Showing posts with label technorati. Show all posts
Showing posts with label technorati. Show all posts

Saturday, January 19, 2008

NEWS FLASH !!! Widespread Cheating & Vote Suppression by Clinton Campaign in Clark County, NV
From Daily Kos
Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 02:19:31

Obama's campaign manager David Plouffe has now made the accusation in the Atlantic, with over 200 separate allegations of irregularities at caucus sites. [UPDATE: I'm not claiming that these tactics were enough to flip the results. In fact, I don't think so. Hillary probably won more actual Nevada voters anyway, and would have won them without the cheating (though Obama won more delegates, which is what matters). The point is to illustrate the nature of her campaign; how it reflects on her character; and how it affects the Democratic base.
Also, word on the ground is that caucuses on the Strip and in Reno were clean.
For all you doubters out there, all I can do is tell you what I directly experienced, and heard firsthand from other volunteers at the campaign office. As further corroboration, the Obama hotline to report irregularities was busy for a full ten minutes.
Finally, Obama supporters: please listen to Markos. He's right: Edwards people are not necessarily Obama 2nd choice: in fact, it's closer to the opposite. You're not doing us any favors.]
Hey everyone,

I'm reporting in from one of the Obama field offices in Clark County, NV. My girlfriend and I just came back from being the precinct captains at our caucus, and the scene here is ugly.
Everyone is reporting election irregularities on the part of the Hillary campaign. There is widespread cheating and voter suppression going on all over Clark County--and it's obviously coming in from the top down. Whether it made enough of a difference to swing the election is another question--but there is no question that Hillary was running a scorched-earth, no-holds-barred campaign in which all of her surrogates were instructed to cheat in every way possible.
To be clear about the caucus process here: caucus doors opened at 11am today; people are allowed to file in and register on location until 12 noon, at which time the doors close and no one else is admitted. Those registering were given non-binding ballots to fill out to help assess in case of problems with head count. At this point, the total number of people in the room are counted. Viability is determined (15%), and then the viable sections have 20 minutes to convince the uncommitteds/unviables. Final counts are then made.

Here are just a few of the irregularities from the Clinton campaign that have come to my ears, before I tell my own story. Word on the ground is that we have video of some of these shenanigans as well.

No less than foureight Obama captains (including myself) have reported that Clinton operatives tried to close the doors at 11:30--a full thirty minutes before the doors were supposed to close. In some cases I am hearing they actually succeeded, and voters were turned away before more knowledgeable people could get there to reopen them. The Clinton campaign had obviously told their people to be there by 11:30--and they knew that the higher the turnout, the worse for them.

At least two reports of Clinton operatives telling the uncommitteds and Edwards supporters, once their numbers were deemed not viable, that they had to leave. Whether these tactics succeeded or not, I do not know. Obviously, the Clinton campaign knew that voters not already in her camp were unlikely to join her camp (I know from my own experience that I convinced many more undecideds than my opponent Hillary operative), so they attempted to suppress their vote.

At least one report of Clinton operatives telling Obama supporters with viable numbers that they were not viable, and had to leave. From what I hear, some of those voters did in fact leave.
At least two reports (including my own) of disabled voters being coerced into the Clinton camp against their will, or even having their voter card filled out for them against their will.

A few reports of probable out-of-state Clinton operatives being counted among the voters--though since checking ID is illegal, and other Hillary operatives from in-state would vouch for them, it's impossible to say.
At least one report of two large men standing outside the door checking voters for whom they would support, and telling all Obama people they were at the wrong location.
At least one other report of Hillary operatives doing the check-in, and telling all Obama supporters that they were not on the list, could not register at the location (not true), and that they could not caucus.
At least one report of ballots being filled out in advance for Hillary in mass.

At least one report of Hillary supporters saying that the caucus location was just the Hillary room--and that Obama supporters had to go to a faraway location.
At least one report of a voter registration list only in Spanish, and only with Hillary supporters on it. Obama supporters later found the registration list with the rest of the people--in the garbage can of the ladies restroom.
Several reports of Hillary signs on the registration table, and Hillary supporters in Hillary shirts doing registration.

And there's much, much more. It's only just getting started to come through. How many of these tactics worked is unclear. Certainly, aggressive Obama volunteers like myself should have nipped many of these in the bud, but we're actually counting on concerned citizens who care--not machine operatives trained to cheat and brought up in the nearly criminal Nevada machine and the ruthless, conscience-less Hillary campaign.

Here's my story:
I got to the location at 10:30am and set up. The Hillary people were already there. In charge of them was a 60-ish woman with a slight Brooklyn accent. Here were the irregularities in my precinct alone:
The Hillary operative tried to force the doors to close at 11:30am. KK was outside greeting people, and she overheard the Hillary campaign mention that the doors would be closing at 11:30am, and she went to talk to the precinct chair. So we intervened and said that that was absolutely not legal by the rules. She then started screaming at the chair to close the doors. When he read the rules that they were open until 12noon, she said that "that's not what I was told, other campaigns were spreading misinformation." We stood our ground, and the doors remained open.

A man in a wheelchair came in with his daughter, and said he was an Edwards supporter. When his daughter began to wheel him to the middle of the room, the Hillary operative tapped her on the shoulder, took the wheelchair and took him to the Clinton corner. I rushed over from talking to an undecided voter and objected loudly, but his daughter was a Hillary person. The Clinton operative said, "I don't control what he does; she does." At that point I said to the man, "Nobody controls you. If you want to vote for Edwards, you have every right to go to the center of the room. Do you need help?" He looked at me plaintively, but said nothing as his daughter dragged him farther back into the corner and just shook his head.

