All Things Pro-Hillary

[Balta1701]

Ok, based on this LA Times bit, I'll retract my earlier statements.

Barack Obama, at a Memorial Day event in Las Cruces, N.M., credited his great-uncle, Charlie Payne, as being among the U.S. troops who liberated the Nazi concentration camp Auschwitz.

 

The trouble with that bit of history is -- as the Republican National Committee pointed out today -- is that the Soviet Red Army was the military force that liberated the World War II death camp.

 

The RNC seized the opportunity to fire off a news release, saying that “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.”

 

The Obama campaign soon acknowledged that the Democratic candidate made a mistake. It explained that Obama’s great-uncle was in the 89th Infantry Division that helped liberate another notorious death camp, Buchenwald. Obama, the campaign said, “is proud of the service of his grandfather and uncles in World War II -- especially the fact that his great-uncle was part of liberating of one of the concentration camps at Buchenwald.”

 

All of which raises the question: What's worse, Obama's apparent gaffe or the RNC pouncing on a Holocaust-related historical mistake for political advantage?

From what I'm reading now, I think it is actually fact that his Uncle's unit was the first to find part of the Buchenwald complex.

[Cknolls]

I find is irritating that so much attention has been focused on the occasional verbal gaffes of Obama and McCain. Not only are they silly things to dwell on, but let's put this in perspective here - neither of them are nearly as prone to them as Dubya is. Not even in the same ballpark. And yet, the MSM continues their laughable slide into becoming "A Current Affair", providing us with a deluge of pedantic and idiotic fodder for the pounce-and-denounce crowds to use as artillery. Ridiculous.

 

If these sorts of things are what make you choose McCain or Obama, then I respectfully hope that you get lost on the way to the voting booth.

 

But how many "gaffes" does one person get before you question them? 1.) 57 States 2.) Arabic translators in Afghanistan 3.) Uncle Auschwitz 4.) I see dead people. 5.) "I'm not very well known in Kentucky, Sen. Clinton is much better known coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. I think Illinois is even closer Senator, like border close. 6.) 1965 Selma march inspired his 1961 birth.

 

Would anyone honestly deny that Olbertool would have a field day with this material if MCCain was the speaker?

[NorthSideSox72]

But how many "gaffes" does one person get before you question them? 1.) 57 States 2.) Arabic translators in Afghanistan 3.) Uncle Auschwitz 4.) I see dead people. 5.) "I'm not very well known in Kentucky, Sen. Clinton is much better known coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. I think Illinois is even closer Senator, like border close. 6.) 1965 Selma march inspired his 1961 birth.

 

Would anyone honestly deny that Olbertool would have a field day with this material if MCCain was the speaker?

The point is, the MSM already DOES have a field day, because McCain has had just as many gaffes. To focus on those things, for either candidate, is pointless. Its one of the reasons why we end up with such lousy politicians so often, in my view. People focus on the irrelevant little things, and ignore the bigger, more important, but also more complex things.

 

And what the heck is #4 about anyway? I see dead people? Did I miss something?

 

[StrangeSox]

The point is, the MSM already DOES have a field day, because McCain has had just as many gaffes. To focus on those things, for either candidate, is pointless. Its one of the reasons why we end up with such lousy politicians so often, in my view. People focus on the irrelevant little things, and ignore the bigger, more important, but also more complex things.

And what the heck is #4 about anyway? I see dead people? Did I miss something?

Awkward phrasing is all.

"..”On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes — and I see many of them in the audience here today — our sense of patriotism is particularly strong”…"

 

McCain didn't know Sunni vs. Shi'ite.

Cheney claimed to have seen rows of crosses while flying over Arlington.

Reagan claimed to have liberated two concentration camps himself.

 

They all make mistakes while speaking publicly. None of the things CK listed really matter in the grand scheme of things. They're just a few miss-statements out of hundreds of hours of public speaking.

