<p>
</p>
<p>How is Obama pandering a responds to Hillary’s pandering? He became a completely different person when he was compaigning in the south. I don’t think he was forced by Hillary to change his accent.</p>
<p>“Wright isn’t crazy, he is brilliant, and if you were well informed you would understand.”</p>
<p>Obviously, this is your opinion, and you are welcome to it. A lot of voters would not agree with you, regardless of age. I am sure that some would. </p>
<p>What do you know about William Ayers?</p>
<p>“Being a radical in the 60’s was not that unusual. It was a response to the Vietnam War and social forces at the time.”</p>
<p>Ayers bombed buildings and killed people.</p>
<p>doctormom50: You know, it’s funny. It is because of my lack of longevity in America that I do not support Obama… yet Obama is by far the most popular candidate among my demographic (college students). Seems more like you should be saying the opposite. Or, it would seem that way, if it weren’t obvious that your pointing to my age is a convenient substitute for making substantive response to my argument.</p>
<p>The fact is, the only real difference between Obama and Clinton on the issue of pandering is that Obama has been significantly more successful at hiding his.</p>
<p>swatmom:</p>
<p>Ayers was a Weather Underground associate of famous Swarthmore bomb-maker Cathy Wilkerson, who blew up her parents’ Greenwich Village townhouse with a terrorist bomb-making operation gone wrong:</p>
<p>[Cathlyn</a> Platt Wilkerson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathy_Wilkerson]Cathlyn”>Cathlyn Platt Wilkerson - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>Ayers was up to his elbows with the bomb factory. His girlfriend at the time was killed. Kathy Boudin, the only other survivor of the explosion (with Wilkerson) went on to be convicted of killing guards in a Brinks truck robbery. Ayes raised Boudin’s daughter.</p>
<p>[Bill</a> Ayers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers]Bill”>Bill Ayers - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Obama is totally lying when he downplays his casual association with Ayers. Obama was the director of the charitable foundation Ayers founded in Chicago. Ayers was a very early political patron of Obama. Obama announced his first run for office, the state legislature, from the front steps of Ayers’ house. </p>
<p>Oh, and this photo of Ayers stomping on an American flag in 2001 surfaced today:</p>
<p>[Stomp</a> on This? : NO QUARTER](<a href=“http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/05/03/stomp-on-this/]Stomp”>http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/05/03/stomp-on-this/)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My question for the Obama supporters is this: Is there any point with these questionable associations when you would say enough is enough?</p>
<p>Indicted fixer Rezko (bought Obama’s driveway and yard)
Convicted Iraqi oil minister (campaign contributions)
Rev. Wright (believe US caused 9/11 and invented AIDS)
William Ayers (terrorist bombmaker)
Louis Farakahn (renowned racist)</p>
<p>What woud it take to make the Obama worshippers say, "you know, maybe we really don’t know enough about this guy. Does he have the judgement to be President? How can he survive what the Republicans are going to do to him. "</p>
<p>That flag picture will be all over Fox News tomorrow. Barry’s buddy.</p>
<p>If all charges against Ayers were dropped, then he’s not guilty of anything. If he’s not guilty of anything, then why shouldn’t Obama or anyone else refuse to associate with him? Ayers made something better out of his life than earlier circumstances might have indicated. The Annenberg Foundation gives away millions of dollars to schools every year. </p>
<p>And really, I-Dad, quoting from some basement blogger’s website where the bias is thick as brick isn’t any way to influence people.</p>
<p>doctormom,</p>
<p>I’dad knows that the Clintons have a lot more skeletons waiting to be pushed out of the closet by the Republicans. Why do you think Rush Limbaugh and all the conservative talk show guys are telling their minions to vote for Hillary? They know that she would be a much easier candidate for their party to expose! :rolleyes:</p>
<p>“But you haven’t watched or read any news since January, so I guess you can’t”</p>
<p>doctormom50, please explain why this comment was necessary? </p>
<p>Why do you feel it is necessary to try to discredit people by virtue of age or stating that they are not educated enough. Do you really think that you are the only one who “watched or read the news since January”? Does this somehow give you greater credibility? I do wonder who you are, because you sound so undereducated in these discussions.</p>
<p>^ This could be a swat parent lovefest. Where is tommy?</p>
<p>Ok, just kidding…;)</p>
<p>1soccermom: Who’s tommy?</p>
<p>doctormom50: Again, why try to discredit people who obviously are well-educated. Everyone can have opinions, including you, and they are all equal. You obviously like Barack Obama, others don’t. I believe that is why the race is still going on. </p>
<p>So let’s respect each other’s opinions and not try to take cheap shots at others for their opinions. Otherwise, you could go to an Obama fundraiser and do a testimonial, if you haven’t already. There people would certainly all agree with you. You are a good supporter for Obama.</p>
<p>Hi swatparent,
tommybill was a poster who was an avid Hillary fan. I think he has a daughter that goes to swat. He and I’dad share a lot of the same opinions toward their candidate, often looking at her with only rose colored glasses. 