The Clinton operative herself had a Brooklyn accent and I overheard her mention having been from New York. When she stood to be counted in the middle of the room, I objected and asked her if she was actually from Nevada. She said yes. I talked to the chair and asked him to ask her name and find her on the list. He asked her her name and checked the list, and she was not on it. At this point the chair said, "well, I can't ask for ID." I said, "She can't participate if no one will vouch for her." At this point a Hispanic man wearing a Hillary shirt said she was his wife. While that's not impossible, it was also improbable--but I had no way to verify or object further.
One voter who hadn't even finished registering said that she was undecided, and the Hillary operative physically escorted her to the Hillary side. I went to talk to the woman, but she was immediately surrounded by 3 Hillary supporters who would not let me in, and I had to attend to others registering at that point (our operatives were outnumbered by hers 2-1).
Hillary supporters were doing check-in, and a Hillary sign was behind them. I forced the sign off the table, and I went to the front desk to verify that everything went according to the rules at checkin--but if nothing else, the necessity of doing so prevented me from doing other needed work.

Even so, KK and I managed to convince 6 undecided/Edwards voters (Edwards & uncommitted both lacked viability in my caucus), while their cheating, ruthless operatives only convinced two--and our caucus outperformed the field, garnering 4 delegates to her 5. It was intense--and it was war. I knew what the Clinton operatives were up to, and they knew I knew. It was bloodless war; I almost feel pity for the goodhearted Obama volunteers who were unprepared for the level of sociopathy that I expected--and encountered--from the Clinton campaign.

After being a part of this campaign, doing this work, and seeing this level of viciousness from a supposedly Democratic candidate, it will be a cold day in hell before I do any work for anyone in any way associated with Hillary Clinton. At this point, even my general election vote is in question. I am furious almost to the point of nausea. There are so many young, idealistic activists here who are absolutely crushed--not because we lost here, but because of the way we "lost." Disillusionment is running extremely high--and I doubt very much of many of them will be back in 2008, or ever again. Illegal and immoral campaign tactics like this aren't just reprehensible: they also come at a cost to the party in the long run.
Leaving behind the triangulating, DLC politics of the Clintons, this crap leaves me with just one question: with Democrats like these, who needs Republicans?

Monday, January 14, 2008

Obama Calls Truce With Hillary Camp

Takes High Road

RENO, Nevada (CNN) — Barack Obama is calling for a truce of sorts with rival Hillary Clinton following days of a heated back-and-forth between both the Democrats' presidential campaigns over Clinton's record on civil rights.
“I may disagree with Sen. Clinton or Sen. Edwards on how to get things done or how to get there, but we share the same goals, we're all Democrats, we all believe in civil rights, we all believe in equal rights," Obama said told reporters in Reno, Nevada.
The comments follow several days of heated rhetoric from both campaigns following Clinton's remarks to a reporter last week on the legacies of slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. "Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It took a president to get it done," she said, in her continued argument that her experience shows she can get more done as president than Obama.
Some African-American leaders criticized the remarks as denigrating the civil rights movement and Dr. King. The criticisms were amplified by Obama's campaign and Clinton later said she was "personally offended" the campaign was "distorting her words."
Meanwhile, speaking at a Clinton campaign event Sunday, BET founder Bob Johnson lashed out atObama's campaign over the criticism, and seemed to take a swipe at the Illinois senator's admitted drug use as a young man.
"As an African-American, I'm frankly insulted that the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think Bill and Hillary Clinton, who have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues when Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood that I won't say what he was doing, but he said it in his book," he said..
Johnson later claimed he was not referencing Obama's past drug use specifically, but was referring rather to his time as a community organizer.
Speaking Monday, Obama said he wanted to end the current "tit-for-tat" with Clinton.
"I don't want the campaign in this stage to degenerate into so much tit-for-tat back-and-forth that we lose sight why all of us are doing this," he said. "If I hear my own supporters engaging in talk that I think is ungenerous or misleading, or in some way is unfair, then I will speak out forcefully against them, and I hope the other campaigns take the same approach."
Shortly after Obama's comments, Clinton released a statement saying it's time to "reach common ground."
"We differ on a lot of things. And it is critical to have the right kind of discussion on where we stand. But when it comes to civil rights and our commitment to diversity, when it comes to our heroes - President John F. Kennedy and Dr. King – Senator Obama and I are on the same side," the New York Democrat said. “And in that spirit, let's come together, because I want more than anything else to ensure that our family stays together on the front lines of the struggle to expand rights for all Americans.”
– CNN's Alexander Mooney and Chris

Sunday, January 13, 2008

Hillary Was AGAINST the Civil Rights Act of 1964
While a republican and "Goldwater Girl"
(Blacks feel deceived as Hillary facts exposed)

