Clinton math

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
westside progressive	Clinton math	Lead	[-]
Member Posts: 1891 (04/22/08 23:27:52) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Tags : None If you read the mainstream media, Clinton won a decisive, double-digit victory tonight in Pennsylvania, giving her campaign a much needed boost for the nomination. Full results on msnbc show a 10-point margin for Clinton: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21229229 Same thing over at CNN: http://www.cnn.com/ Only thing... IT'S NOT TRUE!!! According to the PA elections site, it's not 55-45, but 54-46: http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/ What's more, you can't chalk it up to the media not updating their totals. Look really carefully, and you'll see that the media is reporting fewer votes for Obama than the PA secretary of state, and *MORE* votes for Clinton than the secretary of state! Where the hell did those voters come from? Spin from Clinton's camp I can understand. The way Clinton math works, as someone on Kos explained it, is this: 8.6% gets rounded up to 9, and 9 as we all know gets rounded up to 10. And 10 points is double digits, and therefore a mandate. But what I find most shameful is the media complicity in the Clinton spin. And no, this is not an "honest mistake." The media has a narrative for this story. That narrative is that the Clinton campaign has gotten a psychological boost, and therefore gets to go on. It's a good narrative for them, because they get to cover it for as long as it drags on. But that narrative needs a "double-digit" win in order to work, so they'll massage the data to pull a 10-point win out of their asses if they have to. Truth be damned! Why let the facts get in the way of a perfectly good narrative?
KenKnows		#1	[-]
Member Posts: 904 (04/23/08 08:42:58) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	The same Editorial Board of the New York Times that endorsed Hillary many months ago is today blasting Hillary for her negative campaign: The Pennsylvania campaign, which produced yet another inconclusive result on Tuesday, was even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it. Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it does not work. It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election. If nothing else, self interest should push her in that direction. Mrs. Clinton did not get the big win in Pennsylvania that she needed to challenge the calculus of the Democratic race. It is true that Senator Barack Obama outspent her 2-to-1. But Mrs. Clinton and her advisers should mainly blame themselves, because, as the political operatives say, they went heavily negative and ended up squandering a good part of what was once a 20-point lead. On the eve of this crucial primary, Mrs. Clinton became the first Democratic candidate to wave the bloody shirt of 9/11. A Clinton television ad - torn right from Karl Rove's playbook - evoked the 1929 stock market crash, Pearl Harbor, the Cuban missile crisis, the cold war and the 9/11 attacks, complete with video of Osama bin Laden. "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen," the narrator intoned. If that was supposed to bolster Mrs. Clinton's argument that she is the better prepared to be president in a dangerous world, she sent the opposite message on Tuesday morning by declaring in an interview on ABC News that if Iran attacked Israel while she were president: "We would be able to totally obliterate them." By staying on the attack and not engaging Mr. Obama on the substance of issues like terrorism, the economy and how to organize an orderly exit from Iraq, Mrs. Clinton does more than just turn off voters who don't like negative campaigning. She undercuts the rationale for her candidacy that led this page and others to support her: that she is more qualified, right now, to be president than Mr. Obama. Mr. Obama is not blameless when it comes to the negative and vapid nature of this campaign. He is increasingly rising to Mrs. Clinton's bait, undercutting his own claims that he is offering a higher more inclusive form of politics. When she criticized his comments about "bitter" voters, Mr. Obama mocked her as an Annie Oakley wannabe. All that does is remind Americans who are on the fence about his relative youth and inexperience. No matter what the high-priced political operatives (from both camps) may think, it is not a disadvantage that Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton share many of the same essential values and sensible policy prescriptions. It is their strength, and they are doing their best to make voters forget it. And if they think that only Democrats are paying attention to this spectacle, they're wrong. After seven years of George W. Bush's failed with-us-or-against-us presidency, all American voters deserve to hear a nuanced debate - right now and through the general campaign - about how each candidate will combat terrorism, protect civil liberties, address the housing crisis and end the war in Iraq. It is getting to be time for the superdelegates to do what the Democrats had in mind when they created superdelegates: settle a bloody race that cannot be won at the ballot box. Mrs. Clinton once had a big lead among the party elders, but has been steadily losing it, in large part because of her negative campaign. If she is ever to have a hope of persuading these most loyal of Democrats to come back to her side, let alone win over the larger body of voters, she has to call off the dogs. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/opinion/23wed1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
Chic Deluxe	The real question is...	#2	[-]
Member Posts: 2256 (04/23/08 10:16:39) Chic a la Mod Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	... Why do you hate America?
