Clinton Camp Misrepresents ABC News Report

ABC has something to say about the elections? They should be somewhere hanging their heads in shame for that horrible debate they sponsored. It was a complete train wreck.

It's really sad, shameful, and pitiful that I have to go to the BBC to hear unbiased news. I guess this is what a corporate run media looks like. The journalists are so caught up in the salaciousness of the people NOT running for president they can't even report correctly.

Americans have to scrape and scrounge for a good news source because we know that ABC, FOX, and CNN aren't it. Our children can tell us more about Britney Spears, Miley Cyrus, and Rihanna than they ever could about the Executive branch of our government. TV, especially the news, will make you stupid. Thanks for proving that ABC.

Given the probability that Hillary Clinton was going to be the Dem nominee to win the 2008 election--a foregone conclusion at the inception of this campaign given the abysmal record of the Bush regime--there suddenly emerged the "perfect opponent" to insure divisiveness among the Democrats: a black male named Barack Obama.

Obama's campaign warchest was instantly flooded with millions of dollars.

My antennae went up:
WHO or WHAT was the OZ behind THIS curtain? WHO stood to gain by an intra-party conflict of the magnitude that has ensued?

And WHO actually had the bucks to make his campaign fly?

There was only one answer: the folks with the REAL money. There is a certain group that was quaking in their boots at the changes that Hillary's election might well bring about: a fair shake for the average American.
The Democrats I know are not known to have $1000 bills to spare, to toss into election coffers. So the true source of all the millions and millions of dollars being thrown at Barack Obama, using logic and reason,
HAD to be linked to the people who stood to suffer financially by Hillary's election: Republicans and their minions in corporate America: insurance, oil, pharmaceuticals, those who had effectively frozen all wage advances for the average worker during the Bush reign..in short..it HAD to be corporate America vis a vis the Republican Party who were betting on a "ringer" to disrupt the inevitability of Hillary's election.

No matter the outcome, their reasoning was that the entire Hillary vs Obama process would promote infighting and reveal the weaknesses of each Democratic candidate, ultimately to be (hope hope!) exploited in the final battle for the White House and have ANOTHER Republican in control.

The focus of this campaign is the ONE TRUE QUESTION facing us as Americans:
Are we going to CONTINUE TO allow ourselves to be manipulated and divided, this time using race and gender, to our ultimate defeat?
Will this Napoleonic attempt to "divide and conquer" (again) be successful?

Did we learn NOTHING in the wake of the manipulation of the Christian right that resulted in the George Bush/corporate regime that has dragged us into the "anything-BUT" Christian position of war, devastation,torture, financial and fiscal destruction, wholesale outsourcing of jobs and the medical vulnerability of EVERY American only one serious illness away from being financially devastated?

If McCain rides on the back of prejudice into the White House we have sorely failed as citizens of these UNITED States.

Dear God, I hope all Americans let the scales fall from their eyes.

Remember WHO owns the television media and controls the political commentaries--and commentators of ALL ilk, including the talk show hosts....

It ain't the man or woman who lost HIS job last month.

and THINK ON THESE THINGS.

The vote wisely and according to your conscience and common sense.

So IF you included just FL, she wouldn't be ahead...

IF you gave all the uncommited votes to Obama - meaning they voted "against" Hillary - beacuse she was the only person on the ballot - she would be further behind than she is now. She won less than 50% of the votes - with noone on the ticket.

I love those IFs...

To: mirthinstjoe
How about this missleading statment on OB's web-site!