A March 12, 2007 article written by acclaimed Washington columnist Robert Novak sheds a very revealing light on the true sentiment of Hillary Clinton during the peak of the Civil Rights Movement. Clinton recently was found to have minimized the great and monumental strides taken by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. by stating that it was Lyndon B. Johnson, then president, who should receive the credit for civil rights progress including the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
In an attempt to attract black support Hillary Clinton regularly shares her 'civil rights experience' during every speech given to blacks audiences. Novak writes of one such speech at Selma's First Baptist Church on the 42nd anniversary of the "bloody Sunday" freedom march there, where Sen. Clinton declared: "As a young woman, I had the great privilege of hearing Dr. King speak in Chicago. The year was 1963. My youth minister from our church took a few of us down on a cold January night to hear [King]. . . . And he called on us, he challenged us that evening to stay awake during the great revolution that the civil rights pioneers were waging on behalf of a more perfect union." But Novak's article states that there's a big problem with her statement.
The fact is, in 1963, the same period of time she speeks of at all black church appearances, not only was Hillary Clinton a republican, but she was also a staunch supporter of republican Senator Barry Goldwater, well known as a segregationist and one of the most vocal senators adamently against the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is why he lost in his presidential bid to Lyndon B. Johnson. Novak writes " then could she be a 'Goldwater Girl' in the next year's presidential election?" He continues, "...she described herself in her memoirs as 'an active Young Republican' and 'a Goldwater girl, right down to my cowgirl outfit.' (Hillary worked on Golwater's presidential campaign)
Novak adds, "As a politically attuned honor student, she must have known that Goldwater was one of only six Republican senators who joined Southern Democratic segregationists opposing the historic voting rights act of 1964 inspired by King. Hillary headed the Young Republicans at Wellesley College. The incompatibility of those two positions of 40 years ago was noted to me (Novak) by Democratic old-timers who were shocked by Sen. Clinton's temerity in pursuing her presidential candidacy." Novak adds, "What Hillary Clinton said at Selma is significant because it betrays her campaign's panicky reaction to the unexpected rise of Sen. Obama as a serious competitor for the Democratic nomination.
Clinton's plans were transformed by the advent of Obama, an African-American threatening the hard allegiance of black voters forged by Bill Clinton. On one hand, the Clinton campaign has attacked Obama and his supporters. On the other hand, she has sought to solidify her civil rights credentials.
While Clinton was re-inventing her past, her road to the White House is not going as planned. Instead of a steady procession to coronation at the Denver convention, she is involved in a real struggle against credible opponents led by Obama. No wonder she and her handlers were tempted to imply the existence long ago of a young lady in Chicago's suburbs who never really existed."
We greatly appreciate Mr. Novak's findings which bring one main thought to mind. Wake up Black America! DON'T BE FOOLED ! The fact is, Hillary was AGAINST the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that Dr. King died for. As a 'Goldwater Girl' she was even against Lyndon B. Johnson, the very person she now gives the credit to for Dr. King getting to the mountaintop. She has worked extremely hard to hide many truths about her past, including ordering that her 92 page college thesis that she wrote at Wellesley College be 'sealed' and unavailable to the public, an order forced upon the college by Bill Clinton while president, although all senior thesis' at Wellesley have been available for public reading for over 100 years, except one....Hillary Rodham Clinton's.
Reports have stated that information in her 'secret thesis' could be the 'Swift Boat' ammo to be used by the Republican Party against her should she become the nominee. (read more about 'secret thesis' at MSNBC)
In addition to re-inventing her past, the most obvious new Clinton strategy is to use 'token Negroes' like BET Founder Bob Johnson and Magic Johnson to name a couple, to attack and discredit Barack Obama, a tactic which many blacks find additionally offensive, calling these black Clinton cronies 'sell-outs'. Spread the word....share the facts. The Clinton's have been conning the black community for a long time and are NOT what they claim to be. I bet they go home at night, pour some wine, kick their feet up and just laugh like crazy about what big black suckers we are. But now, it's time to prove them wrong !
Greg Jones

Friday, January 11, 2008

SC's Republican governor praises

Obama candidacy

Sanford has not endorsed a GOP presidential candidate.

(CNN) – The Republican governor of South Carolina wrote an op-ed in the state’s largest paper Friday in which he spoke admiringly of Democratic candidate Barack Obama's candidacy, and urged voters to think about the significance of the Illinois senator’s White House run as they make their presidential picks.
Mark Sanford said he wouldn’t be voting for Obama because of their differing policy views. “However,” he added, “as the presidential campaign trail now makes its turn toward this state, and as South Carolinians make their final decisions on whom to vote for, it’s worth pausing to take notice of something important that the Obama candidacy means for our corner of America.
“…In the Obama candidacy, there is a potentially history-making quality that we should reflect on. It is one that is especially relevant on the sensitive topic of race — because South Carolina and the South as a whole bear a heavier historical burden than the rest of our country on that front,” he added.
He said that Obama was not running on the basis of his race, and that no one should make their decision one way or the other because of it. “Nonetheless, what is happening in the initial success of his candidacy should not escape us. Within many of our own lifetimes, a man who looked like Barack Obama had a difficult time even using the public restrooms in our state.
“What is happening may well say a lot about America, and I do think as an early primary state we should earnestly shoulder our responsibility in determining how this part of history is ultimately written.”
Sanford, who endorsed John McCain in 2000, has not publicly backed any GOP presidential candidates this cycle. South Carolina’s Republicans head to the polls January 19.
–CNN's Rebecca Sinderbrand

Kucinich is calling for a recount of New Hampshire.
CONCORD, New Hampshire (AP) — Democrat Dennis Kucinich, who won less than 2 percent of the vote in the New Hampshire primary, said Thursday he wants a recount to ensure that all ballots in his party's contest were counted.
The Ohio congressman cited "serious and credible reports, allegations and rumors" about the integrity of Tuesday results.
Deputy Secretary of State David Scanlan said Kucinich is entitled to a statewide recount. But, under New Hampshire law, Kucinich will have to pay for it. Scanlan said he had "every confidence" the results are accurate.
In a letter dated Thursday, Kucinich said he does not expect significant changes in his vote total, but wants assurance that "100 percent of the voters had 100 percent of their votes counted."
Kucinich alluded to online reports alleging disparities around the state between hand-counted ballots, which tended to favor Sen. Barack Obama, and machine-counted ones that tended to favor Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. He also noted the difference between pre-election polls, which indicated Obama would win, and Clinton's triumph by a 39 percent to 37 percent margin.
Candidates who lose by 3 percentage or less are entitled to a recount for a $2,000 fee. Candidates who lose by more must pay for the full cost. Kucinich's campaign said it was sending the $2,000 fee to start the recount.


Wednesday, January 9, 2008

Colin Powell to
Join Barack Obama ?