valupak		#3	[-]
Member Posts: 711 (04/23/08 12:10:17) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	If you read the mainstream media, Clinton won a decisive, double-digit victory tonight in Pennsylvania, giving her campaign a much needed boost for the nomination. The media, mainly TV stations, rake in hundreds of million$ on political ads. The closer-tied they can claim a political race to be, the more they can get candidates to buy those TV 1-minute commercials. That's my paranoid notion about why-the-hype about Clinton's "double-digit victory".
westside progressive		#4	[-]
Member Posts: 1894 (04/23/08 13:44:28) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	I'd say that's probably accurate, VP. I think it's more about themselves than any love for Clinton. When Clinton was the frontrunner, they were trashing her mercilessly. Now, the one candidate who the media really fawn over is John McCain. Just wait till the general election, and you'll see what I mean.
KenKnows		#5	[-]
Member Posts: 905 (04/23/08 14:17:23) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Chic Deluxe wrote: ... Why do you hate America? That is exactly the question that the media needs to ask Hillary Clinton.
WishYouWereDead	hundreds of millions?	#6	[-]
Member Posts: 2641 (04/23/08 18:30:31) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	value: HUNDREDS of millions?... methinks thou dost protest too much... my guess (for pennsylvania) would be 1-5 million paid to the "media" (you referred to commercials - i will include print ads)...
valupak		#7	[-]
Member Posts: 712 (04/23/08 18:59:18) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	WishYouWereDead wrote: value: HUNDREDS of millions?... methinks thou dost protest too much... my guess (for pennsylvania) would be 1-5 million paid to the "media" (you referred to commercials - i will include print ads)... Well I wasn't referring to PA alone. BUT, for only the Demo primary in PA, and not even the real election in Nov. is upon us yet..... Here are the actual numbers on TV spending, from the Campaign Media Analysis Group, in the last 30 days. In Philadelphia, Mrs. Clinton spent $2.1 million compared with $4.7 by Mr. Obama. In Pittsburgh, Mrs. Clinton spent $630,00 compared with Mr. Obama's $1.9 million. http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/22/live-blogging-the-pa-primary/?hp So that's 4.7 plus 2.1 = 6.8 million$ just for 30 days of TV ads in PA, no EDIT correct that, 6.8 million$ in Philadelphia alone, and more than 2.5 millions$ spent in Pittsburgh alone. So that is more than 9 million spent in just two PA cities on TV ads, within 30 days(There could have been even more ads earlier than 30 days ago). Multiply that by 50 states they gotta go through, and my "hundreds of million$" guesstimate can't be that far off. And repeat, THIS IS ONLY THE PRIMARY. Across the nation, TV stations will be getting HUNDREDS of million$ more come Oct & Nov. Last Edited By: valupak 04/23/08 21:57:00. Edited 1 times.
