blasts Senator Clinton and says we cannot forgive you this... we all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California... it's political assassination... politics of this nation steeped enough in blood, you cannot evoke this at any time...
this is too much a Senator a person who can let hang in the air the potential she's sticking around because the opponent might get shot... has no business seeking the office of presidency of the United States.
(Countdown)
A Clinton "apology" Clinton-style appeared after the media dissected her comments.
Too late.
Unbelievably, Tim Russert is still posing Obama could consider Clinton as his VP. Has he gone faux-apologetic too?
Russert says if not Clinton, a woman on the ticket, who else could it be? What would that say to the superdelegates, he asks.
Say what? the superdelegates should be wondering how Hillary Clinton could even think of assassination at the same time she's answering a question about why she's remaining in the race - Clinton brought up the issue of some in the media and elsewhere calling for her to drop out.
She's over-and-over played her victimhood to gain the people's vote in Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Kentucky.
Now watch as she plays the victim using how much unwarranted criticism she's getting for the assassination comment.
Anderson Cooper (get the transcript) says Clinton was actually wrong about her husband's campaign in 1992, he had the nomination sewn up before then. In 1982, it was different and went into June...
Candy Crawley doesn't understand what she meant.
Countdown replay Jonathan Alter... Her campaign is over, she has lost this nomination, she's not going to convince the superdelegates her way, and has lost an opportunity if she ever had it for the VP nomination...
Net the Truth Online
Clinton, you invoked a political nightmare
Olbermann: Referencing RFK's assassination as a reason for staying in the race is unforgiveable
SPECIAL COMMENT
By Keith Olbermann
Anchor, 'Countdown'
MSNBC
updated 9:29 p.m. ET, Fri., May. 23, 2008
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24797758/
Olbermann blog diary at Daily KOS
Unforgivable
by Keith Olbermann
Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:01:26 PM PDT
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/23/195538/275/126/521613
Keith Olbermann's Daily Kos Blog On Clinton RFK Comments
Friday, May 23, 2008
http://zennie2005.blogspot.com/2008/05/keith-olbermanns-daily-kos-blog-on.html
Friday, May 23, 2008
shame on you, keith olbermann
http://northtexasliberal.blogspot.com/2008/05/shame-on-you-keith-olbermann.html
Daily KOS poster suggests superdelegates enmasse reject Hillary Clinton based on these remarks...
For Hillary Clinton and Assassination Talk - It's Now Over
by wmholt
Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:16:26 PM PDT
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/23/17812/4837/258/521457
Will this end her campaign?
http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/23/155636/683/322/521393
http://zennie2005.blogspot.com/2008/05/hillary-clinton-rfk-june-assasination.html
this is too much a Senator a person who can let hang in the air the potential she's sticking around because the opponent might get shot... has no business seeking the office of presidency of the United States.
(Countdown)
A Clinton "apology" Clinton-style appeared after the media dissected her comments.
Too late.
Unbelievably, Tim Russert is still posing Obama could consider Clinton as his VP. Has he gone faux-apologetic too?
Russert says if not Clinton, a woman on the ticket, who else could it be? What would that say to the superdelegates, he asks.
Say what? the superdelegates should be wondering how Hillary Clinton could even think of assassination at the same time she's answering a question about why she's remaining in the race - Clinton brought up the issue of some in the media and elsewhere calling for her to drop out.
She's over-and-over played her victimhood to gain the people's vote in Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Kentucky.
Now watch as she plays the victim using how much unwarranted criticism she's getting for the assassination comment.
Anderson Cooper (get the transcript) says Clinton was actually wrong about her husband's campaign in 1992, he had the nomination sewn up before then. In 1982, it was different and went into June...
Candy Crawley doesn't understand what she meant.
Countdown replay Jonathan Alter... Her campaign is over, she has lost this nomination, she's not going to convince the superdelegates her way, and has lost an opportunity if she ever had it for the VP nomination...
Net the Truth Online
Clinton, you invoked a political nightmare
Olbermann: Referencing RFK's assassination as a reason for staying in the race is unforgiveable
SPECIAL COMMENT
By Keith Olbermann
Anchor, 'Countdown'
MSNBC
updated 9:29 p.m. ET, Fri., May. 23, 2008
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24797758/
Olbermann blog diary at Daily KOS
Unforgivable
by Keith Olbermann
Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:01:26 PM PDT
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/23/195538/275/126/521613
Keith Olbermann's Daily Kos Blog On Clinton RFK Comments
Friday, May 23, 2008
http://zennie2005.blogspot.com/2008/05/keith-olbermanns-daily-kos-blog-on.html
Friday, May 23, 2008
shame on you, keith olbermann
http://northtexasliberal.blogspot.com/2008/05/shame-on-you-keith-olbermann.html
Daily KOS poster suggests superdelegates enmasse reject Hillary Clinton based on these remarks...
For Hillary Clinton and Assassination Talk - It's Now Over
by wmholt
Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:16:26 PM PDT
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/23/17812/4837/258/521457
Will this end her campaign?
http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/23/155636/683/322/521393
http://zennie2005.blogspot.com/2008/05/hillary-clinton-rfk-june-assasination.html
Clinton regrets Kennedy assassination remark
May 23 05:53 PM US/Eastern
By DEVLIN BARRETT
Associated Press Writer
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton quickly apologized Friday after citing the June 1968 assassination of Robert F. Kennedy as a reason to remain in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination despite increasingly long odds.
"I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation and in particular the Kennedy family was in any way offensive. I certainly had no intention of that whatsoever," the former first lady said.
The episode occurred as Clinton campaigned in advance of the June 3 South Dakota primary.
Responding to a question from the Sioux Falls Argus Leader editorial board about calls for her to drop out of the race, she said: "My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. You know I just, I don't understand it," she said, dismissing the idea of abandoning the race.
Clinton said she didn't understand why, given this history, some Democrats were calling for her to quit.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D90RJR8G0&show_article=1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