ONE has held the highest office of any black man in the history of the US government and its armed forces. The other is seeking to go a step further and become the first black man in the White House.
Now Washington is buzzing with talk that Barack Obama, a Democrat presidential candidate, and Colin Powell, a former US Army general and secretary of state, may join forces.
Last week Mr Powell revealed that he had been advising the senator from Illinois on foreign policy - provoking a flurry of speculation about the plans and ambitions of both men.
Mr Powell, 70, who left office in January 2005 under a cloud left by the war in Iraq, has served three Republican presidents, but made it clear that he was considering backing a Democrat to succeed his former boss, George Bush. He disclosed that he had twice met Senator Obama, at the request of the White House hopeful. "I make myself available to talk about foreign policy matters and military matters with whoever wishes to chat with me," Mr Powell said.
"I'm going to support the best person that I can find who will lead this country."
He ruled out any suggestion that he might seek the vice-presidency. But asked whether he would accept another senior post, he said: "I would not rule it out. I am not at all interested in political life if you mean elected political life. But I always keep my eyes open and my ears open to requests for service."
Mr Powell and Senator Obama are not obvious partners. Senator Obama, alone among the Democrat frontrunners, opposed the Iraq war from the start - a war that Mr Powell's now discredited testimony before the United Nations on Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programs is seen to have helped bring about.
A former adviser to president Bill Clinton - whose wife, Hillary, is the other leading Democratic candidate - welcomed Senator Obama's links with Mr Powell as a sign that he wanted to heal the divisions in American society.
Philip Crowley, the director of homeland security at the Centre for American Progress and a former White House special assistant, said: "It's refreshing that we have a candidate that wants to craft a centrist policy that will reach out across party lines."
The blogger Too Sense, who writes on racial issues, said: "Powell's meeting with Obama is a brilliant move. Obama's association with another one-time potential black president, a black man who white America has found so non-threatening that he was held up as a model for 'the rest of us', can only increase his appeal."
Telegraph, London

Bill Clinton Keys Obama's Car
From Andy Borowitz (Huffington Post)

In what political observers called a shocking display of anger from a former President of the United States, Bill Clinton today keyed the car of Illinois Senator Barack Obama.
Mr. Clinton's attacks on Senator Obama have become more scathing in recent days, but few Democratic insiders expected his rhetorical attacks to turn into outright vandalism.
That is precisely what happened, however, in the parking lot of a Dunkin' Donuts in Nashua, New Hampshire, where Mr. Obama and his aides had stopped for an early morning campaign appearance.

Spotting the Illinois senator's car in the lot, a wild-eyed Mr. Clinton pulled out his key ring and "started twirling it on his finger like a six-shooter," according to one eyewitness.
Saying he was "damned sick and tired" of everything going Mr. Obama's way, the former President dragged his keys across the length of the senator's car, creating a deep gash in the paint job that experts said would cost hundreds of dollars to repair.
As news of Mr. Clinton's attack on Mr. Obama's automobile spread like wildfire across New Hampshire, political insiders branded the former president's move as a tactical mistake that could turn off Democratic voters.

"Keying another candidate's car is really beneath the dignity of a former President of the United States," said Carol M. Foyler, a longtime media advisor to Democratic candidates. "That's the kind of thing you want surrogates to do."
For his part, Mr. Clinton was unrepentant, telling reporters "you ain't seen nothing yet."
"Where does he live?" Mr. Clinton shouted at the press corps. "I'ma go TP that bastard's house."

Monday, January 7, 2008

VIDEO: Watch Obama's
Iowa Victory Speech !!!
Polls show Obama leading in New Hampshire !!!

Sunday, January 6, 2008

Hillary Was On Walmart Board Of Directors

Why Such A Big Secret ?

Even Wal-Mart, the largest and arguably most powerful corporation in the country, is no match for the triangulation, pandering and obfuscation of Hillary Clinton. With Wal-Mart rating as public enemy number one among many liberals, progressives and just regular voters, Clinton is finding her past ties to Wal-Mart too hot to handle so, presto, over the side the Beast of Bentonville must go.

For those not in the know, Clinton served on Wal-Mart's board for six years prior to her husband's run for the presidency. She recently received $5,000 from Wal-Mart. I've raised the Wal-Mart relationship repeatedly in my current race against Clinton and it causes deep unease among voters. I believe it speaks to the incumbent's close ties to abusive corporate power: her large corporate financial contributions, her support for so-called "free trade" (which is simply trade to benefit corporations) and her unwillingness to confront corporate power that denies every American, among other things, universal health insurance.
So, I had to chuckle when I read that Clinton, having never said a bad word about the company in the past, recently said that Wal-Mart should pay more for its workers' health benefits. And, to boot, she returned the $5,000 she had received from the company. But, when asked what she did about the company's benefits for workers when she served on the board, she replied, "Well, you know, I, that was a long time ago ... have to remember..."
You can't have it both ways. You can't promote an image of being an intelligent woman who has a pile of facts at her fingertips but, at the same time, you suffer a sudden bout of amnesia when asked to answer for your record. And it would be an inconvenient record to defend.
In 1992, Wal-Mart was simply smaller than it is today. But it was still huge, with $43.9 billion in net sales, 1,714 stores and 371,000 employees. Even in 1992, Wal-Mart was already the world's largest retailer.
And the board Hillary Clinton sat on was rabidly anti-union, was exploiting sweatshop labor around the world, discriminating against women workers, forcing workers to labor off the clock and destroying communities that did not want them. This should not be a shock: Clinton was a partner in the Rose law firm, one of the most active anti-union law firms in the country.
So, the question still remains: what did Hillary Clinton do -- or, not do -- when she served on the board of Wal-Mart? Maybe, if her memory was refreshed, she could tell us how she protested the company's relentless union-busting, expressed feminist outrage at the widespread discrimination against women and was horrified that the mushrooming wealth of the Wal-Mart family was made possible on the backs of slave labor around the world.
Her behavior then, when the spotlight was not on and her record did not matter to voters, should tell voters a lot more about her principles and values than the carefully orchestrated image New Yorkers try to figure out now. The voters deserve to know.
By: Jonathan Tasini