PHLemingo	Corination Street	#8	[-]
Member Posts: 1193 (04/25/08 09:15:37) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Juat checking, and its 54.6::45.4, or a 9.2% lead (4.6 + 4.6). Still, nine-point-two shouldn't have been rounded UP but roundedn down; mspecially to make the result "doulbe digits". What I'm wondering though is ... isn't this like only half of the vote? Don't PAers vote considerably by AB? Also, I'd like clarification. I read somewhere that 179,000 voters were 'switch voters' (and another 200k were "new"). I also heard (somewhere, ??) that 160,000 Repb ulicans changed parties. So, thats close to 10% of new voters, and almost "9.2%" of changed voters. So what are the chances Hillary askes 'Uncle Joe' to be her running mate?!? Just wondering/ -P
westside progressive		#9	[-]
Member Posts: 1895 (04/25/08 19:00:40) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Actually, in PA it's pretty difficult to vote by AB. You need some sort of an excuse. Nor is there early voting. So the vote is pretty much in at this point... and Hillary has gained what, 10 delegates out of this? I wouldn't put it past her to ask Joe Lieberman to be her running mate. But I think she realizes that many people will bolt if she were to do that. I won't be the only one... of course I knew Lieberman was slime even in 2000. Back then most people shrugged it off. Then again, at this point it's pointless to talk about this. Her chances of winning the nomination, let alone the presidency, are right about in line with Ralph Nader's. Not that I would deny her the right to run or anything, but I wish that she and Bill would both just go away at this point.
Marc L Chamot.sfpolifactics	The real truths; Pennsylvanian Voters say no thanks to Barack Obama;	#10	[-]
Member Posts: 1 (04/25/08 19:01:43) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Pennsylvanian Voters say no thanks to Barack Obama; exposes his Major Weaknesses; You're definitely "NOT" the man Barack! By Marc Chamot Did Barack Obama's racist pastor Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ do him in with the Pennsylvania "White" voters? In my previous piece I talked about the Barack Obama miscues and missteps that have been dogging him for the past month and a half. I talked about trends based on facts not unscientific polls that mainstream media want to shove down our throats, and that trends were favoring Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama. Pennsylvania proved that Barack Obama is a very flawed presidential candidate. The problem with Barack Obama's "change we can believe in" his mantra, is only change for a few and the neglected few of his core of supporters. He's not for the majority of Americans. The only core voter groups that seem to be carrying Barack Obama are African Americans and young college groups along with the quiche and white wine drinkers and lattes lefties elitists within the Democratic Party. Actually his campaign has been on the wrong track from the beginning with inadequacies . Like wanting to grant drivers licenses for illegal aliens and the Tony Rezco scandals. Also fallout from Barack Obama's pastor the Reverend Jeremiah Wright anti-white, anti-American, anti-rich hate preaching's from his pulpit and the Barack Obama arrogant "small town bitter comments" that rural Pennsylvanians cling to guns and religion and that they are anti-immigrant and anti-trade because they are angry and bitter. Barack Obama's ties to a known American bomber and terrorist in Bill Ayers didn't help him much either. Pennsylvania showed that Barack Obama has a total disconnect among white voters, especially the predominant Catholic and Reagan Democrats, the blue collar and working man. Hillary Clinton broke new voting records among white voters last night. African Americans are ten percent of the Pennsylvanian population and voting group. If you look at the results and subtract 92% percent of the total Pennsylvanian African American votes that went to Barack Obama then your left with the difference of almost 2 to 1 white voters deficit for Barack Obama. After all said and done white voters in general voted almost 2 to 1 for Clinton and a FIRST, white women voted for Hillary 3 to 1 compared to Obama with new records broken by Hillary Clinton among white voters unseen in past primaries. According to CNN's John King with his trusted "magic board" and their best elections coverage teams said that it was a real Barack Obama thumping across the board in Pennsylvania. CNN does have the best elections coverage around and better than any other network in the business. They turn any dummies like