Showing posts with label greg jones blacks4barack. Show all posts
Showing posts with label greg jones blacks4barack. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

Get Fired Up !

We at B4B had taken a bit of an hiatus during this GOP primary 'silly season' to get re-energized and now we're back. Although all of the Republican candidates are absolutely horrible (as you know) and seem totally unelectable, we must all be mindful of the absolute fact that if we don't get fired up from coast to of these Republi-clowns could become the next president simply due to our own complacency. That's what happened in the 2008 midterm elections in which the Dems received the biggest beatdown in modern day history resulting in us losing the House and many Governorships. We can't make that mistake this next election in November. So Get Fired Up.....tell your friends to Get Fired Up too ! The time is Now to Fight as if our lives depended upon it.....because it does ! By the way our site's new web address is Please tell all your friends to visit our site to sign up for our instant emails. Remember, Be Inspired...Be Informed...Be Involved !!! And Thank You for all that you do.
(Greg Jones)

It's Warrior Time !
B4B Home Page

Sunday, August 15, 2010

" Land of the Free...Home of the BRAVE "

....yea right !

I have NEVER seen such a bunch of COWARDS in my life (mostly on the Right).
Afraid of the Mexicans, afraid of the Muslims, afraid of The
Government, afraid of the Dems, afraid of The President, afraid of
Blacks, afraid of Iraq, afraid of Iran, afraid of N. Korea, afraid of
the Taliban, afraid of Al Queda, afraid of the gays, afraid of Hamas, afraid of the Left, afraid of 'anchor' babies, afraid of Hezbollah, afraid of unions, afraid of community organizers...and now...afraid of a building. PATHETIC !!!

(Greg Jones, National Director, Blacks4Barack
A multi-racial, net/grassroots org....Dedicated to TRUTH !)

Thursday, June 5, 2008


On a Thursday afternoon conference call with top donors to her campaign, Sen. Hillary Clinton pledged "total support for Barack Obama," according to one participant on the call who spoke to the Huffington Post. Alan Patricof, a key fundraiser, also said there was "absolutely no mention" of a possible vice presidential slot during the conversation, which was moderated by campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe.
"She was terrific," Patricof said. "She told everyone she was 100 percent supportive of Barack Obama and the DNC. She said she wanted everyone on the phone to be supportive -- and said she herself intends to do events on behalf of the nominee and the party. ... She was real upbeat, there wasn't the slightest bit of remorse or recriminations. It was all totally positive, looking forward. I was very impressed, and admired her for that."
Patricof said that while there was no vice presidential speculation, the New York Democrat said she would make herself available for in-person events alongside Obama, and told her donors she hoped they would organize events on his behalf as well.
The potential wedding of Clinton's big donor fundraising operation to Obama's record breaking, grass-roots powered juggernaut has been the subject of much anticipation in Democratic circles, especially considering the Democratic National Committee's latest edict -- prompted by the Obama campaign -- that it will forswear all lobbyist and PAC donations from now through the election. With Sen. John McCain not having hamstrung his party's national committee in the same way, and given the large advantage the Republican National Committee already has in cash-on-hand, it's a testament to Democrats' fiduciary confidence that no one seems to be worried about missing the lobbyists' money.
Craig Holman from Public Citizen's Congress Watch project told the Huffington Post that Obama has little to lose by rejecting lobbyist and PAC direct contributions -- which thus far only accounted for $3.1 million of the DNC's total $77 million raised this year. But he said the impact of the new Obama-initiated DNC policy might have greater consequences down the road when lobbyists are also forbidden from organizing, bundling or otherwise steering donations toward the party. "The only real hard numbers we have right now are direct lobbyist contributions. [The new policy] will present a much greater challenge when lobbyists are not allowed to play an active role in hosting fundraisers, or bundling contributions," Holman said, noting that the new disclosure system -- required by ethics reform that Obama championed in the Senate -- has yet to go into effect because of a dormant FEC. That means disclosure of the extent to which lobbyists are responsible for filling campaign coffers beyond direct contributions remains murky. "I don't think we'll have a good picture of that until later in the summer, when the FEC gets up and going," he said.
Beth Dozoretz, a longtime fixture as a high-dollar Democratic Party fundraiser and a Clinton backer during primary season, said no matter the lobbyists' total impact as fundraisers, "Obama has changed the game" to the extent that they won't be missed, at least for now. "I think while we will lose some amount of money [by banning lobbyist contributions], we will have participation on the Internet that is unparalleled and will more than make up for it. This is not a 'maybe' prediction. He [Obama] has demonstrated his ability like no one else. ... The major donor money proportionate to that of smaller donors is much smaller than it's ever been. I think now that we're all coalescing around our nominee, both candidates' constituents [will continue to donate] from 25 dollars to thousands of dollars. The potential is extraordinary. Having been a fundraiser for all these years, to see the Democrats have this broader reach, I just think it's great for the system and for the party."
Pressed on the question of whether any Clinton backers may wind up harboring residual bad feelings sufficient in scope to keep their pocketbooks closed, Dozoretz said she was certain that wouldn't happen. Dozoretz also brushed off McCain's Tuesday night speech, in which he referenced the pundits and party elders who "decided" Obama would be the nominee, in an apparent attempt to capitalize on sore feelings among Clintonites. "Three words. The. Supreme. Court. You can quote me on that," she said.
"As much as people may feel disheartened at the moment, I am absolutely certain that because of Senator Clinton's leadership, people wil rally around Obama quickly and decisively -- with her at the helm of that effort." (from huff post)
Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE !
A Multi-Racial, Net/Grassroots Org...Dedicated To Truth !