Thursday, January 3, 2008

Obama Campaign Proves
Much Less White Prejudice
than Blacks Thought !
By: Greg 'Peace Song' Jones

" There's no way America would vote for a black president !.....America's not ready for a black president." That has historically been the sentiment and attitude shared by the majority of blacks in America due in part to the fact that we have always been under the assumption that most whites are so prejudiced that a black president in America would just never happen. But one of the most incredible things that has arisen through Barack Obamas campaign has been the vision of mass numbers of white people at each of the Obama rallys showing great love and support for this credible, intelligent, gifted, strong leader....who happens to also be black. It has been incredibly eye-opening and uplifting, and it, for the first time, shows us blacks that we have actually been wrong in our assumption that most whites are prejudiced toward us. Guess what ? Although you do have the exceptions to the rule, the fact is....most whites ARE NOT racist toward blacks. This is a very important revelation. VERY !!!

We, as blacks have held on to our injured history, which we rightfully feel was caused by whites, to such a degree that we have never had the opportunity to see or learn that the prejudiced attitudes of whites does not exist today like it had in the past. We just didn't know. We knew that a lot of whites like black music. We knew that millions of white women love Oprah, but we thought that was just a 'woman thing'. But in all honesty, we had no idea, until now, that white people of all ages....even older ones...could be as supportive of a black candidate as they have shown in great mass. We, as blacks have been wrong !

And now, to my black brothers and sisters....It's time for us to acknowledge this extremely important revelation...In other words....all whites are not prejudiced !!! In fact, MOST whites aren't ! I know, it's hard to believe because of our lifetime of thinking differently....but these are the facts. Just look in the eyes of the whites at Obama's rallys. You see a true warmth, compassion and true support for this man....who is black. What this means is that most whites have risen above the racism of old. Now, it is time for us, as blacks, to rise up as well. Of course, we as blacks will have the specific cases of injustice and prejudice as displayed through examples like Jena 6, Genarlow Wilson, Katrina and the like....and specific cases like those should be dealt with accordingly. But we must not continue to allow certain negative occurances to misdirect our minds toward thinking that these negative examples speak for the entire white race. The majority of whites of today are actually on our side !

Obama's campaign has already won by proving that whites and blacks can not only get along....but can work TOGETHER....toward a better tomorrow...for us all. And guess what my black family....America IS ready !!!

Zogby Poll: Obama Only Candidate

Able to Beat ALL Republicans
Telephone survey shows fellow Democrats Hillary Clinton

and John Edwards would defeat some GOPers, lose to others

UTICA, New York - Illinois Sen. Barack Obama would defeat all five of the top Republicans in prospective general election contests, performing better than either of his two top rivals, a new Zogby telephone poll shows.
His margins of advantage range from a 4 percent edge over Arizona Sen. John McCain and a 5 percent edge over Arkansas’ Mike Huckabee to an 18 percentage point lead over Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, the survey shows. Against New York’s Rudy Giuliani he leads by 9%, and against Fred Thompson of Tennessee he holds a 16 point edge.
The telephone survey included 1,000 likely voters nationwide and carries a margin of error of +/– 3.2 percentage points. The poll was conducted Dec. 12–14, 2007.
Democrat Hillary Clinton of New York would defeat Romney by a narrow 46% to 44% margin and Thompson by a 48% to 42% margin. She would lose to Huckabee 48% to 43%, to Giuliani 46% to 42%, and to McCain by a 49% to 42% margin. The data suggest that Clinton has improved her position slightly. A November Zogby Interactive poll showed her losing by small margins to all five of the top GOP candidates.
The performance of the Democratic candidates among independent voters is notable. For instance, Clinton trails Giuliani by one point (43% for Giuliani, 42% for Clinton among independents), but Obama leads Giuliani among independents by a huge 56% to 31% edge. Edwards leads Giuliani, 52% to 38% among independents. Clinton has similar trouble among independents against McCain, in that she trails with 37% support to his 46% support. In a prospective Obama versus McCain match–up among independent voters, Obama leads, 51% to 35%. Edwards and McCain are tied at 42% apiece among independents.
As among independents, Obama is the Democrat moderates like best, but his edge among moderates over Edwards is not nearly as pronounced as with independents. For instance, against McCain, both Edwards and Obama lead, but Clinton loses badly. Obama leads McCain by a 51% to 37% edge, while Edwards leads McCain by a 47% to 41% margin.
Clinton loses to McCain among moderates, with McCain winning 51% and Clinton winning 38%.
In polling stretching back to last year, Zogby International has identified moderates and independents as key voting demographics in the 2008 election cycle.
Among Republicans, McCain performs the best among moderates in the general election match–ups, with Huckabee running a close second. Romney and Thompson run worst – in prospective contests against Obama, the Democrat leads Thompson 59% to 27%, and leads Romney by a 62% to 23% margin. Obama leads all five Republicans among moderates. Against Clinton, McCain and Huckabee lead among moderates, while the Democrat leads the other three Republicans.
For a detailed methodological statement on this poll, please visit:

Tuesday, January 1, 2008

Obama's Could Ask:
But Won't !

Now the Edwards are in attack mode. For Elizabeth Edwards to join her hubby with attacking statements of Michelle Obama is representative of desperation and 'old school politics' which is exactly what the Obama's are against and above doing. There are SOOOOOOO many things that the Obama's could bring out about both the Edwards and the Clintons.....but they choose to stay above these tactics. The Obama's could stress how Hillary was actually a Republican in college. How Bill is a cheater and immoral. How Hillary won't allow her records to be opened which means they obviously have things to hide, although she repeatedly states she's been well vetted. How Bill will actually be running the White House, not Hillary. How Musharraf got the nuclear weaponry on the Clinton watch......just to name a few re: the Clintons....As for the Edwards....he's a loser. He lost in his own state. Claims to be for the poor but has done NOTHING to help the poor. Thinks that since he went to Katrina he helped the poor. Gets $400 haircuts....and his hair looks no better than anyone else's which shows extreme waste. And Elizabeth is actually too sick to be first lady....(although we wish her well)...Why would you put a first lady in the White House who could have major medical issues soon that would distract. But again.....the Obama's are above stating these facts. Instead they are concentrating on what we all need......the Re-Birth Of America !!! But you'd better believe, the Republicans will bring up these issues and a whole lot more. VOTE OBAMA !!!