Sometimes it is their strong opinions and interpretations about Hillary that make some of the rest of us counter with some of the non-rose colored facts. ;)</p>
<p>Can they opine? yes. Can we counter? yes.</p>
<p>I’Dad may be a Clinton delegate, even though he claims he’ll re-register. That could explain a certain level of venom, bitterness, & extreme partisanship.</p>
<p>As an Obama supporter, I certainly acknowledge that O has his share of flaws & mistakes. I’dad does not do the same for Clinton. That makes his posts a lot less credible, i.m.o.</p>
<p>I was originally an Edwards supporter & still regret that the party is so close-minded that they try to pre-select “their” candidate far in advance. I would alternatively been happy with Biden. Either one would have been less risky for the top of the ticket. Biden has way more experience than Clinton. I would also be happy with Biden for #2 with Obama.</p>
<p>Epiphany - I’m not kidding about Idad being part of Limbaugh’s Operation Chaos. No one could work that hard at making the candidate he supposedly supports look as bad as he makes Clinton look unless he was actually are trying to hurt both her *and *Obama. The incessant tone-deaf screeching about Ayers, Wright, Kennedy, etc., presented in a patently offensive manner, can only be a calculated attempt to damage the entire Democratic party - with Clinton taking the biggest hit to her public reputation of all.</p>
<p>It’s actually beyond weird. Idad and I have both been on CC a long, long time. Sometimes we agree on issues, sometimes we don’t, but I’ve always thought of him as someone who spoke in reasonable, measured responses that continue the dialogue. these last couple months, it’s like a different person using his screen-name. The level of vitriol is just not in character (and I’m afraid this remark will evince one of those new-Idad responses, along the lines of–“here’s ten examples of vitriol on the other side, justifying my posts”.) I miss the old Idad.</p>
<p>^ I remember some very strong vitriol about drunken frat boys and rushing to judgment about a certain scandal at a school down south from him. I saw some of the same stubborn righteousness continue for months even when proven wrong. 