PLAN FOR ENDING THE WAR IN IRAQ
“But conventional thinking in Washington lined up for war. The pundits judged the political winds to be blowing in the direction of the President. Despite - or perhaps because of how much experience they had in Washington, too many politicians feared looking weak and failed to ask hard questions. Too many took the President at his word instead of reading the intelligence for themselves. Congress gave the President the authority to go to war. Our only opportunity to stop the war was lost.
I made a different judgment. I thought our priority had to be finishing the fight in Afghanistan. I spoke out against what I called 'a rash war' in Iraq. I worried about, ‘an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences.’ The full accounting of those costs and consequences will only be known to history. But the picture is beginning to come into focus.”
—Barack Obama, Clinton, Iowa, September 12, 2007

I have checked out his web page! Because I have incountered a lot of BO Followers that beleave he voted no in the Senate on the Iraq War! That vote took place in Oct. of 2002; BO did not inter the Senate untill Jan. 2005!

Might either of these candidates lead or at least sign-on to opposition to confirmation of General Petraeus as commander of CENTCOM?

I can't believe it!
The Clinton camp made a False statement!
It would be News if they made a True
statement!
It's time for Hillary Pinnochio Clinton
to Go Home!

This situation is indicative of Hillary's campaign - twisting and changing the facts. Does she really think that the Florida and Michigan votes count? Does anyone know why Michigan and Florida had their primaries early knowing the DNC rules and what the consequencies would be?

Yea!!!actualy input from a voter in Michigan. Again the half truths prevail with the Clinton family. Hillary has no grace (among other things like lack of trust-illegal campaigning much much more)-that is why I switched to Obama-I honestly feel terrible for people who are in need of hope and hold on to every word Hillary says. The truth is, Hillary doesn't care about any of these people-she cares about her own agenda. Watch the Hillary movie and then let me know how you feel. She can't grab the bull by the horns with super delegates on her own, she is now copying Obama's campaign style and lying about the popular vote. Does she really think American's are in the dark? Hello!
Go OBAMA-thanks for your honesty and not selling your soul to the political machine!!!!!

I am so sick of Clinton and her team claiming Michigan. She was the only one on the darn ballet. I threw my vote over to the Republican primary vs. wasting it on Clinton (or uncommitted).

Here in Michigan we were told over and over how the Democratic primary didn't count. I am not the only one who jumped the ballot. Claiming Michigan for Clinton is joke. When will the media stop this ridiculous spin? I'm sick of hearing "your vote should count" from Camp Clinton -- nice try on stealing the election in Michigan. Keep this up and you will hand it to McCain this fall.

I will vote for him over Clinton. I wanted to vote Obama; but given the choice between Clinton and McCain I will choose McCain. Again. Try me.

If any of the candidates gave a darn about Michigan they would have noticed our recession long ago. I'm disgusted. Welcome to our world - maybe now that economic woes are not just here in Michigan someone will pay attention?

Split the delegates in Michigan or do not count them. It wasn't an election it was a joke.

"Maybe I'm strong enough not to vote against my convictions and conscience."

And what makes you the flag bearer in that respect? I'm sure as hell not voting based on what is neat and cool. It's ignorant statements like those that ensure partisanship will dominate politics for many years to come.

Most of the national media is failing to do its job in failing to report how flawed the fundamental idea of a national primary popular vote count actually is under these circumstances. They simply regurgitate the meme without critique. The Florida and Michigan issue is beside the point. The entire concept is a red herring to begin with. I do have to give props to Andrew Romano of Newsweek for accurately discussing this issue weeks ago.

Some caucus states record the individual person's vote. But at least four do not (notably Iowa, for one) and only record the local precinct delegates that emerge from each individual caucus.

In a true popular democratic vote, each person's vote counts so that if you win by just one vote, you still win. But the notion of a national popular primary vote is flawed for at least two reasons (1) it can't be counted accurately and (2) caucuses and primaries have different turnout rates, so that some states are grossly underrepresented in any popular vote tallies.

Remember, America's star politician could have given voice to Florida and Michigan voters by making a call that would have allowed both states to hold a re-election. Although for months the Senator from Illinois stated political rhetoric, when it came down to action, he refused.