Monday, December 31, 2007


Just Google...'Clinton Body Count'....then....'Ron Brown's Death'. Also, always keep in mind....the Neo-Cons literally wrote out the plan to invade Iraq, Iran and Syria back in 1992.(Google:PNAC.....Then watch a few of the videos). Each participant signed the plan....and coincidentally ended up on the Bush Administration. Like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Bolton, Card, and many others. HILLARY IS PART OF THE PLAN.....which is why she is receiving more campaign contributions from defense contractors (bomb, guns, tank manufacturers, etc.) than any other candidate....even republicans....(remember Hillary was the director of her colleges Republican Chapter) which is why she voted to invade Iraq.....then voted to invade Iran. BUSH WANTS BILLARY TO WIN SO SHE WILL CARRY OUT THE PLAN. She is the worse choice for America !!!!.....and Edwards is a rich slick (pays $400 per haircut) trying to act like he caters to the poor....but has NEVER done ANYTHING for the poor. Barack Obama is the answer.....for the RE-BIRTH OF AMERICA !!!!

Sunday, December 30, 2007

Are Black Civil Rights Leaders
Who Support Hillary SELL-OUTS ?
By Greg Jones
As a fifty year old black man from Cleveland, Ohio I'm at the age where my mind is full of memories. I remember how, as a child, we were all so proud as black people to be able to watch Julia on TV, the first TV series starring a black woman.
I would watch 'I Spy' co-starring Bill Cosby with excitement and a sense of connection. I remember the pride we all felt when Carl B. Stokes won as mayor here in Cleveland, becoming the first black mayor of any major city. I remember the shock of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King's death and the riots that resulted in many buildings being burned down in our neighborhood.
I remember the National Guard riding up and down my street making us stop playing football forcing us to go in the house. I remember going to church each night where it seemed liked hundreds of blacks all came together, while we kids were in another area of the church in what was called 'Freedom School'. I remember listening to the preacher who preached the message....and I first learned the song....'We Shall OverCome'.
I remember looking up at the preacher, who was our leader at that time, in total belief. All throughout my growing years I have held steadfast to the vision that we shall overcome. But now, in 2007, I listen to our modern day civil rights leaders and find myself in absolute dismay. The very leaders who, since the civil rights movement of the 60's, had invigorated, motivated and preached the message that we shall overcome through being a united people working together toward empowerment, have unbelievably chosen to support Hillary Clinton instead of a highly qualified, capable, intelligent man who is an extremely credible candidate for President of the United States and is black.
My heart just drops every time I hear an Andrew Young, Al Sharpton, Calvin Butts or Jesse jackson making statements that question whether we should support Barack Obama, and instead, being supportive of Hillary Clinton. It makes no sense at all. How can these 'leaders' claim to have devoted their lives to black empowerment, while simultaneously doing all they can to block our progress as a people? It is the most hypocritical thing I have ever witnessed and I find it to not only be very sad but also destructive to the cause. I ask myself, how could this be? Why would our civil rights leaders be anti a black man who is truly credible, choosing rather to support a white woman instead? So, I just wonder.
I wonder if they are truly sincere about their desire to see us as blacks overcome, or are they just in the civil rights business to make a living? I wonder if the Hillary camp has promised these 'leaders' certain benefits if they 'deliver' the black vote? If that is the case it would mean that personal gain is more important to them than actual achievement and empowerment for us as a people. So I watch as we cry out....we march....we boycott.....then our 'leaders' turn their backs on our very own. To me, that is the epitamy of a SELL-OUT ! I just hope that the average black man and woman will see through the tactics of our so called leaders, and will rally together, as we should, striving together so that one day.....We Shall Truly OverCome !

Saturday, December 29, 2007

From: DailyKos
Hillary: The Wrong Choice on National Security
by The Bagof Health and Politics
Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 05:39:14 PM PST

Voters think that Hillary Clinton is the best choice on National Security Issues. They are Wrong. Here's why.

Benazir Bhutto, the leader of the Pakistani opposition, was assassinated at a rally today. Bhutto was no saint, but ended up being a martyr for her cause. Bhutto’s assassination leaves a power vacuum in Pakistani politics, and destabilizes the nuclear-armed nation. The aftermath of Bhutto’s death will be seen over the next few weeks. It has far reaching implications; implications that could influence the primary elections here in the United States.

Here in the US, a poll was released today. It validated emerging trends: that Barack Obama is trending upwards, and was on a path towards victory; and that Hillary Clinton is trending downwards and was on a path towards defeat. Politics—especially presidential politics—is about timing. Bhutto’s assassination raises the salience of national security issues in the week leading up to the first votes of the 2008 Presidential cycle.
Buried within the poll is an interesting item. According to the LA Times, "The poll shows that Democrats consider Clinton far-better equipped than her rivals to safeguard national security." Conventional wisdom on this is, as usual, wrong.