</p>
<p>I think both sides are forgetting that, come November, they will need supporters of the other candidate to vote for them to have a realistic chance of winning back the White House. We have to make sure that over 70% of voters of each candidate vote for the other in November. </p>
<p>The nomination process has to be fair for each side to feel that they were given a fair chance to win the nomination. I think the DNC should have pushed hard for a revote in Michigan and Florida. This primary is very important, and I believe that every member of the Democratic party should have a say. There are a lot of Hillary supporters in Florida and Michigan who feel that the DNC did not give Hillary a fair chance, and a lot of these people wont vote for Obama come November. </p>
<p>I don’ understand why people are talking about superdelegates overturning the will of the people when some of the people were not allowed to have a say. For a party that screamed loudly in 2000 that every vote must count, they have certainly changed their tune this year. </p>
<p>This primary is a lose-lose situation for the Democratic party no matter who wins the nomination. A lot of people will leave the party.</p>
<p>tega,
This is a good summary of what happened. It is from one of many web sites that address the issue.</p>
<p>"The Democratic National Committee, hoping to maintain some semblance of control over the nominating calendar, mandated that Iowa would hold the first caucus, followed by New Hampshire with the first primary. Nevada would go third with its caucus, and South Carolina’s primary would round out the first four. The DNC said every other state could move its contest up to Feb. 5, but no sooner.</p>
<p>Michigan and Florida blew off the DNC’s mandate, and moved up their primaries. The DNC responded by punishing both states, stripping Michigan and Florida of their delegates to the national convention. With no delegates, their presidential primaries effectively became meaningless.</p>
<p>Indeed, in Florida’s case, each of the candidates agreed to play by the DNC’s rules and vowed not to campaign in the state at all. In Michigan, the candidates agreed not to “participate” in the state’s primary, which led John Edwards and Barack Obama to remove their names from Michigan’s primary ballot. For reasons that have never been clear, Clinton promised not to participate in Michigan’s contest, but she refused to take her name off the ballot.</p>
<p>Now, one can certainly make the argument that the DNC was overly harsh in its punishment. And one can argue that the candidates were wrong to protect the integrity of the nominating calendar. But under the circumstances, these are tangents — the candidates did agree to play by these rules. All of them had plenty of opportunities to argue against these rules while they were being written, but each vowed to respect the process."</p>
<p>1sokkermom, I Know about the agreement.</p>
<p>Obama broke the agreement.</p>
<p>[Where</a> the Dem Rules Really Lead - Craig Crawford’s Trail Mix](<a href=“http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2008/04/where-the-dem-rules-really-lea.html]Where”>http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2008/04/where-the-dem-rules-really-lea.html)</p>
<p>If the DNC wants to enforce its own rules, Hillary should be getting half of the delegates from Florida, and Obama should be getting zero. The DNC is choosing to enforce part some of their own rules, and ignoring the other part.</p>
<p>I know they broke the rules, but I think they should have been given a second chance to vote.</p>
<p>I saw reports that indicate that Clinton had at least two fund raisers in Florida and a rally in Miami on the day of the primary.</p>
<p>As for the advertising by Obama, my understanding is that
the “advertisement” in question was a nationwide cable ad for all 50 states, not specific to Florida.</p>
<hr>
<p>This was in the Miami Herald in September 2007:</p>
<p>"Hillary joins Florida boycott</p>
<p>The Democratic frontrunner in Florida, Hillary Clinton, has joined a presidential candidate boycott of Florida, which violated Democratic National Committee rules when it moved up its primary to Jan. 29. The boycott was pushed onto the candidates by four smaller states with early primaries.</p>
<p>"We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process,‘’ said Clinton campaign manager Patti Sollis Doyle. “And we believe the DNC’s rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role. Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There’s so much nonsense written here on this topic that it’s hard to know where to start.</p>
<p>First, the agreement not to campaign in Florida and Michigan was not a DNC rule. It was a pledge that the Dem Party in Iowa, NH, SC, and NV forced the candidates to sign.</p>
<p>Second, this “pledge” allowed private fundraising trips to both states, which is what Obama did in Florida, early during the pledge. As a practical matter, the campaigns didn’t even send surrogates as the primary approached. For example, neither Bill Clinton nor M. Obama attended the Florida party convention. </p>
<p>Third, the pledge only covered the period BEFORE a state’s primary. Clinton flew to Florida for a rally after the polls in Florida had closed on election day.</p>
<p>Fourth, the Michigan ballot name removal was an ambush by the Obama, Edwards, and that guy from NM’s campaign. They communicated and agreed to pull their names off the ballot an hour before the deadline without telling the Clinton campaign so that she would have no time to file the paperwork. The story was first broken on the Iowa Independent website and confirmed by the campaigns. This was purely voluntary on the part of Edwards, Obama, and that guy from NM. Obama later regretted pulling his name and organized an effort thru the black churches to have his supporters vote for “uncommitted”.</p>