McCain Plans To Continue The

Article by Seth Colter Walls
More than five years after the initial invasion of Iraq, the Senate Intelligence Committee has finally gone on the record: the Bush administration misused, and in some cases disregarded, intelligence which led the nation into war. The two final sections of a long-delayed and much anticipated "Phase II" report on the Bush administration's use of prewar intelligence, released on Thursday morning, accuse senior White House officials of repeatedly misrepresenting the threat posed by Iraq.
In addition, the report on Iraq war intelligence harshly criticizes a Pentagon office for executing "inappropriate, sensitive intelligence activities" without the proper knowledge of the State Department and other agencies.
In addition to judgments that could prove troublesome for the White House and make waves in the presidential race, the report also contains some stinging minority reports from Republican committee members who allege that Democrats turned the intelligence review process into a "partisan exercise."
However, when the GOP controlled the intelligence committee and steered its "Phase I" reporting on the use of Iraq war intelligence, critics complained that tough questions about the Bush administration's actions had been kicked down the road, and thus required a second round of fact finding -- dubbed "Phase II." The committee's delay in producing that full report to the public was seen by Democrats as evidence of a stonewalling campaign executed by President Bush's Republican Senate allies.
Former Committee Chairman Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) often vacillated over whether or not the report was worth completing, first promising in 2004 that the work would be finished, and then calling it a "monumental waste of time" later in 2005. When Democrats gained control of the Senate after the 2006 midterm elections, they gained a majority of seats on the committee and set the course for the production of the final reports. Whether by partisan design or simple chance, however, the committee managed to save some of the best questions for last.
The "Phase II" report states -- in terms clearer than any previous government publication -- that there was no operational relationship between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, that Bush officials were not truthful about the difficulties the United States would face in post-war Iraq and that their public statements did not reflect intelligence they had at the time, and, specifically, that the intelligence community would not confirm any meeting between Iraqi officials and Mohamed Atta -- a claim that was nevertheless publicly repeated.
"Before taking the country to war, this Administration owed it to the American people to give them a 100 percent accurate picture of the threat we faced. Unfortunately, our Committee has concluded that the Administration made significant claims that were not supported by the intelligence," Rockefeller said in a statement provided to The Huffington Post.
"In making the case for war, the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed. ... There is no question we all relied on flawed intelligence. But, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate."
In a minority report authored by Sens. Orrin Hatch, Christopher Bond and Richard Burr, the Republicans accuse committee Democrats of committing a key error of governmental logic. "Intelligence informs policy. It does not dictate policy," they wrote. "Intelligence professionals are responsible for their failures in intelligence collection, analysis, counter-intelligence and covert action. Policymakers must also bear the burden of their mistakes, an entirely different order of mistakes. It is a pity this report fails to illuminate this distinction."
The key findings released by Rockefeller and his divided committee brings the five-part "Phase II" of the committee's report on prewar intelligence to completion. The investigation's first phase was released on July 2004, and two less controversial parts of "Phase II" were declassified in September 2006.
The potential election year impact of these latest findings is uncertain. On the stump, Sen. John McCain has explained his support of the "surge" strategy in Iraq by saying the country has become the "central front" in the war on terror -- a framing that attempts to shoot past the question of Iraq's status in the terror hierarchy during the 2003 campaign waged in Congress to authorize military action.
Still, the breadth of the Committee's citations of examples in which the Bush administration's comments were not supported by intelligence could reignite public dissatisfaction over the war. According to a release from Rockefeller's office that was provided to The Huffington Post, these examples include:
-- Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa'ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa'ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.
-- Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.
-- Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.
-- Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq's chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community's uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.
-- The Secretary of Defense's statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.
-- The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.
"It has been four years since the Committee began the second phase of its review," Sen. Dianne Feinstein wrote in her note attached to the report. "The results are now in. Even though the intelligence before the war supported inaccurate statements, this Administration distorted the intelligence in order to build its case to go to war. The Executive Branch released only those findings that supported the argument, did not relay uncertainties, and at times made statements beyond what the intelligence supported."
A Multi-Racial, Net/Grassroots Org...Dedicated To Truth !

(What Does SHE Want?...WHO CARES !)

By Bob Cesca
It's hip today to step back and allow Senator Clinton some breathing space in order to proceed through the various stages of whatever on her way to eventually -- some day -- conceding this nomination process to Presumptive Nominee Barack Obama. And I'm not exactly sure why the Clintons deserve such latitude -- especially this year and at this dangerous time in our national saga. After all, there's a gigantic OxyContin-buzzed Republican crap-bot bearing down on our presumptive nominee, and yet we're being forced to sit here and wait for Senator Clinton to finally step off.
"What does Hillary want? What does she want?" Senator Clinton asked last night. What does she want? Seriously? This misguided and self-centered attitude is what ultimately doomed her campaign.
It should never have been about what she wants -- or, now, what she's demanding as ransom in exchange for releasing her supporters. Senator Clinton is effectively holding up the works and delaying the big show even though she has spent too many weeks inexplicably bolstering Senator McCain's chances over Senator Obama in November -- even though every second she's remained in this race, despite the mathematical reality, she has forced Senator Obama to keep his army divided, when it ought to have been raging forward in a unified, fist-pumping head-first frontal assault against the nefarious Bush Republican political machine.
But she's Senator Clinton and she gets to do and demand whatever she wants for some reason. Even if it means diminishing the nominee and boosting the Republicans. Even if it means a victory for Senator McCain. Even if it means the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade. Even if it means 100 more years (or whatever McCain is saying today) in Iraq. Even if it means, as Thom Hartmann said yesterday, "More death."
This is one of several reasons why the Clinton campaign ultimately lost: because the Clinton campaign was all about Senator Clinton when, in the hearts and minds of a majority of Democrats, this nomination process was never about Senator Clinton and her ambitions and her famous name and her famous husband and her 3AM phone calls and her war stories and her scars. To wit: "Yes she will." Not only did her actual message fade away in lieu of her campaign's embarrassing attempt to mock Senator Obama's message, but her hackish spoof version of the Obama slogan was configured to be all about her (the Obama message is grounded in the collective "we"). Yes she will. Fortunately for us, Senator McCain has started to do the same thing -- mocking Senator Obama's far-superior branding. And, thankfully, Senator McCain looks a thousand times slimier doing it.
The Clinton campaign should never have been about her. This election, even before anyone officially declared, has always been about the evolution of the modern liberal movement and, more importantly, a newly evolved modern liberal movement gathering the required ammunition necessary to roll back the destructive and often criminal policies of the last 28 years -- and to do so in a way that might actually stick to the wall. And here in June 2008, while Senator Clinton dawdles around the stage doing her best to muscle the presumptive nominee while talking about what she wants, the horrible prospect of a McCain presidency hisses its way towards the zero barrier and the dismantling of American democracy nears the point of no return.
Senator Obama (or even if it had been Senator Clinton) needs a mandate in November. He needs an overwhelming electoral victory in order to have the political capital required to rebuild the nation in the aftermath of the terrible psychobombs George Bush and Dick Cheney have been detonating throughout this decade. And yet, here we sit. Talking about Senator Clinton and what she wants.
What happens if she isn't offered the vice presidential slot? Will she continue to stomp her feet and draw attention away from the nominee? Yes she will. Will she carry her campaign (in name and support only) to the convention? Yes she will. Will she continue to distract attention away from challenging Senator McCain's awfulness? Yes she will. So should she be offered the vice presidential slot, then? No she shouldn't.
Because a would-be Obama-Clinton campaign would end up being entirely about the Clintons. What they said; what they're doing; who's in control; do they get along; is she undermining him from within. Me, me, me. And besides, if she really wanted to be on the ticket, she wouldn't have engaged in this infuriating slash-burn-point-clap strategy in the first place -- a strategy which, by the way, continued through last night's speech.
But even after Senator Obama surpassed the original threshold of 2,025; even after he agreed to allowing the reinstatement of the Michigan and Florida delegates despite the previously and unanimously accepted sanctions; even after he surpassed the new threshold of 2,118 and also nears the bogus 2,209 number that the Clintons made up last month, Senator Clinton and her supporters continue to paint the Obama victory as somehow illegitimate. And Senator Clinton refuses to accept the notion that she is holding back the larger campaign -- the most important campaign of our time -- a campaign that isn't about her or even about Senator Obama. It's a campaign about turning the tide on 28 years of Reaganomics and environmental destruction and foreign policy blowback.
It's not so difficult, Senator. And even though I honestly believe that he's a crazy squirrel-munching hooplehead, here's Mike Huckabee's concession, for example:
Ladies and gentlemen, I called Senator McCain a few moments ago. It looks pretty apparent tonight that he will, in fact, achieve 1,191 delegates to become the Republican nominee for our party.
I extended to him not only my congratulations, but my commitment to him and to the party to do everything possible to unite our party, but more importantly to unite our country, so that we can be the best nation we can be, not for ourselves, but for the future generations to whom we owe everything, just as we owe previous generations all that they have done for us.
That's about right (even though it's in the name of a screwy, failed conservative movement).
We have an insanely challenging task ahead of us. Not just in defeating super-crazies like Mike Huckabee and Senator McCain, but also in confronting and debunking the corporate media's ridiculousness (i.e. "What's Obama's problem? Why can't he connect with the racist whites?"). And that's before November. If he manages to overcome the race-baiting 527 ads and all of the sinister e-mail whisper campaigns and the dubious voting machines, Senator Obama will have to achieve more in his first 100 days than most presidents have achieved in two full terms.
And yet, here we sit. Waiting for Senator Clinton to decide what she wants. This routine -- be it Senator Clinton's defiance, or the party's deferential behavior toward her -- illustrates exactly why this party, and liberalism with it, must change. And while we wait here in some kind of twisted Pollyanna limbo, Senator McCain is measuring the White House Residence to see if his Craftmatic adjustable bed will fit through the door.