myself into an instant political connoisseur with a wealth of information. They explain things for the novice political junkie to understand things better. CNN elections coverage is a gem to watch. According to CNN stats numerous predominantly white counties in Pennsylvania voted for Hillary upwards 65% to a high 80% in her favor something that has also never happened to Barack Obama before. Compounding with the danger that approximately 29 percent of Hillary Clinton "White" supporters and voters have said that they will not vote in any shape or form for Barack Obama in the general elections. It's a dangerous sign for the Democratic Party to be able to seat a Democratic president in the White House if Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee. Don't blame whites for your troubles; blame Barack Obama for hiding his true self from the voters through his mainstream media buddies and your pastor Reverend Jeremiah Wright for the chaos. Race once again is becoming an issue for some of Barack Obama's supporters. You could see the FEAR in their eyes on CNN and Fox News last night. They are witnessing a first African American possible presidential candidacy slipping away from their grasps. I have no doubt that Pennsylvania showed that Obama's radical pastor Jeremiah Wright has done insurmountable and possibly un-repairable amounts of damage to Barack Obama especially among white voters. His refusal to wear an American flag on his lapel and placing his hand over his heart during a pledge of allegiances, and Michelle Obama's comment "I am finally proud of America" has in one way or other compounded more damages to this candidate for the American presidency. Barack Obama is the most leftwing of all senators in the US senate. I consider him our American version of Venezuela's left wing radical Hugo Chavez. On CNN last night Bill Bennett was absolutely right in one thing when he said the secret success to Bill Clinton was something that I have been complaining on my blogs for quite sometime that neither candidates were doing. Bill Clinton's success was his ability to reach the middle, the center and neglected moderates and somewhat conservative voters, especially like myself disillusioned and neglected by the Bush Republican Party. And Barack Obama certainly isn't the man to do that for me and never has been. In one of my past pieces I wrote about how concerned I was with both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama's pandering to the very same left wing groups of the Democratic Party for their support. Apparently it now looks like Hillary Clinton has learned her lesson the hard way. It looks like the very same left wing group that she pandered to have abandoned her in droves long ago in favor of Barack Obama. Had she recognized this month ago, she could have been the front-runner not playing catch-up with Barack Obama. David Gergen on CNN last night made another sound comment on Barack Obama, he said that Barack Obama is in deep trouble over the white voters when he saw these 65 to 80% figures in some blue-collar counties going to Clinton. Unless he fixes it soon he's in deep trouble in the general election. Having pumped in 11 million dollars into the Pennsylvanian campaign by Barack Obama almost 3 to 1 in money spent compared to Hillary Clinton hasn't fazed Hillary's success at all. It will take more than just African Americans, big money, young college students and quiche and white wine drinkers lefties elites to bring about an Obama US presidency. It will take a core of Latinos, that has been proven will never vote for Barack Obama and it will take a core of blue collar, religious white voters, Reagan Democratic states which Barack Obama has alienated through Jeremiah Wright and other missteps.
westside progressive		#11	[-]
Member Posts: 1896 (04/25/08 19:33:40) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Well, Marc, there were quite a few inaccuracies in your post. Rather than dwell on them and correct them line by line, I just want to ask a question... It's pretty clear that Clinton can't win at this point. I'm sure she'll stay in it till the "bitter" end, because power is what she's wanted most for all her life. But to the rest of us, it's clear that it's over. Given that, are you actually going to vote for Insane McCain, a guy who wants 100 more years of war? Because Obama doesn't hate immigrants enough? I don't get it.
WishYouWereDead	sorry marc	#12	[-]
Member Posts: 2642 (04/25/08 20:59:09) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	i didn't read your "previous piece"... did it have anything to do with "why i hate blacks?"...
