The story behind Hillary Clinton's comment about June being the month that things tend to happen, assissinations for example, is not about the killing of Obama.  It's about Hillary confessing that's she's LOST this nomination -- UNLESS -- something BAD happens to Barack Obama.

She's admitting that she's begging Supers to hold off endorsing because there's an off chance that Obama will need to drop out or he's hurt in someway.  She's admitting that by DNC rules -- she cannot win.

That's the story here, not the comment itself, because she's said these words before.

The media and the Supers should immediately END this nomination process.  Hillary needs to be forced out, she refuses to otherwise.

Even if you listen to her EXCUSE as to why she must stay in -- she's wrong.  She could have dropped out weeks ago and if something would force Obama to drop out, the DNC would have nominated her as his replacement, simply because of how close she came to winning.

She can drop out gracefully, voters in the next three states can still vote the way they would have.  Nobody's hurt.  But Obama can then concentrate on McCain ONLY.

If she refuses, then Supers need to give Obama the needed 56 to reach that 2026 total before May 31st.

The idea as Candy Crowly expressed on CNN last night that Hillary 'gains' nothing by making that statement about why she's staying in this race -- invoking the memory of RFK being shot in June -- is a very WRONG comment of Candy to make.

Hillary gains a lot.  By getting the MEMORY out there, voters and super delegates are forced to THINK about the idea of Obama getting killed - then what would they do?

Hillary made this comment for a reason -- wake up Supers.

How dare Candy to ignore this FACT.  The Clinton's, like the Bush's, do NOTHING without a reason.

Questions for Senator McCain and Senator Clinton.

Senator McCain, why did you call Reverend Parsley your "Spiritual Guide"?  I have you on video saying just that. 
Parsley has been reported as saying America should "destroy" Islam.

The media reported yesterday that you have now rejected Hagee and Parsley's endorsements and words.  You attacked Barack Obama by saying your relationships with these men was nothing compared to Obama's relationship with his Rev. Wright. 

If Parsley is your SPIRITAL GUIDE -- I think that makes it VERY clear how 'close' you are to the man.  It's too bad the media doesn't jump on that part of this story.

Hillary Clinton, the reason you gave reporters for staying in this primary race is because your are concerned that something 'awful' could happen to Barack Obama in June -- or worse, somebody could 'kill' him like they did Robert Kennedy.  Did you ever stop to think that by simply walking away awhile ago, that 'if' God Forbid, something did happen to Obama or his campaign, that the Party would 'still' be able to ask you to step into the position?  You didn't 'have' to stay in the race.  People would still vote at the upcoming primaries.  Making it sound as though you would be our hero on the side lines, is plain ludicrous.

You are implying that if you had gotten out, the Party would be without a nominee.  You are wrong.  At one point, say two or three weeks ago, the Party would have simply asked that you run in his place.  That won't happen now.

Why you might ask?  Because if something 'does' happen now, like the famous Vince Foster story, you will be accused of being somehow connected to Obama's problem or death.  The Party will not want a tainted candidate.  I'm assuming that John Edwards, Al Gore or some other leader will be offered the position instead.

Hillary, you've blown your own plan/dreams of ever being President.  To top it off, you've blown any chance of being Obama's VP selection.

Go home Hillary, it's over.

Hillary Clinton Finally Admits - Her Only Chance of Winning is if something major happens to Barack Obama, whether that be by some political action, a health issue or somebody kills him. 

Hillary's camp is saying that's not what she meant and that the recent events involving Ted Kennedy just brought back memories -- wrong Hillary.  You said the same thing a few months ago. 

While the media should have made a point of it back then, repeating those comments again today when you are trying to convince super delegates into allowing you to 'stay in this race' on May 31st by allowing for Florida and Michigan votes to count -- it's quite apparent that you are now basing your whole campaign on the 'hope' that something major happens with Obama and his campaign, thereby allowing you to step in and take his place.

Need I remind delegates that during the Clinton years in office, it was widely rumored that anybody that had 'connections' with the Clinton family that somehow crossed hairs with them, would sooner of later end up 'dead'.  Need I remind folks that Hillary Clinton was called a 'murderer' when Vince Foster 'committed suicide' during the White Water investigation.

I, at the time flat out fought these rumors tooth and nail -- saying the GOP would do 'anything' to harm the Clintons.  Well folks, these kind of comments do not help to erase those memories.

Just imagine if Obama were to ask her to be his VP nominee.  What if something 'did' happen to him.  Who would America blame?

Super delegates should immediately end Hillary Clinton's campaign 'for her' by coming out and pushing Obama over the needed DNC rules delegate count of 2026.

Read More of what happened today here:

Hillary Clinton let Barack Obama know that she is now ready to accept an offer of being his Vice Presidential nominee – Obama is reported to have said “No”.