[Cknolls]

Awkward phrasing is all.

"..”On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes — and I see many of them in the audience here today — our sense of patriotism is particularly strong”…"

 

McCain didn't know Sunni vs. Shi'ite.

Cheney claimed to have seen rows of crosses while flying over Arlington.

Reagan claimed to have liberated two concentration camps himself.

 

They all make mistakes while speaking publicly. None of the things CK listed really matter in the grand scheme of things. They're just a few miss-statements out of hundreds of hours of public speaking.

 

My point was they are not reported the same way in the media. I couldn't care less what they say. I realize it is a long campaign and it is hard to be on

100% of the time. Just report all stories equally.

[StrangeSox]

What more do you want? It's all over the press and the internet.

[NorthSideSox72]

What more do you want? It's all over the press and the internet.

Seriously. Seems to me, at least lately, that its Obama's gaffes that are all over the news, and not McCain's (even though he has made them too).

 

[Balta1701]

They all make mistakes while speaking publicly. None of the things CK listed really matter in the grand scheme of things. They're just a few miss-statements out of hundreds of hours of public speaking.

Here's what would trouble me on any of these...if you keep making them, and then start acting like you actually think that way. If you make a mistake once, then fine, it's a mistake (example, roughly 50% of the things the President says). If you make a mistake repeatedly, then it's no longer a slip-up, it's not that you're tired, either you're lying or you misremember (example; Hillary's Bosnia Sniper fire deal). The potentially worst one is if you keep making a mistake that actually might effect policy matters (i.e. If McCain really doesn't understand the Sunni/Shi'a divide and just thinks that they're all Muslims so they all work together and all hate us), then that's about as bad as it could get.

[Mplssoxfan]

No question that Obama should know his history better, but this was an old family story he was relating. I'm certain that at some point in the telling and retelling of this tale, Buchenwald got changed to "a death camp", and "a death camp" got changed to Auschwitz, since, IMO, that is the place that most people who weren't in the war think of when they think of death camps.

 

The story is sort of a 60 year game of telephone.

[southsider2k5]

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/pos...zBkYjZiZTMxODg=

 

Obama's Team Rejected Nomination Petition Signatures Because They Were in Print?

 

This weekend, the Democratic National Committee will hold its first rules committee meeting, and passions and tensions are expected to be high, as the factions try to decide whether to count any delegates from Florida and Michigan, some of them, or all of them. The term "disenfranchisement" is likely to be thrown around a lot.

 

If, as expected, Obama's allies argue for no delegates or as few as possible, it is worth recalling a similar argument from earlier in his career, in his first political race.

 

David Mendell's Obama: From Promise to Power, page 110:

 

But Obama had one card up his sleeve. He could not envision how [rival Alice] Palmer's supporters, even as solidified as they seemed to be, had gathered the necessary number of voter signatures on her nominating petitions in such a short time. Palmer herself confessed at her press conference that the nearly sixteen hundred petitions she had filed with the state elections board had been accumulated in just ten days. So a volunteer for Obama challenged the legality of her petitions, as well as the legality of petitions from several other candidates in the race. As an elections board hearing on the petitions neared, Palmer realized that Obama had called her hand, and she acknowledged that she had not properly acquired the necessary number of signatures. Many of the voters had printed their names, rather than signing them as the law required. Palmer said she was desperately trying to get affidavits from those who had printed their names, but time was running out. She had no choice but to withdraw from the race. The other opponents were also knocked off the ballot, leaving Obama running unopposed in the primary.

 

I had heard the stories of Obama winning his first primary by getting all of his opponents disqualified. But I hadn't heard that the criteria for disqualifying his opponents was such a technicality. Signatures were rejected because the names were printed? People's signatures were actually thrown out because they weren't in cursive?

 

(This presumes that the board didn't have some other, oddly unstated reason to think that the printed names were fraudulent.)