Marc Lewis Chamot		#13	[-]
Member Posts: 281 (04/26/08 06:58:40) Member. Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Actually Westside; in regards to inaccuracies you mention, these stats are straight from CNN's voting outcomes. Every thing mentioned about Obama's negatives are the truths unless someone wants to spin it out of context. Secondly I totally disagree with you, Hillary Clinton still got a shot. Maybe out of the ten remaining primaries she's got a real shot to win nine except North Carolina. If the trends go south on Obama among white voters like it did in Pennsylvania, Hillary has a good reason to take the Democratic nomination with the super delegates. What actually doesn't make any sense Westside, is that the gays and homosexuals support Obama when he's connected to anti-homosexuals pastors including Rev. Wright and another hateful anti-homophobe pastor in Chicago, forgot his name. I saw Wish bring up that question on an earlier thread on Junto. And if in the likeliness that Florida popular results get added on she could get the majority popular votes and win this thing with the popular votes and with super delegates…. Obama's pastor Jeremiah Wright killed it for Obama and the Democratic hierarchy is very nervous about it… Yesterday's Obama's comment that "Racists will vote for John McCain' added more fuel to the fire and even dug him deeper in unwanted racial controversies. This guy, not only his pastor, his big mouth is killing him, Obama don't know when to shut up…. The only negative about McCain is the war and I agree with you, but McCain never was a conservative Republican, he's despised by Republican religious right-wingers and conservatives and is very attractive with Independents and moderate Democrats including many Hillary Clinton supporters, such as Reagan Democrats… Actually if you look at John McCain's voting track record has been more for Democratic issues than Republicans… That's why Republicans call him a RINO, (Republican in Name Only). You've known me for years Westside, I never leaned far left and I despise religious right-wingers. That is why I despise George Bush and religious right-wingers despise me too. That's why they hate John McCain because he's not pandering to them like George Bush was. I have told my conservatives buddies that John McCain doesn't need their votes to be president, they are going to have to vote for him anyway if they want to keep the White House Republican. Obama and Clinton are doing just fine for him as the way things are going for Democrats. I did a piece on Left Wingers like to call me a Right Winger Zealot and Religious Right Wingers call me a Leftie; Left Wingers like to call me a Right Winger Zealot and Religious Right Wingers call me a Leftie; why It's a can't win Situation in the World of Blogging: You can call me a liberal or a conservative, but don't EVER call me a leftie whack job or a religious right wing zealot! You just can't win for losing in the world of political blogging. And Wish? It's funny that Barack Obama supporters like to call people that bring about the Racist Wright/Obama controversy up and its effects on white voters as 'we hate blacks" kind of thing, it's almost like whose calling the pot "black." if you get my meaning. If it weren't so funny it would be hysterical…. More on Obama's Ties on Zimbio.com According to Red State blog: Now comes word that Larry Lessig and Google really could care less that so many of us revere Jesus. This time the Lord is not in a jar of urine, but singing "I will survive" in a diaper before being run over by a bus. If you are really curious, you can watch this work of blasphemy [above]. Though the Obama campaign is guarded in what connection Lessig has to the campaign, googling Obama's technology policy we can see that tech bloggers are widely under the impression that Obama consulted Lessig first. In fact, Lessig hosts the policy on his website. Likewise, in his endorsement of Obama, Lessig admits they are friends and former colleagues. Lessig has also been on the campaign trail speaking on behalf of Barack Obama. Barack Obama's campaign has regularly cited Lessig as a key supporter on technology issues (see here too) and made sure Lessig was quoted when listing Obama's technology endorsers. Obama's campaign has also used Lessig to reach out to journalists writing about Obama's tech positions. It's no secret that the Obama campaign does not want to be tied too directly to Lessig. In addition to happily showing off blasphemous images of Christ, Lessig is also known as a digital communist (read the linked article for the substance of why he's called that) Lessig believes there should be no such thing as intellectual property rights -- patents and copyrights should be tossed. Lessig's anti-property theories give businesses and a lot of regular folks the heebie-jeebies. After all, if the government can strip you of your intellectual property, why can't it take away your real property? Anyone seeing a connection between Senator Obama and the kinds of long term friends he surrounds himself with? Here is a partial list of people that Barack Obama has written about as his mentors or participated in their events, sat on boards with them or is just "friends" with them: 1. Obama's father - a Muslim and Communist 2. Obama's wife - who for the first time in her adult life is "really proud of America". 