Hilary Clinton should be rightful winner of Democratic Party contest

I was slowly reading the thread and came upon this gem. Witty remark, nice play!

 

Google for it. It's easy enough to find. "Obama $300k" is the search term I used.

This later issue which you are discussing is minor. If it was the only issue, I would state that it is irrelevant.

Yep. No question at all.

I don't believe that you are playing games, but I believe that you are judging Obama by a very different set of rules than you would judge yourself or any other person.

Oh, was I supposed to acknowledge the error? OK, if it makes you feel good.

Although Dick was hardly an admirable character, it is difficult not to connect emotionally with this sentiment.

In my vision of utopia, lawyers would be unnecessary.

 

The fact is the neocons are just putting on a show for you guys and all this bs stuff is just window dressing. The fact is that Ron Paul is the only candidate that isnt in the back pocket of any special interest group. America has a candidate that isnt blemished by bias support of the elite. I just hope enough people wake up to this before we get another 4 years of the "same ole same ole" again and again and again.

 

Moonbats are their own special interest group.

 

Will,

$300K.

No. 1 yields:

http://www.bizzyblog.com/2006/12/17/barack-obambi-obama-gets-300k-break-on-home-purchase/

The sun-times article says:

A home on the market for several months, selling below the list price. This is the "bribe" you're referring to?

No. 2 Yields: http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2008/02/27/Lewis_0228_web.html

The only reference to a $300K bribeesque deal" is an unsourced comment in the blog.


No. 5 (Nos. 3, 4 are unrelated), http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2008/03/06/obama-rezko-and-media-ignorance-of-the-chicago-way/ yields another unsourced blog comment, a viral notion presumably based on other unsourced blog comments.

As with No. 6, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4196547&mesg_id=4198869, a forum, with another unsourced web comment.

These were two adjacent parcels. The first listed reference, a right-wing site "Bizzy Blog", makes the comment:

Which would help clear it up. As it stands the owner of the home let it go after several months on the market at a price lower than he was asking for. He listed the home separate from the parcel next door. I just don't see proof of a crime, so won't crucify on innuendo.

Regarding "your error," Will, I hope you can appreciate that there have been a host of baseless accusations on Obama, on this forum alone, ranging from naming him as an Islamist terrorist plant to a traitor to his country to a black nationalist and, lately, a Marxist. When you make a categorical statement - "Clinton wins primaries, Obama doesn't" - and indicate this is because of Obama's "insider" status, I have to point up that (before last night), Obama actually won more primaries than Clinton. Even with a draw, as it is now, I wouldn't exactly call a tie a definitive realm for one candidate, and not the other. Saying so is more of the same - the soft whisper of subterfuge. It has no place in honorable debate.

There's not much for me to say here. Libby, Rove, Plame, for starters. Many have fallen under the knife under the President's lapses, and that includes Colin Powell. Truman's buck apparently doesn't stop there.

And moving beyond this to the strong-arm tactics of his own counsel with respect to the President's conduct of the Iraq War (please see the oft-cited, and infamous, Aug. 1, 2002 memo "approving" extraordinary measures by the President), and his abrogation of basic tenets of civil rights in America (see ex-Deputy Attorney General James Comey, among others), we have an administration that has had serious ethical lapses, as a matter of course. In essence, this administration has left a veritable river of ethical flotsam and jetsam behind it, and it stinks to high heaven.

Is what I would say you are doing with this administration, and this is with known ethical lapses.

*********

Anyway, back to the thread topic, the more I analyze this the more I conclude it is game over for Hillary Clinton. She has ceded she cannot overtake Obama in pledged delegates or the popular vote, so she will have to make the case she is the more powerful foe to McCain, and grab up the needed superdelegates. A healthy portion of these superdelegates have constituencies to answer to, and if they overturn the popular vote - well, if you thought 2000 was a hell on electoral earth, this will be a hailstorm of fire. I just don't see it happening.

Obama will essentially run out the clock.

 

Exactly. The only way she would be able to win the nomination without an uprising of some sort is if Obama just completely destroyed himself with some ridiculously huge scandal prior to the convention. Maybe that's what she's holding on for? I'm having a hard time making out what her reasoning is at this point because I know she knows she can't win. One theory I came up with yesterday is she knows that Obama doesn't want her as VP but she wants to be on the ticket and is trying to force herself on by continuing in this way. Making it so Obama has to select her as VP in order to get her supporters on his side (since so many of these insane Hillary supporters are now saying they'd vote for McCain over Obama, which is truly madness.)

 

np, it is exceeding obvious that Tony paid full price for his half of the lot as an arrangement to get a $300k discount for Barack's half of the lot.

If you don't see this, it's not because you're naive' -- it's because you don't want to see this.

I apologize if I am insensitive, but Obama is running for the most important job on Earth. He's going to get a bit of flack. That's the way we do things in this country.

Uggg... it appears that my data was older - before Obama won more primaries.

You're imagining boogymen, just like Hillary and her "vast right-wing conspiracy" nonsense.

Can Obama win without the superdelegates?

Can Hillary win without the superdelegates?

Isn't it pretty much the same story either way?

This ain't a democracy, this is politics -- Chicago style.

 

Look, the man isn't my brother, so my feelings aren't exactly hurt, and he should receive all the flack required to make sure he's right for the job. I would think "flack" should be his progressivism, by your standards, what you would call his "socialism," what Guerilla calls his "marxism." These are debatable points.