UPDATE 7:26PM EDT: ABC News is reporting that Senator Clinton will suspend her campaign and endorse Senator Obama on Friday. Congressman Rangel and 23 other members of Congress called her today and told her that it was time. Rangel, a Clinton supporter, in particular was "angry" and thought Senator Clinton's speech was "rude," according to NBC's Andrea Mitchell just now on MSNBC.
Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE !

Wednesday, June 4, 2008

ABC News has learned Sen. Hillary Clinton had a conference call today with members of Congress and superdelegates in which there were discussions about her plans for getting out of the race, according to two Democratic sources.
Sen. Hillary Clinton. D-N.Y., said goodbye to her campaign staff Wednesday -- many of whom were told they would not be needed past Friday. (File photo)(Charles Dharapak/AP Photo)
All indications are Clinton will get out of the race by Friday.
Two sources tell ABC News a Friday event was discussed in which Clinton would be flanked by congressional supporters.
Despite the settled delegate math — Sen. Barack Obama needed 2,118 delegates to win and has 2,166 to Clinton's 1919, according to ABC News' delegate scorecard, — Clinton had said she will take a few days to think about her next move.
But some of her most loyal backers have begun to publicly urge her to exit the race and unify the Democratic Party behind Obama.
"Unless she has some good reasons — which I can't think of — I really think we ought to get on with endorsements [of Obama] and dealing with what we have to deal with … so we can move forward," New York Congressman Charlie Rangel told ABC News' Kate Snow.
Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE !

Tuesday, June 3, 2008

Former President Jimmy Carter To Endorse Obama Tonight !

ATLANTA — Former President Carter says he'll endorse Democrat Barack Obama after the polls close on the final primaries.
Carter told The Associated Press on Tuesday: "The fact is the Obama people already know they have my vote when the polls close tonight." Carter spoke to the AP after addressing the Georgia World Congress Center.
Carter, a superdelegate, has remained officially neutral in the race but has offered high praise to Obama. Carter has noted that his children, grandchildren and their spouses back the Illinois senator.
South Dakota and Montana hold primaries Tuesday.
Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE !

Monday, June 2, 2008

AP Newsbreak:
SC Congressman Jim Clyburn
endorses Obama, asking Dem
delegates to unify
Jun 02, 2008

The South Carolina congressman told The Associated Press on Monday that he has started to phone the state's superdelegates to ask them to get behind one candidate. When asked whether that candidate was Obama, Clyburn said yes.
Clyburn says he'll make a formal endorsement announcement Tuesday.
The backing of the highest-ranking black member of Congress comes more than four months after Obama won the Democratic primary in South Carolina.
Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE !


Hillary Clinton has summoned top donors and backers to attend her New York speech tomorrow night in an unusual move that is being widely interpreted to mean she plans to suspend her campaign and endorse Barack Obama.
Obama and Clinton spoke Sunday night and agreed that their staffs should begin negotiations over post-primary activities, according to reliable sources. In addition to seeking Obama's help in raising money to pay off some $20 million-plus in debts, Clinton is known to want Obama to assist black officials who endorsed her and who are now taking constituent heat, including, in some cases, primary challenges from pro-Obama politicians.
"This has never happened before," one donor said, referring to the personalized request by email to attend the event in New York Tuesday night.
Obama is expected to claim enough delegates to put him over the top that night at a separate event in St. Paul.
Earlier in the day it was reported that Clinton staffers were being urged by the campaign's finance department "to turn in their outstanding expense receipts by the end of the week," another sign that the run at the White House was nearing an end. In addition, Politico wrote that members of Clinton's advance staff had received calls and emails Sunday night, summoning them to New York City and telling them their roles on the campaign are ending.

Sunday, June 1, 2008

NEWSFLASH ! Vanity Fair:
Bill Clinton With Other Women
on Campaign Trail !
Next Issue To Expose !


Todd S. Purdum, former New York Times staffer and current Vanity Fair national editor, lets loose in the July issue of the magazine with a lengthy profile of Bill Clinton after leaving the White House. It's getting reduced to sex in some places -- friends worried that he was spending suspicion-raising time with attractive women on the road -- but there's no smoking gun (to stick with political metaphors), and focusing on speculation about a return to form for the former wanderer-in-chief does the article a disservice.

Purdum, who covered portions of the Clinton administration, offers up a deeply reported look at a primal force in politics facing his own dissipation. Scandal, big-bucks speaking fees, big-bucks pals like Ron Burkle with private planes, but also heart surgery and a clear physical deterioration. Bill Clinton is no longer the man he once was, though he is still a force -- Purdum describes Clinton as "the smiling, snowy-haired man who is the bride at every wedding and the corpse at every funeral he attends."

Purdum, who is married to Clinton's former press secretary, Dee Dee Myers, writes:
"To know Clinton is, sooner or later, to be exasperated by his indiscipline and disappointed by his shortcomings. But through it all, it has been easy enough to retain an enduring admiration — even affection — for a president whose sins against decorum and the dignity of his office seemed venial in contrast to the systemic indifference, incompetence, corruption, and constitutional predations of his successor’s administration. That is, easy enough until now.

"This winter, as Clinton moved with seeming abandon to stain his wife’s presidential campaign in the name of saving it, as disclosures about his dubious associates piled up, as his refusal to disclose the names of donors to his presidential library and foundation and his and his wife’s reluctance to release their income tax returns created crippling and completely avoidable distractions for Hillary Clinton’s own long-suffering ambition, I found myself asking again and again, What’s the matter with him?"
What's the matter, indeed.
-- Scott Martelle
Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE !

Expect Massive 'Hillary for V.P.' Push !

As it becomes more obvious that Hillary will lose you can expect some serious racheting up of the Hill for V.P. rhetoric which will be coming strong from all angles. The group VoteBoth who is secretly tied to the Hillary campaign will be pulling out all the stops to get her in the White House one way or another....even if it means 2nd seat position. You can also expect all of the news networks to push for the 'dream ticket' as the only way Obama can win.

Simply put, all Hillary is doing, as a sore loser and one who refuses to give up the ghost, is trying to hold her supporters as ransom with the attitude 'give me what I want or I won't release them'. So she'll instruct all of her surrogates and her friends in the media to do the big final push for her selection as Obama's running mate. Expect to see them non-stop all over the airwaves. Expect the pundits to claim that the so-called dream ticket is the only way Obama can win. Before long, even Bill will come out saying what a smart move it would be for Obama to choose her.

Bottom line....don't fall for it ! The LAST thing Obama should do is choose Hillary. Not only would Hillary's association give major ammunition to the Republicans to attack the dream ticket via exposing every Clinton scandal since Whitewater....they'll talk about how can Obama be for change since he chose her...they'll show how combative (and weird) Hill was during this entire campaign....dodging sniper fire, etc. They'll talk about how Obama is weak since he was forced to choose Hillary. Not to mention, Republicans absolutely hate the Clintons and her being a part of the ticket is just what McCain needs to spark motivation for bigger Repub turnout.

But the main reason Hillary should NEVER be Obama's V.P. is one simple thing: Just remember her ASSASSINATION STATEMENT ! Obama would be absolutely crazy to have a diobolically dangerous person such as Hill sitting around just one breath away from the Presidential slot. (That phrase means if Obama stops breathing....she's in).

So, until Obama declares his V.P. selection, everytime you hear these pundits and surrogates pushing like crazy the so-called dream ticket....just remember what they REALLY want....they want her to be one breath away.

p.s. There are a certain number of Hillary supporters who will refuse to vote for Obama. We can make up for those lost votes by making sure that EVERY eligible voter is registered and votes in November. Help make sure that everyone you know is registered....if them get registered. That will be the key !

Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE !
For Voter Registration Information....It's EZ !

Former Bush Donors Now Giving
To Obama's Campaign

WASHINGTON — Beverly Fanning is among the campaign donors who'll be joining President Bush at a gala at Washington's Ford's Theater Sunday night, but she says that won't dissuade her from her current passion: volunteering for Barack Obama's presidential campaign.
She isn't the only convert. A McClatchy computer analysis, incomplete due to the difficulty matching data from various campaign finance reports, found that hundreds of people who gave at least $200 to Bush's 2004 campaign have donated to Obama.

Among them are Julie Nixon Eisenhower, the daughter of the late GOP President Richard Nixon and wife of late GOP President Dwight Eisenhower's grandson; Connie Ballmer, the wife of Microsoft Chief Executive Officer Steve Ballmer; Ritchie Scaife, the estranged wife of conservative tycoon Richard Mellon Scaife and boxing promoter Don King.

Many of the donors are likely "moderate Republicans or independents who are dissatisfied with the direction of the country now and are looking for change," said Anthony Corrado, a government professor at Colby College in Maine who specializes in campaign finance.
"There is a large block of Republicans, particularly economic conservatives, who just feel that the Republican Party in Washington completely let them down" by failing to control spending and address other problems, Corrado said. "The Republicans have really given these donors no reason to give."

Lawyer Allen Larson of Yarmouthport, Mass., a political independent, contributed $2,000 to Bush's 2004 reelection campaign, but said he gave Obama the maximum $2,300 in hopes he can use his "unique skills" to rebuild fractured foreign alliances.
Larson said he's "not anti-Iraq war," but he said that Bush promised to bring people together when he ran for president and has failed to do so, while Obama has demonstrated in his campaign "that he has the ability to connect in ways that no other candidate can."
While they represent a tiny slice of Bush's 2004 donors, he said, a shift of longtime Republicans committed enough to write checks reflects "a real strain" in the GOP.

Detroit attorney Michael Lavoie, a moderate Republican who backed Bush in 2000 and 2004 with $3,000, said he donated to a Democratic presidential candidate for the first time this year because Obama offers "the greatest hope for healing divisions" at home and abroad.
Calls to more than a dozen of the Bush-turned-Obama backers suggest there are multiple motives for their shifts.

Lavoie, 55, of Birmingham, Mich., said he's been "very disappointed in George Bush's policy with the Iraq war and very disappointed with his economic policies that added $3 trillion to the national debt."

Remembering the horrors of Vietnam, he expressed dismay that "the Republican party engages in the spin, the propaganda, the selling of the war."
Katherine Merck, 84, of Lexington, Mass., preferred not to recall her donations of $2,000 to Bush in 1999 and $2,000 in 2004.
"I just can't get over it that my name is in there for sending money to that miserable president," she said. "I think Obama is something we all need badly, really badly. I think that people need to grow up more and learn how to get on in the world without resorting to killing people. I'm talking about the war in Iraq."

Beverly Fanning said she thinks Bush has been "great," but like several others, she said she was taken with Obama's speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention and continued to follow him after he won a U.S. Senate seat and declared his presidential candidacy.
"Am I all the way liberal?" Beverly Fanning asked. "I think I'm actually a conservative liberal. . . . It's not that I'm against McCain. It's just that Barack is my choice."
Worried about the loss of manufacturing jobs to Third World countries, she said, she began volunteering early this year for Obama, who says he'd consider amending trade pacts to protect those jobs.

The 48-year-old mother of two has given Obama more than a dozen donations, hitting the maximum $2,300 for the primaries. She's even knocked on the doors of 300 homes in Orangeburg, S.C. and in the affluent Cleveland suburb of Shaker Heights.
Fanning said that her husband Tom, the chief operating officer of the Southern Co., a major electric utility, is a solid Republican who backs McCain for president but gave $1,000 to Obama in February.

She said that Obama has "a lot of white support," but she blanched during a recent visit to her hometown of Bristol, Tenn., when someone told her a racist joke.
"I told him, 'I have been volunteering for Barack Obama for five months,' " she said. "I thought the guy was gonna faint."
Some converts declined to give any hint of their reasons.
"I consider that to be a private matter," said Jeffrey Leiden, a Glencoe, Ill., cardiologist who's a former president of Abbott Laboratories' pharmaceutical products group.
Corrado said he thinks some of the ex-Bush donors have given to Obama to hurt Hillary Clinton — a suspicion confirmed by Henry Corey, 86, of Bronxville, N.Y., a longtime GOP donor.
He said he gave Obama $250 because, "frankly, I wanted to be sure that someone nudged Hillary Clinton aside. I think she'd be a disaster."
Chris Adams and Tish Wells contributed to this article.
McClatchy Newspapers 2008

Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE !

Saturday, May 31, 2008

Following Fla.-Mi. Decision

The Democratic Rules and Bylaws Committee decision on Saturday to seat the Florida and Michigan delegations to the Democratic conventions with their voting strength cut in half is a major boost for Barack Obama, and a clear signal that the long and bitter fight for the nomination is on the verge of ending.
With the deck stacked against them, the Clinton forces may have had no choice but to abandon their demand that every Michigan and Florida delegate be seated with a full vote for each. In making the concession, the New York Senator not only settled for a net gain of just 26.5 delegate votes instead of 56, but gave up a crucial issue to take to the August convention in Denver.
"The Clinton campaign lost their biggest rationale for staying in the race," said California-based Democratic consultant Bill Carrick. "Any potential for Senator Clinton to pick up a large block of delegates is gone and the superdelegates will likely move to Senator Obama and end the race."
Jim Jordan, who managed John Kerry's 2004 presidential bid during its preliminary stages, was more explicit. "Even the Clinton folks acknowledged that this was their last gasp. So that's it. Time to turn to what matters, winning in November. And it's time for Senator Clinton herself to start salving the party's wounds."
Officially, the Clinton campaign declared that it was not giving up its right to appeal the decision of the Democratic Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) to the full convention over a relatively minor issue - four Michigan delegates given to Obama -- but, by accepting the resolution of the Florida seating issue without dissent, the campaign lost its strongest case.
Obama emerged from the RBC proceedings with a grand total of 2,052 delegates, just 66 short of the 2,118 required to win the nomination. Clinton has 1,877.5 delegates, 240.5 short of the number needed to win.
There are still three primaries to go -- in Puerto Rico, South Dakota and Montana. Polling shows Clinton holding a double digit lead in Puerto Rico, while Obama holds a comparable lead in South Dakota and Montana. The three jurisdictions will send a total of 111 delegates to the convention, so that it is possible Obama could reach the magic 2,118 by the end of the day Tuesday, but he is likely to also need additional support from superdelegates who are free to make their own choice of a candidate.
Shortly after the RBC completed deliberations, Clinton's chief strategists on the committee, Harold Ickes and Tina Flournoy, declared that they may still fight over four delegates from Michigan:
Today's results are a victory for the people of Florida who will have a voice in selecting our Party's nominee and will see its delegates seated at our party's convention. The decision by the Rules and Bylaws Committee honors the votes that were cast by the people of Florida and allocates the delegates accordingly.
We strongly object to the Committee's decision to undercut its own rules in seating Michigan's delegates without reflecting the votes of the people of Michigan. The Committee awarded to Senator Obama not only the delegates won by Uncommitted, but four of the delegates won by Senator Clinton. This decision violates the bedrock principles of our democracy and our Party.
We reserve the right to challenge this decision before the Credentials Committee and appeal for a fair allocation of Michigan's delegates that actually reflect the votes as they were cast.
A credentials fight over four delegates would be just a blip on the screen compared to what could have been a convention floor battle over the seating of 210 Florida and 156 Michigan delegates.
Robert Bauer, counsel to the Obama campaign, noted that the committee decision "does remove one obstacle. It is not clear she [Clinton] will see it that way."
Jonathan M. Prince, deputy manager of John Edwards' failed presidential bid, said "everything that's going on now is (and should be) about dignified closure....there's no good guy and no bad guy and it's in everyone's interest for both candidates to leave the field with their heads held high - one having run a historic race and winning, ready to unite the party and move on to the real fight, the other having run a historic race and almost winning."
Similarly, Robert Borosage, president of the Institute for America's Future and co-director of the Campaign for America's Future, said "This is all but over." He predicted a scenario of, "the Clintons accept the inevitable. The convention is unified. Hillary Clinton works harder than any other surrogate to elect the ticket."
"There is a new sheriff in town, [House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi," said Democratic media specialist James Duffy. "In my mind she is driving the bus, and she will drive it right over the Clintons and if they miss the fact they got run over, she will back up and run over them again." (Huffington Post)

Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE !
UPDATE: Sources: DNC Florida Compromise Reached,
Michigan Hangs In Balance
Sam Stein
The Huffington Post

May 31, 2008 09:37 AM

Two sources, including a high-ranking official with the Florida delegation, have confirmed that the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee reached an agreement last night and will seat the state's entire delegation but give each delegate half a vote. The result would be a net gain of 19 delegates for Sen. Hillary Clinton, though no word yet on how the superdelegates from the state will be allocated. It is, the official says, a compromise that Sen. Barack Obama will be willing to make. "There will be theater but not much fight."
Circumstances, however, are looking very much different concerning the battle over how to handle Michigan's delegation. As of Saturday morning, no compromise had been reached. The idea of splitting the state's delegation 50-50 has been discussed but Clinton's camp, one source said, was not agreeing to the arrangement. In addition, reports are circulating around the DNC meeting that Sen. Carl Levin, who will be speaking on behalf of Michigan, will press for the seating of the state's full delegation, with full votes for each.

"If he does not get his way," wrote The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder, "he will likely challenge the RBC's ruling when the credentials committee convenes unless the rules and bylaws committee promises to strip Iowa and New Hampshire of their privileged status in 2012."
As it stands now, the Rules and Bylaws Committee could resolve the Florida situation while leaving Michigan hanging in the balance -- a situation that is tenable under party rules but leaves open the possibility, however slim, that the delegation matter would be unresolved until the convention.

Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE !

Tuesday, May 27, 2008

Black Political
Supporters Should Speak Out
Against Hillary's Assassination Insinuation


By Greg Jones

The day before Hillary's horrifically diobolical assassination insinuation, I was in the midst of writing a piece regarding how we, particularly blacks, should treat black politicians who had sided with Hillary. Folks like Charley Rangel, Maxine Waters, Sheila Jackson Lee, Stephanie Tubbs Jones (my Congresswoman) and the like. Here's a bit of what I had written, "...Let's rally behind them in support of their future political careers. Let's keep voting for them (as long as they keep doing a good job). Let's not go against fact, let's show them some love. I know, some of you think I must be crazy but......"

Then, the very next day as you all know, Hillary made the most incredible insinuation (or hope) that anyone could make. To justify staying in the race because anything could happen....even assassination, was a true shock heard 'round the country. And, although many in the media are trying to downplay her sentiment as a misspeak or gaffe as they call it, we as blacks know the real deal. Hillary was either trying to send a subliminal message to some nut....or deeply hopes harm on Obama. WHATEVER the reason, it is a total abomination that should be addressed accordingly.

Blacks and whites nationwide have bombarded forums and blogs stating their outrage for her incredibly dangerous remark. But one group has been totally silent. Where are all of the black politicians who have supported Hillary up until now? They know, as all blacks know, that from the very first day Obama declared his candidacy, the first question that arose in the minds of all blacks was 'will he get snipered'? We all know that right out of the gate, Obama had to hire 24 hour Secret Service Protection....Why ? Because of the true threat of some nut wanting to harm him or his family.

And now, for Hillary herself to be the one sending out the little just a true disgrace to herself, to her supporters and to all Americans. Every black political supporter should be demanded to speak out against Hillary's destructive mentality and rhetoric. They must each denounce her statement publicly and let it be known that they find her comments to be absolutely improper, sinister and out of line with the progress being made by so many in our country.