3. Palestinian Rashid Khalidi - an anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian apologist. 4. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. - pastor, mentor, racist and anti-American. 5. Reverend Louis Farrahakan - racist, bigot, leader of the Nation of Islam, Obama particpated in Farrahakan's Million Man march. 6. Bill Ayers - convicted and unrepentant terrorist, member of the Weatherman Underground. 7. Tony Rezko - Syrian, indited for money laundering, benefactor and campaign contributor. 8. Raila Odinga - Obama's cousin, communist, leader of Kenyan opposition, who promised Sharia law in Kenya if elected. 9. Frank Marshall Davis - Obama mentor while he was in college in Hawaii. Davis is a card carrying member of the Communist Party of the USA. 10. Larry Lessig - anti-Christ, anti-Christian and digital Communist technical advisor to Obama. Found Here: http://www.zimbio.com/OBAMA+WE+NEED+YOU+NOW/articles/144/Obama+tech+advisor+makes+video+Jesus+gay+wearing
Marc Lewis Chamot	The real reason why hmosexuals hate the Clintons:	#14	[-]
Member Posts: 282 (04/26/08 07:16:38) Member. Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	I had predicted a possible Clinton destruction of the Democratic Party out of revenge back on Thursday, April 3, 2008 when New Mexico governor Bill Richardson betrayed the Clintons over Obama... I was the first to talk about it on the Net and Zimbio.com and now it's the talk of the Net.... web polls are propping up all over about this.... The Democratic Apparatus Betrayals/Defections from the Clinton Machine was it tied to Homosexuals' "Don't Ask Don't Tell"; Payback Time? The Democratic Apparatus Betrayals/Defections from the Clinton Machine was it tied to Homosexuals' "Don't Ask Don't Tell"; Is it Payback Time from all sides? By Marc Chamot It was before the 2006-midterm December elections; the talk of the time mainly through conservative talk radio was that Hillary Clinton was the shoe in for the democratic nomination for the 2008 presidential nomination. The Clinton machine had it all, the best of all worlds and a well orchestrated easy run for this upcoming Whitehouse. The Clinton machine and Democrats got a good boost after the Republicans got thrashed from congressional and senate control in Washington. It was for the Clintons and Democrats to win the 2008 Whitehouse and it was theirs alone. That was then, but unfortunately something came along the way on January 2008 that monkey wrenched the whole Clinton strategy broken to pieces and that was Barack Obama. Obama Starts '08 Bid, Reshaping Democratic Field WASHINGTON, Jan. 16 - Two years after arriving in Washington, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois made clear on Tuesday his intention to enter the Democratic presidential race, creating an exploratory committee while preparing to open a full-fledged campaign next month to become the nation's first black president. Full Story: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/17/us/politics/17obama.html A racially charged Barack Obama presidential candidacy would take away the traditional African American voters from the Clintons, by making it from a run away Clinton race into a tight race and possible elimination. While most Democrat voters in the nation revered Bill Clinton, homosexuals despised him and unfortunately for Hillary Clinton there was a big problem for her in getting the majority of powerful Democrats in unison behind her because of Bill Clinton's "Don't Ask Don't Tell." On top of it all Hillary Clinton is not well liked made it that much harder for Hillary Clinton to win the Democratic nomination. There was a concerted effort by some left wing Democratic liberals structure to derail the Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton presidential machine. Bill Clinton as president somehow angered most of these left wing homosexual Democratic apparatus because of "don't ask don't tell" military policies and went through all efforts in finding a suitable candidate that could defeat Hillary Clinton and the Clinton machine for the Democratic nomination. One of the biggest groups still seething with anger towards Bill Clinton are the homosexual groups still angered by Bill Clinton's refusal to allow more open gay military. Bill Clinton's; U.S. Military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Policy Panders to PrejudiceAnti-Gay Harassment Flourishes (New York, January 23, 2003) The U.S. military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy of discharging gay and lesbian servicemembers who reveal their sexual orientation violates human rights and deprives the military of skilled personnel, Human Rights Watch said in a new report released today. America prides itself on being a nation of liberty and tolerance, yet it permits its military to remain a bastion of discrimination against gays and lesbians. Jamie Fellner, Esq.Director, U.S. Program Under "don't ask, don't tell," any servicemember who acknowledges his or her homosexuality by word or deed is discharged. Between 1994 and the end of 2001, more than 7,800 servicemembers were forced out of the military because of the policy. "America prides itself on being a nation of liberty and tolerance," said Jamie Fellner, director of the U.S. Program of Human Rights Watch. "Yet it permits