That is why we are now seeing Hillary down in Florida trying to stir up hatred toward the DNC and Barack Obama by reminding voters down there how they ‘felt’ during the 2000 campaign when the Supreme Court overruled their votes.

If at first you don’t succeed, try and try again.  Hillary’s decided that since she’s lost the Democratic primary and since Barack is refusing to give her the VP slot, that “If I can’t have it – nor will he”.  She’s going to try her level best to take Barack Obama down which is also a payback to the DNC for not backing her up.

How dare Obama come into this race being a relative unknown and take away her lifetime dream.  She’s been planning and working for this position since Bill Clinton walked away from the White House in 2001.

Hillary is a very angry woman right now.  Having her husband and daughter pushing that anger to it’s limits – there will be no stopping her – unless…..

The uncommitted super delegates come out before May 31st and endorse Barack Obama helping him to achieve that DNC rules magical number of 2026 or more.  He can then declare VICTORY.  The media would be forced to admit that Barack Obama is the presumptive nominee, just as they did when John McCain reached the GOP’s magical number of 1191.  Hillary Clinton would be forced to step down because of her own words, “I’m staying in this race until there is a nominee.”

Being a white woman it’s really sad to see Hillary’s main supporters (women) allowing the chances of an actual riot to happen down in Florida, Michigan or in Washington DC during the Rules committee meeting.  We women are supposed to be all about security and safety.  We tell our children to ‘talk’ first before getting violent.  Yet these women because of selfish reasons are willing to let things go haywire on the 31st and even down the road in Colorado at the Democrats Convention.

Is this really the way to get American’s to accept a ‘woman’ candidate?  Force it?

Need I remind you that Hillary wasn’t the first woman to run for President?  Carol Mosley-Braun was.  I don’t remember seeing these same women supporting Hillary now, out there rallying the troops for Carol.  Was it because she was a ‘black’ woman?

History can be made by the Democratic Party this year, even more so than has already been made.  We can have the first black man or the first woman as a Democrat’s presidential nominee.  Nobody’s having anything ‘stolen’ from them.  Both candidates deserve a ‘chance’ to be that history maker – neither has been given the opportunity till now.  Why must it be the woman first?

Barack Obama has gotten where he is fair and squarely.  He didn’t ‘steal’ this election for Hillary.  They both worked hard for it – along with her baggage she brought with her; he was able to outsmart her politically.  It’s just a simple fact.

I plead with my fellow women – let the Democrats win in November, don’t blow our chances by making this another war.

Hillary Clinton is pushing to have a riot (a swarm of supporters) during the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting on May 31st.

We cannot allow her to do this without hearing the other side’s views.  If you live nearby where this meeting will be heard (a Marriott in Washington DC) – I plead with you to show up with signs saying “We are a nation of Laws---Hillary – Obey Them”

She is performing a Bush administration action.  This is the way they’ve ran their administration for the past 8 years.  They’ve used the laws they ‘liked’ and ignored the ones they ‘didn’t’.
 
Enough already; American’s can’t afford another 4 years of an administration that ‘makes up the rules’ as they go.  The DNC must not allow Florida and Michigan to avoid punishment for disobeying the rules of the Party.  If they ignore the rules this time, others will do so the next time around.

Go to the DNC meeting in Washington DC and say NO to Hillary and her supporters -- what kind of President would ask Americans to disobey the rules/law?

This will be short and sweet.  Where are the superdelegates today?

Hillary's gotten one, Obama none.  Why the sudden shutdown?

Any rumors going around that something is coming down from the top?

What's the scoop?

Some have suggested Barack Obama select a person with lots of experience as his Vice Presidential candidate, such as Sen. Biden, Sen. Dodd, Gov. Richardson, Sam Nunn, etc…  Many however, have noted the fact that Obama’s whole campaign premise has been about ‘change’ and looking toward the future – not the past; therefore he shouldn’t select anyone currently in Congress or State government that’s been there for a very long time.  They are part of the problem.

I think perhaps Barack Obama should reconsider.  The past (our history) is extremely important.  Aren’t we all told from a very early age that we should try and ‘learn’ from our mistakes?  To completely ignore the past would be a mistake.

Of course, looking at the person’s previous experience or past is extremely important; but to rule them out simply because they have been ‘around’ a long time would be foolish.

Barack Obama should however, be careful about choosing a candidate that’s had a close relationship with lobbyists, because that too is one of his arguments of why Washington isn’t getting things done.

Obama should look for a person that’s been ‘around’ for awhile, and was successful while there.  A person that’s got experience, but not necessarily in any one area, rather they should be experienced in the area of working with members of Congress, the executive branch and State legislatures.

I’ll not pretend to know who that person might be, except to say that there are a lot of good people to select from.  They need not be well known to voters or the media.  They must however, be ‘likeable’ and able to cross party lines.