If they do not, they will be showing us that they have become so politicized that even the thought of the assassination of a fellow human being, let alone a brother, is a tolerable occurance in their book, which is certainly not in-line with the views and concerns of their constituents. Therefore, they MUST BE VOTED OUT ! I feel confident that this is not the case. But, we shall see. So Charley, Sheila, Maxine, Steph and the gang....please don't let us down. We're counting on you !

As the late, great Johnny Cochran may have put it...
Demand that they denounce...or they must get the Bounce !

No Wonder It Has Taken 40 Years !

Greg Jones
Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE !
Contact The Author

Following Hillary's Assassination Insinuation
McCain says he and Obama
should visit Iraq...together !

Associated Press Writers Tue May 27

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. - Republican John McCain on Monday sharply criticized Democratic rival Barack Obama for not having been to Iraq since 2006, and said they should visit the war zone together.
"Look at what happened in the last two years since Senator Obama visited and declared the war lost," the GOP presidential nominee-in-waiting told The Associated Press in an interview, noting that the Illinois senator's last trip to Iraq came before the military buildup that is credited with curbing violence.
"He really has no experience or knowledge or judgment about the issue of Iraq and he has wanted to surrender for a long time," the Arizona senator added. "If there was any other issue before the American people, and you hadn't had anything to do with it in a couple of years, I think the American people would judge that very harshly."
McCain, a Navy veteran and Vietnam prisoner of war, frequently argues that he's the most qualified candidate to be a wartime commander in chief. In recent weeks, he has sought portray Obama, a first-term senator, as naive on foreign policy and not experienced enough to lead the military.
The Iraq war, which polls have shown that most of the country opposes, is shaping up to be a defining issue in the November presidential election.
McCain, who wrapped up the GOP nomination in March, supports continued military presence in Iraq though he recently said he envisions victory with most U.S. troops coming home by January 2013 if he's elected. Obama, who has all but clinched the Democratic nomination, says he will remove U.S. combat troops within 16 months of taking office, though sometimes he shortens it to 11 months.
"For him to talk about dates for withdrawal, which basically is surrender in Iraq after we're succeeding so well is, I think, really inexcusable," said McCain, who has been to Iraq eight times, most recently in March.
Obama spokesman Bill Burton declined to respond directly to McCain, saying only: "Senator Obama thinks Memorial Day is a day to honor our nation's veterans, not a day for political posturing."
Over the weekend, Sen. Lindsey Graham, one of McCain's top surrogates, laid the groundwork for McCain's criticism in a television interview in which he noted Obama's absence from Iraq and floated the idea that Obama and McCain should go together to be briefed by Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
Asked whether he'd be willing to take such a trip, McCain told the AP: "Sure. It would be fine."
"I go back every few months because things are changing in Iraq," he said. McCain questioned whether Obama has ever been briefed by Petraeus. "I would also seize that opportunity to educate Senator Obama along the way."
Both McCain and Obama spent part of Memorial Day in New Mexico, a general election battleground that was decided by razor-thin margins in 2000, for Democrat Al Gore, and in 2004, for Republican President Bush.
Obama addressed veterans Monday in Las Cruces while McCain used a speech at the New Mexico Veterans Memorial in Albuquerque to press his case against withdrawing troops from Iraq, saying they must continue their mission even though he's "sick at heart" by mistakes at the outset of the war.
McCain also defended his opposition to Senate-passed legislation that would provide additional college financial aid to veterans, a measure Obama supports.
The Republican made no direct mention of the Democrat but seemed to poke at him nonetheless.
McCain said his opposition to the bill was the right rather than the politically expedient position, suggesting Obama was on the wrong side of the measure sponsored by Democratic Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia and approved by the Democratic-controlled Senate. Lawmakers blocked a more limited version that McCain supported.
"I am running for the office of commander in chief. That is the highest privilege in this country, and it imposes the greatest responsibilities. And this is why I am committed to our bill, despite the support Senator Webb's bill has received," McCain said. "It would be easier, much easier politically for me to have joined Senator Webb in offering his legislation."
However, McCain said he opposed Webb's measure because it would give everyone the same benefit regardless of how many times they enlist. He said he feared that would depress reenlistments by those wanting to attend college after only a few years in uniform. Rather, McCain said the bill he favored would have increased scholarships based on length of service.
McCain spent the early part of the holiday weekend at his retreat in Sedona, Ariz., where he entertained some two dozen guests, including three fellow Republicans who have been mentioned as possible vice presidential running mates: Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.
"It really was just a social occasion," McCain told the AP. Asked whether he did any vetting of the three, McCain said: "None. Zero. There is plenty of time for that kind of thing." (end)
Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE !

FOX NEWS Owner Rupert Murdoch
Held Fund Raiser For HILLARY !
Read Article from
New York Times
By: Ann Kornblut

WASHINGTON,— Strengthening a pragmatic rapprochement, Rupert Murdoch has agreed to give a fund-raiser this summer for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, the latest sign of cooperation between the conservative media mogul and the Democratic lawmaker who has often been a prime target of his newspaper and television outlets.

Asked about her relationship with Mr. Murdoch, Mrs. Clinton described him as simply "my constituent," and she played down the significance of the fund-raiser. Both sides said that Mr. Murdoch and Mrs. Clinton were joining forces for the good of New York, where Mr. Murdoch's $60 billion News Corporation employs about 5,000 workers.

"I am very gratified that he thinks I am doing a good job," Mrs. Clinton said in the Capitol on Tuesday, according to a transcript made available by her office after word of the fund-raising event was first reported by The Financial Times.
Yet the developing relationship between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Murdoch — who has built an empire in part on the strength of media outlets like Fox News and The New York Post that delight in skewering the Clintons — has drawn special attention, perplexing some political analysts and infuriating some liberals already suspicious of Mrs. Clinton's centrist positioning. Although she is ostensibly raising money for her re-election to the Senate this year, she is widely considered to be laying the groundwork for a presidential bid in 2008.

"The brazenness of this move is almost too much to stomach," wrote David Sirota, a liberal commentator, on his blog. "Here you have a leading Democratic U.S. senator engaging in a 'mating ritual' with the head of the news network that has overtly worked to systematically destroy both the Democratic Party and her own husband's administration."
Mr. Murdoch, known for his shrewd business skills and his tendency to prize political power over ideology, gave a similar fund-raiser for Senator Charles E. Schumer, also a Democrat, in 2003, and has donated money to several Democrats.
Paul Waldman, a senior fellow at the liberal advocacy group, said the outcry from liberals over the Murdoch fund-raiser was to be expected. "People on the left don't like it because they find new things not to like about Hillary all the time," he said. At the same time, he said, Mr. Murdoch would only stand to gain by helping elevate a political figure who helps drive up ratings and circulation.