 

Palmer needed 757 signatures; Obama's allies had to challenge about 700 or so. How many were rejected because they weren't in script?

 

The Tribune's reporting on the fight details how the Obama team knocked off hundreds of names for all of his rivals:

 

City authorities had just completed a massive, routine purge of unqualified names that eliminated 15,871 people from the 13th District rolls, court records show.

 

Ewell and other Obama rivals had relied on early 1995 polling sheets to verify the signatures of registered voters—but Obama's challenges were decided at least in part using the most recent, accurate list, records show.

 

Askia filed 1,899 signatures, but the Obama team sustained objections to 1,211, leaving him 69 short, records show...

 

Palmer to this day does not concede the flaws that Obama's team found in her signatures. She maintains that she could have overcome the Obama team's objections and stayed on the ballot if she had more time and resources.

 

Is at acceptable for the nominee of the party whose unofficial slogan since the 2000 recount has been "count every vote" to get all rivals removed from the ballot because some of their nominating signatures are printed? How can a party staunchly oppose requiring those who show up to the polls to show ID to ensure they are who they say they are, then accept the argument that a signature is invalid if the letters aren't one continuous line?

 

How many Chicago voters were aware of that criteria? Isn't that one step - or less - away from disenfranchisement? Keep in mind, this is the side of the aisle that in 2000 argued that a ballot that was deemed "no vote" by the vote-counting machine should still be counted if any "dimpled chads" could be found. They argued that intent to vote outweighed whether the voter had actually marked a ballot sufficiently to be picked up by the voting machine.

 

Doesn't a printed signature represent an intent to sign a nominating petition? Why is acceptable to reject the voter's intent in this case?

 

UPDATE: A reader notes that several states have this rule on the books, including Ohio's declaration, "A signature must be written in cursive on the petition if it is in cursive on the elector's registration record" and Delaware County's "'Signature' means that person's written, cursive-style legal mark written in that person's own hand." The reader notes,

 

I think the cursive vs. printed rules are going the way of the dinosaurs, but in the old days it was a way of assuring petition integrity. The signature on the petition has to be seen to match the signature on the voter registration card. Successful challenges are usually to petition "signatures" in printed hands when the voter id card on file has a cursive "signature." So the two dont match.

 

I see the reasoning behind it, although in Chicago, I suppose that it would also determine if the voter's signature changed after he died. (I know, I know, political races in the Windy City are much more honest now that the deceased vote only once.) What I'm left wondering is, did the voters know the rule? Pretty obviously not. Yes, it's the fault of the volunteers for the other campaigns for not reminding the signers to write in cursive, and I'm generally supportive of efforts to weed our voter fraud.

 

But in Florida, enforcing a rule about what constitutes a vote — i.e., you have to punch the hole completely — was deemed "disenfranchisement" by just about every Democrat in the country. That strikes me as much clearer and more justifiable; printing vs. cursive strikes me as much less compelling criteria to disallow a voter's effort, be it a cast ballot or a petition signature.

[EvilMonkey]

Apparently Obama's team has a new slogan: Change We Can Keep! Seems they are taking money for shirts on his website, and not delivering (some, most, alot) them. Is it because they can't even run a t-shirt distribution correctly, or because they are union made?

 

http://store.barackobama.com/product_p/ts00129.htm

 

 

Check out some of the comments:

 

Update!!! May31st and still no shirt or...any notification as to why they charged me 2 months ago and used my money, but no goods.

 

I waited over two months for my shirt only to receive a call this morning, saying it would NEVER arrive.

Two months for NOTHING is a disappointment, to say the least.

I give money to this campaign every single pay day, like clockwork, and have for nearly a year, but they can't figure out a way to get me one lousy shirt.