its military to remain a bastion of discrimination against gays and lesbians." In a letter sent to President Bush with the report, "Uniform Discrimination: The 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Policy of the U.S. Military," Human Rights Watch asked him to seek an end to discharges on the basis of sexual orientation and to work with Congress to repeal the 1993 law codifying the policy. "'Don't ask, don't tell' panders to prejudice," said Fellner. "Gay and lesbian servicemembers are discharged without regard to their skills, training, commitment or courage - victims of the irrational fears and stereotypes some heterosexuals have about them." http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/01/us012303.htm Liberal homosexuals saw it as Bill Clinton abandoning his leftist liberal roots; they saw him as a traitor for their causes and weren't ready to forget and it was payback time. When Ted Kennedy endorsed Obama the Liberal floodgates opened up the collapse for any hopes in a Hillary Clinton presidency with mass defections from powerful Democrats like Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy and Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the Democrats' 2004 presidential candidate, endorsed Obama recently. Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius climbed aboard, the morning after she delivered the Democrats' rebuttal speech to President Bush's State of the Union address. The Clintons certainly feel betrayed and angry by the Democratic elites and political apparatus that abandoned them and destroyed their machine. For a Clinton easy withdrawal to help the Democrats in aligning themselves for a smooth Barack Obama Democratic nomination and presidency will never happen and cannot happen under these circumstances of betrayals. I personally don't blame the Clintons for being angry by these betrayals, especially from these so called friends who turned out to be total traitors. It makes a lot of sense to me for the Clintons to drag this race into the Democratic convention even to the point of damaging the Democratic chances for the 2008 presidential elections as payback for your payback. Last Edited By: Marc Lewis Chamot 04/26/08 07:40:24. Edited 1 times.
westside progressive		#15	[-]
Member Posts: 1899 (04/26/08 23:30:50) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Marc, It's not your statistics I was referring to. It's some of the opinions and conclusions you draw which I find inaccurate. First of all, McCain is no maverick. His lifetime voting record puts him squarely in the conservative Republican fold. Anti-choice, big business, pro-war, the whole enchilada. Except for a couple issues -he's willing to entertain the idea of limited campaign finance reform, and he doesn't hate immigrants as much as some of his fellow Repugs. Ironically, though, one of the few issues that he agrees with most Democrats on is the one which you disagree with him most. And as for not pandering to the religious right, what about Pastor Hagee? I'll take Wright over that hatemonger Hagee any day, and McCain actively sought his endorsement. As for Barack's ties... they don't worry me. Everyone has lots of "ties." None of the people you mentioned are advising him now -a pity, in some cases. Because some of the people who are advising him are actually worse. Like Brezinski, the Carter-era imperialist. Not to mention a slew of warmongering generals. But what are you going to do? The people surrounding McCain and Clinton are far worse. As for all those stats you brought up to support the point that Obama can't win, that Obama doesn't have the support of the majority... look, Clinton and Obama appeal to different groups. That's true. Obama's core support comes from African Americans (a key Democratic Party constituency), young people (ie., the future of this country), and the anti-war movement (whom Clinton dissed and dismissed to her demise). Clinton does better with older women over 60 and hispanics, though not in every state. In the end though, old ladies won't be enough to carry it for her. Obama is still on track to win the nomination -Clinton's 9-point win in PA actually makes her climb steeper than it was before PA. And whatever Obama's weaknesses with certain groups, polls consistently show him doing better than Clinton in the general, tied or beating McCain. But that's now, in the worst of times, when there's so much negativity in the Democratic race. I think the polls will get much better once that's settled. The Republican brand is so tainted after the last 7 disasterous years, that I actually think either Democrat could win. Even Hillary could probably eek out a narrow electoral vote victory, and Obama has the potential for a Reaganesque landslide. But what's the point of speculating? In 6 months, we'll find out who's right.
westside progressive	More Clinton Math	#16	[-]
Member Posts: 1906 (04/30/08 23:02:30) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Politico does a great job explaining the "Hillary Rules" by which Hillary Math operates! http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9994.html Maybe Hillary went to the same school as Mike Huckabee. Remember him? He declared "I didn't major in math. I majored in miracles."

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Clinton math

Clinton math

Quick Reply