<p>Former Clinton cabinet member Robert Reich has now endorsed Obama. That makes 5 former cabinet members endorsing the Illinois Senator. Seems that those that know Hillary best (from all that experience in the White House) know she is ready on day NONE.</p>
<p>One a different subject, I was just curious, Obama is routinely taken to task for not wearing the obligatory flag pin but Billary never wear one and no mention is ever made of that.</p>
<p>“One a different subject, I was just curious, Obama is routinely taken to task for not wearing the obligatory flag pin but Billary never wear one and no mention is ever made of that.”
Exactly! What hypocrisy!</p>
<p>“Former Clinton cabinet member Robert Reich has now endorsed Obama. That makes 5 former cabinet members endorsing the Illinois Senator. Seems that those that know Hillary best (from all that experience in the White House) know she is ready on day NONE.”</p>
<p>Clinton has lost five superdelegates in the past 3 days. That’s more than she is likely to pick up in margin in Pennsylvania unless she wins by 20+.</p>
<p>Toast.</p>
<p>Does Reich’s endorsement of Obama hold more weight then Hamas’ endorsement of Obama?</p>
<p>He’s a superdelegate. ;)</p>
<p>Well, Reich is a US citizen, a former Clinton cabinet member and a super-delegate. Is Hamas any of these? (rhetorical question).</p>
<p>Obama’s lapel pin “controversy” may have been sparked by the fact that he was also seen not putting his hand over his heart during the national anthem.</p>
<p>I’ve seen photos of the candidates while the anthem was played and it really does look strange that they all were standing there with their hands over their hearts - all except Obama.</p>
<p>Reich isn’t a superdelegate.</p>
<p>I believe erewhon is correct, I think Reich is currently employed as a prof. i don’t really understand the whole super thing- but don’t they have to be elected officials?</p>
<p>That brings up another question- say he was the *current *secretary of Labor,( we won’t discuss the sex change) since that is an appointed position, would that be a superdelegate or no?</p>
<p>“Unlike most convention delegates, the superdelegates are not selected based on the party primary primaries and caucuses in each U.S. state. Instead, the superdelegates are seated automatically, based solely on their status as current or former elected officeholders and party officials. They are free to support any candidate for the nomination.”</p>
<p>[Superdelegates</a> in the 2008 presidential primaries - Congresspedia](<a href=“http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Superdelegates_in_the_2008_presidential_primaries]Superdelegates”>http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Superdelegates_in_the_2008_presidential_primaries)</p>
<p>I think it would show a lot of ingratitude for Hamas to endorse Obama, after all the Republican administration has done to help them increase their support around the world.</p>
<p>Reich is not a super-delegate. My only point in the OP was here is yet another Clinton “insider” now backing Obama.</p>
<p>Also of note is that the Obama campaign has also just received endorsements from two former senators, Sam Nunn and David Boren, each of whom served a quarter-century in their posts. The two also were named to Obama’s national security team. </p>
<p>As an aside, as to post #7, there is one photo that Billary worked to death where, yes, Senator Obama is standing at attention during the playing of the national anthem but, without his hand over his heart. </p>
<p>As he explained and I believe to be quite correct, we are taught to place our hand over our heart for the Pledge of Allegiance. The playing of the national anthem (as in the case of this one photo) has never called for any protocol except that one remove any hat they are wearing or, if wearing a chapeau, that they salute. The criticism of Obama re: this photo is simply without basis.</p>
<p>“I think it would show a lot of ingratitude for Hamas to endorse Obama, after all the Republican administration has done to help them increase their support around the world.”</p>
<p>Maybe he’ll get the endorsement of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, too, although since they were armed by General Betrayus and his “lost” $190 million in weapons, I think that unlikely.</p>
<p>Mini, you’re losing me with your snide reference to Gen. Betrayus. I thought the Moveon.org ad was disgraceful.
Petraeus is doing the best he can in a bad situation. But as Clinton reminded us, the president is the Commander-in-chief. And as Obama reminded us, generals can advise on tactics but it’s the president who makes policy.</p>
<p>Sorry. I think he betrayed his men - and hundreds of them died as a result - when he lost $190 million in weapons in 2004, many of which made their way into the hands of Al-Qaeda in Iraq and were used against American soldiers. (That he can escape court martial for such negligence demonstrates how low our military sunk under Rumsfeld.) He betrayed them a second time when he openly lied to the American people about the state of affairs in late 2004 (I already provided the link), causing them to think that “change was just around the corner”. His superior officer called him an AKLCS - do I have to spell that out again?</p>
<p>He is currently presiding over ethnic cleansing of an entire nation. Between July and October 2007 alone, 600,000 individuals - most of them pro-Western, many of them Christian - were forced into exile, according the United Nations High Commission on Refugees, as part of a deliberate policy to “quell sectarian violence”. Entire neighborhoods were walled off, using U.S. money and U.S. contractors. This is HIS policy - rubber-stamped by our current yoyo of a President.</p>
<p>Bush has made it clear - it is the GENERAL who makes policy. In this case, a general who has a track record of betraying his men, considered a sycophant by his commanding officer, and betraying the American people. I think he is a disgrace to his country, and no amount of well-spokenness on his part changes that reality.</p>
<p>If you don’t agree, that’s fine. Just ask the 2.2 million people in exile, the almost 3 million internal refugees, and the million widows whether they hold him in higher esteem than I do. And, if it were possible, I’d have you ask the hundreds of men killed by American-made weapons in Anbar.</p>
<p>So Bush is your source now? Did Petraeus make the decision to invade Iraq? Are we choosing between Petraeus, Obama, Clinton and McCain for president? I don’t expect any of them to be miracle workers. That includes Petraeus.</p>
<p>You said, “Petraeus is doing the best he can in a bad situation.”</p>
<p>I say he is a national disgrace, is responsible for causing a humanitarian disaster of epic proportions, and that he (as Bush has made clear) is formulating and implementing the policy on the ground.</p>
<p>Petraeus is one of the greatest and most qualified Generals our nation has ever seen, not to mention how dedicated he is to his men and his country. </p>
<p>“he betrayed his men” - Are you kidding? His son is serving under him, and I really doubt he would betray his own flesh and blood!</p>
<p>I can’t believe anyone would be so close-minded, naive, and ignorant as to even say what you said! Obviously you hate your country, but the fact that you hate those who fight for your freedom is what is truly disgusting.</p>
<p>I said just what I meant. He “lost” $190 million in military equipment, much of which found its way to Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and was used to kill hundreds of American soldiers. I call that betrayal, of his men, and of the public trust.</p>
<p>National disgrace. Should have been courtmartialed in 2004. Should have been removed by his superior officer who called him an AKLCS. But sycophancy rules.</p>
<p>Those who defend his actions are the folks who really hate America.</p>
<p>Aodh, No, those of us enraged over the Iraq debacle don’t “hate” our country at all. Quite the contrary. Because I love America, I want it to behave in a dignified, decent way toward our global neighbors. Just as I want my own children to be thoughtful and kind to others, rather than overbearing bullies. I want my beloved country to be respected in the eyes of the world, rather than despised. … Yes, I’m infuriated when the country I love is dragged into murderous, shameful misadventures by immoral leadership. … People who truly love their country ought to have high expectations for it. In my opinion, those who blindly adhere to the shop-worn adage “my country right or wrong” are of the ilk that would never have questioned Hitler.</p>