"Nothing could be better for his media properties than for her to be president of the United States," Mr. Waldman said. "I just can't figure out what's in it for her. She doesn't need the money, and it doesn't really buy her any credentials as a moderate."
How much slack the relationship has bought her is up for debate; while The Post attacked her former Senate opponent, Jeanine F. Pirro, and has praised Mrs. Clinton's work in Washington, her advisers note that the most vocal figures on Fox News still lacerate her frequently.
Nonetheless, both Mrs. Clinton and former President Bill Clinton have nurtured ties to Mr. Murdoch and his organization over the last few years. Mr. Clinton recently accepted an invitation from Mr. Murdoch to speak to a gathering of executives in Pebble Beach, Calif., later this year. He will also include Mr. Murdoch in his Clinton Global Initiative conference on climate change, poverty and corruption this September, for the second year in a row.

"While they disagree on a lot of political issues, they've found some areas, like the Clinton Global Initiative, that transcend politics," said Jay Carson, a spokesman for the Clinton Foundation.
Last month, Mrs. Clinton was one of only two Democratic senators who appeared at a Fox News Sunday anniversary party at the Cafe Milano in Georgetown, where Mr. Murdoch was in attendance.

Mrs. Clinton's office declined to give details of how the Murdoch fund-raiser came about; she rarely divulges her fund-raising calendar and bars the news media from almost all donor events with fewer than 200 guests.
Mr. Murdoch, for his part, is said to view the fund-raiser as a wise business move. His company has numerous holdings beyond the most visible New York media organizations. "I think he, as a constituent, and as a business leader in New York City, wanted to demonstrate his support for the work she has done on behalf of the state and for her advocacy of the city after 9/11," said Gary Ginsberg, a News Corporation executive.
Mr. Ginsberg provides another link between the two camps: he was a White House aide during the Clinton administration. The same is true of Howard Wolfson, one of Mrs. Clinton's closest political advisers, who counts the News Corporation among his clients at the consulting firm Glover Park Group.

An article on Wednesday about Rupert Murdoch's plans to hold a fund-raiser for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton misstated the stock market value of his News Corporation in some copies. It is $60 billion, not $6 billion. (end)

WOW !!!! This is VERY INTERESTING. So we were right all this time. No wonder Fox seems to be so pro- Hillary. It is also rumored that Murdoch is a stock holder in CNN.....which explains even more.

Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE !

Friday, May 23, 2008

From Blacks4Barack !

Demand To DNC: Kick Hillary Out NOW !
Insinuates (Or Hopes) That Obama Could Be ASSASSINATED !

Now, things have gone way too far. Friday, in an appearance in South Dakota, Hillary Clinton justified her reason for staying in the campaign by referring to the fact that presidential hopeful 'Robert Kennedy was assasinated in June'...implying that the same could occur to senator Obama. THIS IS SICK !!! Regardless of how the pundits try to spin this as just another misspeak, the statement speaks for itself and displays the diobolical mentality of Hillary Clinton.

It is unclear as to whether she is actually hoping that Obama would be killed, therefore giving her an open path to the Democratic nomination, or if she may be signaling her desire to some sick, warp minded homicidal maniac. Whichever be the case, her statement is automatic grounds for the Democratic National Committee headed by Howard Dean to demand that she remove herself from the race. If he does not, American Democratics should demand HIS stepping down !

This can not be tolerated !! Regardless of who you are a supporter of, Hillary, Obama or McCain, ANYONE who would wish the death of another human being in order to win a political position is sick, dangerous, maniacal, deranged and totally mentally and morally unfit for any political position, particularly President or V.P. of the United States.




CALL DNC: 202-863-8000

She is unfit to be in politics of any kind including New York Senate
Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE !

Would Hillary Kill
To Be President...literally ?
By Greg Jones

NOTE: (This article was originally written the day before Hillary Clinton's deadly assassination statement which puts a bit of a new light on this article)
As the Democratic primaries wind down and it becomes more apparent that Obama will win the nomination, the heat is being turned up regarding Hillary in the V.P. slot. Time Magazine just did an article that declares how it is actually Bill Clinton who is pushing for Hillary to take the slot. It has also been reported that a special group called VoteBoth (which is secretly run by Clinton staffers) has been formed to help push the media to talk up the 'dream ticket'. So, as she gets closer and closer to losing, the volume gets turned up to put her in the Vice spot.

There are a number of problems with this 'dream'. First of all, Hillary and Bill have said so many negative statements against Obama that they obviously just plain old don't like him. They can't stand that this black guy named Obama who has blocked them from what they just knew was theirs for the taking. They are mad as heck ! We all know this. So why would anyone think that if she was chosen to be Obama's Vice that she would be truly dedicated to making his presidency as effective and great as it could be. Plus, Bill would be hanging around doing little tricky things to sabotage Obama's success in the Oval Office. Not to mention, right now, the Clintons can't stand black folks. We all know it. They hate that we woke up to the Clinton 'con the blacks' tactic that will never work again.

Another fact, if Hillary is on the ticket, the GOP will be pulling out every Clinton scandal in history from Whitewater, Lewinsky, impeachment, Tora Bora just to name a few, which will inspire all Republicans to come out in record numbers not so much to vote FOR McCain, but for the pleasure of voting against The Clintons....who they hate. So Hillary being on the ticket could actually greatly hurt Obama's chances of defeating McCain.

And of course, Obama and Hillary don't see eye to eye on certain issues....Hillary voted for the Iraq war, Obama against. Hillary's health care plan is simply a law forcing all Americans to buy their own insurance or be punished, whether they can afford it or not...Obama's does not. Hillary wants to obliterate Iran, Obama wants to have organized discussion toward peace. Hillary is a huge liar, Obama is not. So it just wouldn't work.

But the MAIN reason that Hillary should never be Obama's V.P. is one that is NEVER mentioned in the MSM (main stream media), although it is brought up regularly in black discussions. Many are afraid that the Clintons are so power hungry that they would literally have Obama killed so that Hillary could fill his Presidential slot. They would probably have some black guy do it (or be framed) in an attempt to temper down the anticipated response of Black Americans. Now, before some of you say that I have just gone too far, I ask you all to simply Google: 'Clinton Body Count'. You'll find a list of close to 30 people who have all been involved with the Clintons who are now all DEAD ! This is a fact. The media knows about this 'body count' but you never hear any pundit mention it at all (although some do 'joke' that Obama would need a food taster....which is an incredible thing to say) But, it is an absolute fact, as power hungry as the Clintons are, the worse thing Obama could ever do is have Hillary next in line. That could just be absolutely suicidal !

'Nobody would do something like that', you may say, but who would think that anyone would invade another country under the fake pretense of 'weapons of mass destruction', blowing up the entire country, even giving it a name 'Shock & Awe'.....killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis while over 4000 brave Americans are killed and thousands mamed for life like expendable pawns....and all of this ....for some OIL !

Just like we can not put anything past this Bush Regime, we can not put anything past the Clintons. Birds of a feather....destroy together. Now of course, we hope that the Clintons are really not this diabolical. And to the Hillary supporters who get angered by this sentiment, first do the Google check (Clinton Body Count)....then ask yourselves...Would YOU want Hillary (the Clintons) to be YOUR V.P. ? Better safe than sorry !