Hillary Clinton is saying that she will, in essence, follow her husband’s foreign policy. If Hillary wants to claim credit for the successes of Kosovo, then she should also share in the blame for the disasters of Clinton the First’s administration. Clinton the First faced a foreign policy challenge in his first months in office; after a single incident where 18 soldiers were killed, Clinton the First pulled US troops out of Somalia. That action sent a message to the vile element abroad: terrorism works.
Then there was the bombing of the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. The bombings occurred in 1998, just as Clinton was getting impeached by the US House for lying about an extramarital affair. A movie was out at the time. It was called Wag the Dog. Its central premise was that a President started a war to distract people from corruption at home. Clinton the First was worried about appearances. There was actionable intelligence on the location of Osama bin Laden—he was in the Sudan at the time. Clinton waited for hours before deciding to launch a missile strike. By the time the missiles were launched, bin Laden was elsewhere, and the missiles just hit innocent villagers.

Then there was the USS Cole bombing, which occurred late in Clinton the First’s term. The US Presidential election was approaching. Clinton took no action other than to impose sanctions. Meanwhile, the September 11th plot was in its nascent stages, terrorists were going on "dry runs," and nothing was being done.
The national security record of Clinton the First’s term is poor at best. There were some successes—peace in the Balkans, although whether that is lasting peace remains to be seen. But there were many failures too--failures that had disastrous consequences and led to the situation that we have today.

Even if you accept the premise that Hillary shouldn’t be held responsible for any actions in her husbands term (which is going against her message, which says she should get credit for everything that happened in the 1990s), there are still problems with Hillary’s record on national security issues. Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq War; she says she decided to vote for the war after being counseled by Condi Rice, currently Bush’s Secretary of State. Hillary took Rice at her word; she didn’t bother to read the National Intelligence Estimate, and therefore voted to send this nation to war on incomplete information.

Hillary voted for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which would’ve led to a war with Iran if it weren’t for a few brave intelligence professionals that forced the administration to declassify the NIE, which showed this was the same old story (no nukes). The United States military is stressed to its capacity as it is; adding more troops and another occupation of Iran would only diminish our nation’s ability to respond to instability elsewhere in the nation. For instance, if Hillary Clinton’s vote had been followed to its logical conclusion, the United States would have no capacity to respond to instability in other nations, like Pakistan.
The issue of Pakistan itself brings up another area where Hillary Clinton has proven to have poor judgment. Earlier this year, Senator Barack Obama said that military action against Al Qaeda, which currently occupies a mountainous portion of Pakistan, within Pakistani borders should be an option for any US President. Clinton herself attacked Obama, and said it showed that he was "naïve" about foreign policy. Yet as instability rules the Pakistani landscape, The prospect of chaos and of nuclear weapons being within the grasp of Al Qaeda is now very real. Senator Obama surely isn’t naïve for saying that military action should always remain an option in this situation; in fact, it looks like he was pretty wise to say that.

It’s clear from her record of mistakes and her husband’s record of failures that Hillary Clinton is the wrong choice for those that care about national security. The right choice is clearly Bill Richardson, who served as this nation’s Ambassador to the United Nations, has engaged in negotiations with dozens of foreign leaders, and has a solid understanding of national security issues.

If it isn’t Richardson, then Obama—who opposed the war in Iraq from the start and didn’t vote for the Kyl-Lieberman Iran War Amendment—is the better choice.
The same old leadership leads to the same old problem—a world in chaos and instability throughout the globe. It’s time for a new approach. It’s time for somebody not named Bush or Clinton to be in the Oval Office.

Thursday, December 27, 2007

Obama Was Right....Hillary Wrong Re: PAKISTAN
By: Greg 'Peace Song' Jones

With the terrible announcement of Benazir Bhutto's assassination in Pakistan, one can't help but be reminded of a recent Democratic debate in which Hillary Clinton literally laughed at Barack Obama's statement that the United States should concentrate on the unrest in Pakistan even if it meant sending U.S. troops to the Afghan/Pakistan border where the Taliban, Al-queda and other terrorists are camped. Hillary did her pompous, smirky laugh stating that Obama wants to 'talk to our enemies (Iran) and attack our allies' (Pakistan border). But as events unfold in the region we are learning more and more of just how disasterously wrong she and our foreign policy have been. We are supporting a crazy dictator (Musharaf) who we have given millions of dollars to....who has point blank told us that he will not go to the Pakistan border to address the true terrorists because they 'made a deal'. It doesn't matter that crazy Mu has weapons of mass destruction and is probably hiding Bin Laden in the border region. And to Hillary.....this is all just fine. Is this the great 'experience' that she boasts having ? Now, as we watch the turmoil increase in the Pakistan region Hillary will surely state that we need her 'experience' to handle the situation when in fact, it is this very mindset or experience that is leading America and the entire world toward catastrophe. Face it Hillary.....You are wrong...Obama was right. Oh.....and need I mention that the recent findings show that our 'enemy' hasn't had a weapons program for years ? But Hillary voted to basically crush Iran........wrong again Hill. And to top things'll probably stay supportive of Crazy Mu along with the other Bushites and regime controlled media 'experts' ! With 'experience' like yours.....who needs enemies ?
NOTE: CNN's Wolf Blitzer just released an email to be read in the event of Bhutto's death. She names Musharraf as responsible. ANYONE (politicians, media, etc.) who is still supportive of Musharraf is dangerous for America and should be investigated. Also, be prepared for the standard 'fear' tactics to kick-in.
Greg 'Peace Song' Jones

Saturday, December 22, 2007

Do we REALLY know the Clintons ?