 

Geez, John Edwards campaighn got these type of tscokes in hand with a week

 

 

[mr_genius]

Looks like yet another blow out win for Hillary

[HuskyCaucasian]

Clinton Summons Top Donors, Supporters For Tuesday Speech

Hillary Clinton has summoned top donors and backers to attend her speech tomorrow night in an unusual move that is being widely interpreted to mean she plans to suspend her campaign and endorse Barack Obama.

[Texsox]

The question becomes, will she have a shot in 4 or 8 years? In many ways she is paralleling McCain. In 2000 it appeared that McCain has his chance, and it was over. Who knows, she may still have another run in her.

[NorthSideSox72]

The question becomes, will she have a shot in 4 or 8 years? In many ways she is paralleling McCain. In 2000 it appeared that McCain has his chance, and it was over. Who knows, she may still have another run in her.

I am starting to agree with those who are saying she's setting herself up for a 2012 run. She has been all but done for weeks, and yet has kept on beating on Obama, until the last few days. Her scorched earth campaign style has been detrimental to her party and the presumptive nominee. And even though she will concede the race today or tomorrow (when she is mathematically eliminated), she won't actually endorse Obama.

 

She wants McCain to win this year, so she can run against him in 2012, under the banner of "See - I would have been the better choice in 2008".

 

[mr_genius]

Poor Hill Hill. looks like it is actually over now.

 

It's pretty crazy how the Clintons went from Gods in liberal circles to total outcasts.

[Balta1701]

Poor Hill Hill. looks like it is actually over now.

 

It's pretty crazy how the Clintons went from Gods in liberal circles to total outcasts.

While they certainly have their supporters, at what point were they really considered "Gods" in liberal circles? When Bill ran for election, he did so as a "New democrat" and sort of governed that way. His health care signature plan never got off the ground. His big domestic accomplishments were things like welfare reform and balancing the budget. He was so divisive by the time he was done that Gore couldn't campaign with him, and couldn't convincingly win the election outside the margin of error in 2000 despite a seemingly strong economy and period of peace. Hillary managed to win a senate seat in NY, but then voted for the war. What issue or action have they done that would make them "Gods" in "li

[lostfan]

While they certainly have their supporters, at what point were they really considered "Gods" in liberal circles? When Bill ran for election, he did so as a "New democrat" and sort of governed that way. His health care signature plan never got off the ground. His big domestic accomplishments were things like welfare reform and balancing the budget. He was so divisive by the time he was done that Gore couldn't campaign with him, and couldn't convincingly win the election outside the margin of error in 2000 despite a seemingly strong economy and period of peace. Hillary managed to win a senate seat in NY, but then voted for the war. What issue or action have they done that would make them "Gods" in "li

Just the name recognition. Bill was still wildly popular among Democrats, no doubt about that. Hillary pretty much cruised through the early stages of the campaign almost on that alone.

 

Honestly, as far as her relative fall from grace, she really can't blame anybody but herself (and maybe Bill, who was a loose cannon for a good part of the campaign).

[mr_genius]

liberal groups always touted him as one of the greatest presidents of all time. Gore was criticized for distancing himself. Bill was always defended and revered. Hillary was also very popular in liberal circles. Now they are totally seen as villains in these same circles. I've never seen so much venom towards the Clintons, even from the right wing.

Edited June 3, 2008 by mr_genius

[lostfan]

I've never seen so much venom towards the Clintons, even from the right wing.

At first, there wasn't.

[NorthSideSox72]

liberal groups always touted him as one of the greatest presidents of all time. Gore was criticized for distancing himself. Bill was always defended and revered. Hillary was also very popular in liberal circles. Now they are totally seen as villains in these same circles. I've never seen so much venom towards the Clintons, even from the right wing.

Well, I agreed with your posts, until the last sentence. The amount of venom shot Bill's way in his last couple years dwarfs what Hillary is getting now.

 

And IMO, Gore didn't lose because of distancing himself from Clinton. He lost because he decided to change his affect to fit what his advisors thought was "Presidential". If he had just been himself, as he was after, I think he would have won.