What a stupid post.

Nice image that tells the tale. I can see it as a political cartoon. Do you draw? in which a picture is worth

You've made the other crooked sticks angry. Excellent!

I think you touched a nerve, like Donna Brazile and Everette Ward touched nerves. The truth may set you free, but evidently, it also hurts.

Being straight is certainly what got me behind Barack Obama.

He ran a fabulous campaign. Almost perfect. Played by the rules. Stayed focused. Maintained his dignity. Kept his cool. Talked to us like adults. Amazing.

And when he is put side-by-side with John McCain the contrast between the two will be overwhelming. Add to that his team's awesome technical skills in running a campaign, and I think John McCain is going to wish he had Bob Dole's numbers in November.

And, best of all, Clinton's supporters are going to have a Democratic White House in January!

I'd still like to point out Frank Rich's first strong Obama article which give great points about why the senator from Illinois will win:

By FRANK RICH
Published: December 2, 2007

"JUST 24 hours after Hillary Clinton mowed down a skeptical Katie Couric with her certitude that she would win the Democratic nomination — “It will be me!” — her husband showed exactly how she could lose it..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/02/opinion/02rich.html

I've gone back to this article several times over the course of the nomination battle and it's aged well like fine wine, and is stronger with time.

It's only the best way when it works.

When it doesn't, it's the Kerry campaign.

Pm San Fran,

How is it that you can complain about getting a net gain of 10 delegates from Michigan when until yesterday there were no delegates from that state. Hillary didn't lose or have 4 delegates taken away because those delegates didn't exist until the Democratic rules committee voted to allow Michigan to come back into the fold.

Obama had the votes to split the Michigan delegates 50/50, but insted chose to give Hillary a net gain of 10 delegates and you still complain. Never being satisfied unless you get you way is not a good atribute to have.

I dunno, "crooked stick"?

Can you imagine Nixon saying:

The people have a right to know if their president is a crooked stick. Well, I am not a crooked stick.

;-)

Rec'd!

One word: Iraq.

perfect

I'm torn. A good post, but a terrible, terrible thread. To recommend or not??

Straight is relative. From WSJ:

Rev. Wright's "like an old uncle who sometimes will say things that I don't agree with." A week later, Mr. Obama insisted, "I don't think my church is actually particularly controversial," suggesting that Rev. Wright was criticized because "he was one of the leaders in calling for divestment from South Africa and some other issues like that." The issue exploded on March 13, when ABC showed excerpts from Rev. Wright's sermons. Mr. Obama's spokesman said the senator "deeply disagrees" with Rev. Wright's statements, but "now that he is retired, that doesn't detract from Sen. Obama's affection for Rev. Wright or his appreciation for the good works he has done." The next day: "The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation." […]Then, four days later, in Philadelphia, Mr. Obama finally repudiated Rev. Wright's comments, saying they "denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation." But Mr. Obama went on to say, "I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother. . . ." Ten days later, Mr. Obama said if Rev. Wright had not retired as Trinity's pastor, and "had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended . . . then I wouldn't have felt comfortable staying there at the church." (Never mind that Rev. Wright had made no such acknowledgment.) On April 28, at the National Press Club, Rev. Wright re-emerged – not to apologize but to repeat some of his most offensive lines. This provoked an eighth defense: "[W]hatever relationship I had with Rev. Wright has changed, as a consequence of this. I don't think that he showed much concern for me. More importantly, I don't think he showed much concern for what we are trying to do in this campaign . . . ."

Of course, Ayers was just a guy from the neighborhood (an English teacher?); Rezco was some guy he did five hours of paperwork for; his father was a goatherd; uncle liberated Auschwitz; father and mother met on a civil rights march; the Kennedy family paid for his father’s travel to America; etc.
Now, this might be more embellishment than embezzlement of the truth and it is all related to his family and associates (I left out the directly political stuff like Goolsbee/NAFTA). But, seeing as his story is central to his campaign, it’s important to lay a straight edge even to his biographical claims.

What system are you referring to, the one in which the candidate pledges to remove her name from the ballot along with all the others only to sneakily leave it on and feign ignorance? That type of two-faced garbage is a system I have no interest in. Thankfully, the majority of the country and the Dems agre with me.

If the situation in MI was such a horrible blow to democracy, where were you and all the blowhards when MI was deciding to move their date forward? I didn't see any "die ins" in front of the MI Congressional building or the Governor's mansion a year ago.

You all do realize that Clinton and Obama were not the only candidates at that time. Amazingly, Edwards, Dodd, Biden, Richardson, and Gravel all managed to abide by their own pledge and take their names off the ballot. Only Clinton, who also made the same pledge, decided to go back on her word and keep her name on it.

Well said

Even in Triumph Obamaistas can't help or stop their Clinton Hate Speak. Pretty sad.