also: Google......Ron Brown Death

Friday, December 21, 2007

Obama Tells Bush


Says Build First

Washingon, D.C., Dec. 18, 2007 - U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., today sent the following letter to President Bush, calling on him to abandon his administration's intentions to demolish federally-assisted housing in New Orleans.
Dear Mr. President:
I urge you to abandon all plans to demolish federally-assisted housing in New Orleans, Louisiana, until there is a comprehensive plan to meet the region's extensive affordable housing needs.
Two years ago, when you appeared in Jackson Square, you spoke of America's "duty to confront this poverty with bold action." You explained: "Americans want the Gulf Coast not just to survive, but to thrive; not just to cope, but to overcome. We want evacuees to come home, for the best of reasons -- because they have a real chance at a better life in a place they love."
Unfortunately, there are an estimated 12,000 people already homeless in New Orleans, and thousands more are struggling with costly and slow rebuilding efforts and private rents that have risen 45 percent since the storm. More than two thirds of the housing stock was destroyed by the hurricane, and much of it has not yet been rebuilt. Thousands of residents are still living in trailers with dangerous levels of formaldehyde even though more than 800 days have passed since Hurricane Katrina made landfall.
Despite this harsh reality, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is now planning to reduce the limited supply of affordable housing even further by demolishing 4,500 units of public housing. Notwithstanding your wish for evacuees to come home to "thrive" and "overcome," New Orleans does not have adequate affordable housing options even for the people who are already there.
It is critical for policy makers to answer the following questions before any demolition takes place:
• Is demolition, which was originally planned and approved before hurricane Katrina, still a sensible strategy in light of the region's housing crisis?• How many new units of public housing will be built or acquired to replace the 4,500 scheduled for demolition? If less than 4,500, what is the plan to close the gap to get back at least to pre-Katrina levels? If more than 4,500, what plans are in place to ensure adequate income diversity and economic integration? • What plans are in place to meet the low-income housing needs during the period between demolition and the availability of new housing? • What supports are in place to assist residents during any housing transition?
Almost a year ago, I visited New Orleans and posed similar questions to HUD. I have yet to receive an adequate response to that inquiry.
There is no question that most displaced residents want to come back to their homes and apartments, but that is hardly possible if they return to a city with fewer affordable housing options available than it had before. I support the conversion to mixed income neighborhoods and greater economic integration, but such redevelopment plans must not be at the expense of adequate and improved housing options for the poor. No public housing should be demolished until HUD can point to an equivalent number of replacement units in the near vicinity.
Over the past two years, the federal government has failed the people of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. But there is still an opportunity to demonstrate that they are not forgotten. I urge you to reconsider the demolition of these housing units until there is a comprehensive plan to meet the region's extensive affordable housing needs. Thank you.
Barack Obama, United States Senator

Op-Ed On Giving Ex-Offenders
A Second Chance

Yesterday, Barack Obama published the following op-ed in the Chicago Defender and the Austin Daily News:

In America, nearly a third of African-American men will enter state or federal prison during their lives. Too many will be lost in the criminal justice system and end up in prison, poverty, and unemployment. And in some cases, the lack of job training and support programs means that those who are released could fail to become fully rehabilitated, and may go on to commit more crimes.

There is no question that breaking the law should have consequences, and we have to do more as parents to teach our children that violence is always wrong. But justice must be fair, and punishment must fit the crime. Yet, we still have a system that locks away too many young, first-time, non-violent offenders for the better part of their lives. It’s a system where certain sentences are based less on the kind of crime you commit than on what you look like and where you come from.

In Illinois alone, more than 40,000 people are released from prisons each year with most of them returning to the Chicago community. Almost half of those released from prison lack a high school diploma or GED. Only one-third of inmates receive vocational training or work experience designed to improve their ability to obtain employment once released. Even fewer receive counseling and placement services after their release. Within three years, statistics indicate that more than half will be back in custody.
In today’s economy, without a high school diploma, supporting a family is almost impossible. And with a criminal record instead of an education, the prospects for success are next to none. This has to stop.

The costs of crimes are high. But failing to break this cycle costs us even more.
That’s why I am fighting to pass the Second Chance Act, which would support faith- and community-based organizations working with state and local authorities to give former prisoners a second chance at a meaningful life. The Second Chance Act makes funding available for transitional jobs programs and housing, supportive health services, and educational needs. Organizations such as the Safer Foundation and Heartland Alliance have demonstrated success giving formerly incarcerated people in Illinois an opportunity for a second chance. And the Second Chance Act would ensure that the federal government does its part by supporting reentry programs like these that help make our communities safer.
We must create a pathway for people coming out of jail to get the jobs, skills, and education they need to leave the life of crime. That means supporting effective training and mentoring programs to help people transition into jobs. That means reevaluating the laws against hiring people with a criminal record so that we don’t foreclose effective ways to bring people out of poverty and deter them from committing new crimes. That also means giving former prisoners parenting skills so they can give their children the sense of hope and opportunity that so many of them were denied.

Thurgood Marshall said: “None of us got where we are solely by pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps. We got here because somebody - a parent, a teacher, an Ivy League crony or a few nuns - bent down and helped us pick up our boots.”
As we fulfill Marshall’s legacy, let’s bend down and help every kid pick up his or her boots for a second chance.


Saturday, December 15, 2007

Hillary Losing Bill's Support In Iowa !
Bill Clinton:
It Would Be 'a Miracle If Hillary Wins in Iowa'
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Fox News

Bill Clinton said it would be a "miracle" if Sen. Hillary Clinton wins in Iowa, even as he brushed off his wife's top rival, Sen. Barack Obama, as a candidate too green to run for president.
The former president, who has been campaigning tirelessly for the Democratic frontrunner as slipping polls and a series of gaffes have threatened her campaign, made the comments in an interview with host Charlie Rose on PBS Friday, where he also said voters would be taking a "risk" if they elected Obama, according to an article in Editor & Publisher.

As Hillary Clinton prepares for a five-day, 99-county Iowa tour with her campaign beginning Sunday, her poll numbers are running low in the final stretch before the Jan. 3 caucuses.
A Newsweek poll of 395 likely voters taken from Dec. 5 to Dec. 6 showed Obama with 35 percent, Clinton with 29 percent and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards with 18 percent in Iowa.
In the interview, Bill Clinton said Edwards might even win, which he said would be preferable.

"It would be a miracle if Hillary wins in Iowa, and I'm not just low-balling you," Clinton said, according to the Editor & Publisher article.