But the other stuff, phhhh. I am not imagining boogeymen, hate Clinton's endless whine about this, and am just seeing actual crap, Will; and I hold you in respect for your scholarship and integrity on the forum. But when I see crap made out of nothing, such as Bogart's and Jeremy's endless streams of smear, and some of the same here, it seems to me, I call a bullshit foul. Precisely because he's being elected to the job that the bullshit scares are utterly meaningless, at least to me. When all I see coming out is this kind of stuff, I have to conclude sour grapes on the part of those who are already wistful over the last 8 years, Will, sorry.

The Rezko thing - I honestly don't give a damn. Apparently no one does either, except a few right wing bloggers making the effort to turn this viral. It was a private transaction, the owner sold it to Obama at this price, and there are more important things to worry about. Like this Presidency's ethical problems, which I mentioned, and you aren't addressing.

I hate the superdelegate system, totally agree with you here. The Democratic party needs to wake up and drop this crap. But it is what's in place, and for this election, this is how it will play out. I expect massive changes in 2012.

 

Obama is shielded from almost all criticism on his positions by several factors:

1. A fawning news media. The mass media sees Hillary Clinton as too far right for their tastes and they pushed Obama into this race and into the front of this race with almost no effort required on his part.

2. Obama is black. There, I said it. Condemn me forever. Many people have been afraid to challenge him due to fears of being charged with racism.

3. Obama is formless. Obama knows he can't get elected on his own positions, so he only speaks in vague generalities and meaningless platitudes. It is difficult or impossible to attack platitudes. Obama says crap like "Americans need to come together" and his opponents are stuck with what -- arguing that Americans should not come together? No "normal" candidate could get away this this. Obama is only able to because of points #1 and #2.

Right. The mass media has washed the whole thing off the table.

Which, in an odd way, is OK with me. So he took a bribe and got away with it. At least that proves that he's not completely incompetent. I mean, this may be the only real world experience on his entire record.

I don't really care about how the Democrats select their grand wizard (keeping up the theme here...).

It's their job to pick the most electable candidate who represents their values. Among their nominees, I would have chosen Bill Richardson as the most electable (and I still believe this to be true), but he failed to successfully represent the Democratic values of class-warfare, government theft, socialized living, and a general disdain for America.

Instead, the Democrats have narrowed down the field to two candidates who more aggressively represent their values but will be much harder to elect.

Of course, at least the behavior of the Democratic party is understandable. They are childish and they want what they want. Their candidate selection process is more of a temper tantrum than anything else. The Republicans, on the other hand, wow... I am still completely lost trying to understand how they chose the one candidate who was most objectionable to their own base. (I don't count Ron Paul, he was never a real Republican candidate.)

The Democrats are just pathetic. The Republicans, on the other hand, something is wrong there which is beyond my comprehension.

 

Something like pizza Chicago-style

 

pizza is always good, i rather if obama wins because i want to have a choice for later.
hillary is no choice. also i hope the chicken hawks realize that mccain will bring back the draft and they have to get over ME that should put a hamper on their enthusiasm

 

The only people in support of bringing back the draft are Democrats.

And they don't even want to bring back the draft for the military -- they want to draft people into "public service" roles like picking up trash on the highway and building new cribs for crack hoes.

 

Thank you. We almost never agree, but this post was brilliant. I might even agree on the Ron Paul part. Like Goldwater, he might finish his career a (classic) liberal.

 

belive me if the military is in a little more pinch the old man is going to be fair about it and he will sign the bill .
any need for more troops and off you go boys and girls a war tax might pass also. he is a real hawk not a chicken hawk

 

I grant you he's a rock star, and the media is hot for him. It's not why I support him.

Blackness in America isn't exactly the imprimatur needed to become the next President.

If Obama is "formless," with "no specific plans," why do you regularly refer to him as a socialist? Because he kinda looks like a socialist?

Bribe - or, well, it's nothing, as its vetted rep seems to indicate.

Richardson never polled on a head-to-head with McCain. The only one with the numbers on this, consistently, has been Obama, who will very likely win the next Presidency.

*****

Pander. Intr. V. :To cater to the lower tastes and desires of others or exploit their weaknesses.

 

Hillary's numbers have not been that different than Obama's.

America survived electing Jimmy Carter as President; I figure that proves that we can survive just about anything.

One of these three assholes will get to sit in the oval office and try to ruin the country for four or eight years, then they will almost certainly be replaced with some other asshole.

It's difficult to take it all seriously when all of your choices are bad.

 

Oh geez, you're so clueless.

I know you are committed to taking my posts out of context, to frame your ridiculous assertions, but that one really takes the cake.

 

Yep, "context." Always is, apparently.

Everywhere on the forum, fro what I can tell, ad nauseum, and quite often, in my opinion, a particularly strident refrain to Will, "RP's the only Republican," but in this one instance, so long as it serves, it seems to me...voila!:

This isn't titanic, Guerilla. Just amusing.

 

I said consistently, Will, but I admit I could be wrong. I haven't looked in a while. What I did see when I was looking was Obama leading nationally, consistently outperforming Dem rivals.

I can appreciate your cynicism.

 

The second sentence qualifies the first, but because you are ignorant of what was an inside joke between Will and I, you again try to make the case that I meant something I did not.

Oops, exposed you again!