Then Obama went on ABC and spoke for the first 45 minutes and cried when ABC picked on him. I guess the Senator from Illinois even bored himself. It was Obama's fault that few questions were asked since Obama kept repeating himself over-and-over. His lack of experience came out. For the first time, American's partially found out about the Obama tax plan that will force the Middle class and retirees to pay more taxes. For the first time, American's almost found out Obama's position on weapons. After a while the commentator stated, "I guess you answered my question". I guess growing up in private schools did not help this politician that made race an issue in this race.

Hey, Light315...

The GOP doesn't need anything to attack Obama: "Democratic Presidential Nominee Barack Hussein Obama" is all the Repubs need to win.

And "If you vote McCain over Obama, we know which side of the fence you are on." Really? You're automatically racist if you don't vote for Obama?

Well, brand me as such 'cause I ain't voting for him. Am I sexist 'cause I ain't voting for Hillary? Am I biased against the elderly 'cause I ain't voting for McCain? Maybe I'm just smart enough not to play follow the leader when it comes to politics and decisions that can impact the country and the whole world. Maybe I'm strong enough not to vote against my convictions and conscience.

Why has no one mentioned the Paul VS Clinton trial? This is big news. Fraud and illegal campaign contributions? With video evidence? Yet they play the Rev. Wright sound bite ad nauseum. I'm beginning to lose track of all the Clinton misdeeds. The GOP is salivating right now. They can attack her on so many fronts, it's pathetic. However, McCain certainly can't make a big deal about Rev. Wright (see Hagee). There is no viable way they can link Obama to Ayers. Rezko has borne no fruit for either HRC or the GOP. If the best they can do is call him on the "bitter" comment and (lol) the "flag pin" controversy, they don't have a leg to stand on. If you think that Obama appeared to be off his game in the last debate, consider how you'd perform after being sucker-punched by the "fair and balanced" media. I don't think they will catch him with his pants down (my apologies to Bill) this time. The only thing holding him back is the fact that a portion of this country is not ready to vote for a black man. Which is the stronger motivation? Racism or self intersest? If you vote McCain over Obama, we know which side of the fence you are on.

Does anyone stop and think that if Hillary were elected that would mean that either a Bush or a Clinton would have been president for almost a quarter of a century? How can she call her campaign about change? Of the millions of families in America, there must be someone other than a Bush or a Clinton to hold the highest seat. Having HRC elected would sound more like a monarchy than a democracy.

Besides her spin on the PA results, I love the one about having more experience. By that logic her husband should never have been elected president, I mean George H. Bush obviously had more experience during that election, he was only the president at the time.

"This is about HER ambition, not the welfare of the people."

Oh, that's rich! As if Obama's camaign isn't all about HIS ambition! As if any candidate's campaign isn't about their own ambition! But especially these two since they have absolutely ZERO chance or winning in November. If it were about the welfare of the people they would never have gotten into this and let a real candidate win this thing.

A University of Pennsylvania study conducted before the Penn Primary says that despite the Clinton claim that caucus states are unfair and really aren't as important as primaries, the rules of caucuses actually HELP her. The raw popular vote in caucuses are not counted, rather each caucus site selects a number of delegates. So the numbers that get reported are only DELEGATES not raw popular vote. If popular votes were figured in ( and this isn't 100% accurate) the U of Penn estimated that Obama would be ahead by roughly 2 Million votes.

The larger point is that this is exactly why people hate Hillary. She moves the goal posts to suit her notion of victory. She has 0% chance of winning the nomination without forever fracturing the democratic party. Yet she clings to whatever metric that she can spin to justify her staying in the campaign. This is about HER ambition, not the welfare of the people.

((( "10% is double digits as I count it, friends." )))

Sorry, Rev.St.Huck, but the actual final numbers were: Clinton, 54.6% and Obama, 45.4%. That's a difference of 9.2%. In other words, a single-digit win.

Unfortunately for many of us Khan, is the fact that WE didn't put ourselves on the bubble, the lovely Baby Boomers did. The younger crowd, including myself, are now stuck with the prospects of a failing economy, record oil prices, no social security, etc. So thanks for that... good reason enough not to vote for Clinton, or the status quo.