Disclaimer: We are not accusing the Clintons of anything.....but as Arsenio Hall used to say...this is just one of those 'things that make you go....hmmmmm'

Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE !

Thursday, May 22, 2008

Obama Heightens V.P. Search :
Who Are The Frontrunners?
Will Thomas
Huffington Post

With the Democratic nomination now in its endgame, it's time to speculate on that question that makes politicos weak at the knees: who will be tapped to be vice president? Unlike the top job, there is no election here, and it's the first big choice that we get to see the candidate make about his cabinet.
So, who will Obama pick? Will he favor someone with experience like Joe Biden? A Western governor like Janet Napolitano? Or will he satisfy the media's desire for a dream team and try for the Obama/Clinton ticket?
We've identified 10 possible VP choices for Obama, as well as the general criteria that might guide his decision. Think we're missing someone? Let us know in the comments section. And be sure to register your favorite on HuffPost's Vice President poll.
Location, location, location: A VP who is popular at home can help land a win in a tossup state. It's one reason why someone like Sherrod Brown (OH) could be a good pick. Of course, location isn't everything; Cheney, after all, is from Wyoming.
Strong anti-war record: It's not a requirement that someone be against the war to run on an Obama ticket, but they will have to have a good track record explaining why they changed their mind. Otherwise, expect all those comments about Hillary Clinton to come up, as well as one word: "opportunist."
Post-partisan record: If you're running to overcome the divided state of politics, you probably won't inspire confidence by picking Sen. Russ Feingold as your running mate. Sen. Jim Webb (a former Republican) or Gov. Schweitzer (picked a Republican as his Lieutenant General) are good examples.
Complementing record: On the one hand, a VP can balance a candidate's weaknesses. On the other hand, they can magnify those shortcomings. Richardson and Biden, for example, have long resumes that let them go toe-to-toe with McCain, but it could remind voters of Obama's inexperience.
Jim WebbWebb is the closest thing to a frontrunner for Obama's VP these days. A former Republican, he served as Secretary of the Navy for Ronald Reagan. Webb defeated George "Macaca" Allen to become a junior senator in Virginia.
Pro: Webb is a good foil for Obama's post-partisan message, and he's got the military credentials to match up with John McCain. He's good at playing the attack dog, which will let Obama take the high road. And he's from trending-blue Virginia, which would be a great pickup in November for Democrats. He's also pro-guns.
Con: Webb can be a little out-of-control as attack dogs go.
Hillary ClintonThis ticket is either a dream or a nightmare. Some see it as the only way to reunite the Democrats in time for November. Other see it as the fastest way to destroy the Obama brand.
Pro: Strong appeal with working class voters and women.
Con: See Iraq War vote, 3AM phone call, Bill Clinton in South Carolina, and the month of March.
Bill RichardsonYou know him, you love him; he's the New Mexico governor with a heart of gold, a kickin' mustache, and -- thanks to James Carville -- a new nickname.
Pro: You've heard them all before. A foreign policy resume a mile long, executive experience, and a lock with Hispanic voters. And he picked Obama, despite his Clinton ties.
Con: Did you watch any of the debates?
Joe BidenHe is Mr. Foreign Policy. He also claims the best line of the primary season thus far. Too bad no one told Iowans he was running for President.
Pro: He trumps any foreign policy claims that McCain brings to the table. He can hit McCain hard.
Con: He tends to hit everyone hard. And he's a Washington figure, which could hurt a campaign running against Washington.
Brian SchwietzerNever heard of him? You should. Schweitzer has been Montana's governor since 2005, and is currently one of the most popular governors in the country.
Pro: In addition to his executive experience, Schweitzer has spent a good amount of time around the world (including the Middle East) in his former life as an irrigation developer. His popularity and his pro-gun stance could help Obama in the Mountain West area. He also refused PAC and special interest money during his 2004 campaign. He's also criticized the economic consequences of the Iraq War, an approach that Obama has recently adopted.
Con: Despite his travels, he has no official foreign policy experience. He also doesn't bring in any delegates from his own state (though that could be offset if he helps in places like North Dakota, Wyoming and Colorado).
Janet NapolitanoAnother popular Western governor, Napolitano has settled into a second term in McCain's very red home state. She also backed Obama early in the race.
Pros: She has proven her executive capacity in Republican territory, as well as the Southwest, which will help sway Obamicans. A female candidate could also help reunite the Democrats.
Con: Her stance on immigration could prove costly among Hispanic voters.
Sherrod BrownBrown is a favorite among progressives for his economic populism and outspoken criticism of the war.
Pro: Could help deliver an important swing state.
Con: Doesn't really satisfy the idea of a unity ticket.
Chuck HagelA Republican senator who has fought with Bush tooth and nail over the Iraq war, Hagel is one of three Republicans who voted with the Democrats over a withdrawal plan. He also has served on the Banking, Foreign Relations and Intelligence Committees. Hagel has also said he's considering endorsing Sen. Obama.
Pro: Broad Senate experience. A living embodiment of Obama's commitment to work with like-minded Republicans. Also is a veteran with experience in Reagan's administration
Con: He is still a Republican (especially on abortion and health care), which would not sit well with a lot of Democrats.
Wesley ClarkRhodes Scholar turned four-star general and once-presidential candidate. A star resource for Democrats on military affairs.
Pro: John McCain would have to salute him. And he has Southern appeal.
Con: Backed Clinton early and has been a very active surrogate. Not always the best politician on a national stage.
Kathleen SebeliusTalk about reaching across the aisle. This Kansas governor convinced a Republican to leave his party, become a Democrat, and run as her lieutenant governor. Kansas is rife with stories of Republicans undergoing conversions, and Sebelius gets a good amount of credit for this.
Pro: Another Red-state governor with an excellent post-partisan record. Having a female VP could be a strong ticket.
Con: Sebelius didn't wow anyone with her response to the State of the Union, which raises questions about how she would do on the national stage. And her location in Kansas doesn't add much that Obama doesn't already get from Illinois.
Tom DaschleThe former South Dakota senator, Daschle has been a strong supporter of Obama's campaign; he's a national co-chair and is rumored to play a big part in the campaign strategy.
Pro: Can bring in votes from his home state.
Con: Weak campaigner: he lost his Senate seat while he was the sitting Majority Leader.
Mike BloombergSure, most voters have never heard of him. And sure, he's never been a national player. But the current mayor of New York has been a darling of the media, as they spent months seeing if he would get into the Presidential race. Coupled with some private conversations with Obama that caused a tizzy in the fall, a Bloomberg candidacy could cause some media attention that would rival that of even John McCain.
Pros: Excellent economic record. Interested in policy minutiae. Post-partisan (former Republican switched to Independent). Media darling.
Cons: Unheard of outside his home state. It's tough not to seem like an elitist when the world 'billionaire' applies to you.
Visit: Blacks4Barack OFFICIAL SITE !