As for Barack Obama explaining his choice to voters after having run his campaign on the premise of ‘change’ and looking toward the future…He should tell voters that while HE and “this person” will always be looking forward (show an example of how this person ‘looked forward’), we will at times need to be reminded of our PAST.  We will need to remember our failures and our successes.  Ignoring them would be a grave error.

Do you have anybody in mind that meets these qualifications?  Finding someone in a State or Congress that we normally lose in -- would be an even greater advantage.

Here is a website that will allow you to send a free email, or for a $5 donation, fax any superdelegate in any State your heart desires.

I've been lobbying the uncommitted to support Barack Obama.  I hope you will too.

This primary needs to END before May 31st.

Help Obama get those 61 votes he still needs to meet the DNC rules count of 2026.

http://lobbydelegates.com/

Here's what I've written - you are welcome to use my words or your own:

I urge you to end your Uncommitted stance, and make a public pledge to vote for Barack Obama at the Democratic National Convention.

He came in as a relatively unknown.  He took on the DNC establishment as well as the most powerful team in the Dem Party (the Clintons).  After months of hard work, he's accumulated the majority of elected delegates, he's won 33 of the 50 primaries and caucuses and currently holds the majority of votes.

The man deserves our support....NOW!

While most of this information comes from another source, I feel the urgent need to pass along these 'facts' about Michigan and Florida votes.  Hillary's distorting the TRUTH once again.

Don't let her fool you Florida and Michigan. 

Hillary has known all along what the rules were.  Her campaign strategist, Harold Ickes, and her operatives on the DNC rules committee, were directly involved in the stripping of Michigan and Florida's delegates.  If you have any doubts please go read the facts. 

On Aug. 25, 2007, when the DNC's rules panel declared Florida's primary date out of order, it agreed by a near-unanimous majority to exceed the 50 percent penalty called for under party rules. Instead, the group stripped Florida of all 210 delegates to underscore its displeasure with Florida's defiance and to discourage other states from following suit. In doing so, the DNC essentially committed itself, for fairness' sake, to strip the similarly defiant Michigan of all 156 of its delegates three months later. Clinton held tremendous potential leverage over this decision, and not only because she was then widely judged the likely nominee. Of the committee's 30 members, a near-majority of 12 were Clinton supporters. All of them—most notably strategist Harold Ickes—voted for Florida's full disenfranchisement. (The only dissenting vote was cast by a Tallahassee, Fla., city commissioner who supported Obama.)
-----------------------------------------------------------
Also, Hillary is claiming the pledge she and other presidential candidates took to not "campaign" in these States was just that, no campaigning. 

THEREFORE, I (Hillary Clinton), Democratic Candidate for President, pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus  before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as “campaigning” is defined by rules and regulations of the DNC.  

From law.com:

participate
v. to invest and then receive a part or share, as in business profits, payments on a promissory note, title to land, or as one of the beneficiaries of the estate of a person who has died.

Hillary's current demands that Florida and Michigan votes be counted says that she is now trying to "receive a part or share of the votes she won.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Hillary said in October, 2007 before the Michigan primary:

"It's clear this election they are having is not going to count for anything"

Be sure to watch the video of her saying this.

There is lots more information...please go read it all.

Take one good guess who started the rumor that Barack Obama might or should offer a supreme court justice seat to Hillary Clinton?

The Clinton Camp!

What better way to rally the GOP right wingers but to 'hint' that if Barack Obama wins in November, Americans just might see him nominate Hillary as a justice to the court.

Imagine having her there for life!!

The Clinton camp - one more nail in the coffin for Obama.

Hillary Clinton announced last night in Kentucky that she's in this race, "I'm going to keep making our case until we have a nominee, whoever SHE may be.''

Please not the word NOMINEE.  She doesn't say the words, "the candidate to hit the magic number first."

Even if a candidate should get to that magic number of 2026 (Current DNC rules), they are not considered the actually 'nominee' until all the delegates vote at the Democratic convention in August.

So for those of you, like myself, that were fooled into believing that Hillary would be getting out of the race after the June 3rd primary -- forget about it.

I'm guessing that Hillary's team decided a couple of weeks ago that they would 'imply' that Hillary 'just wants to let all voters across the nation to have a chance to vote in this historical race.  She probably promised Howard Dean and Donna Brazile and others of the Party that she would "refrain from any personal attacks again Barack Obama."

She also probably said something to the effect, "Look at the people we are registering in these primaries, these voters can help us in November, the more the merrier.  Allow me to continue to running and we'll get even more voters registered"

In reality however, Hillary wanted to get as many votes as possible to add to her popular vote count and get within perhaps 100 delegates of the final number.  She would at the same time "shame" the Party into allowing for Florida and Michigan votes to be included.

When June 4th rolls around, even if Obama has the 2026 required delegate count or even a new DNC delegate count because of FL and MI, Hillary will announce that because of where she stands with over 19 million voters, she's decided to stay in the race and wait to see how the delegates vote at that convention, "anything could happen between now and then", she will say.  "I promised a lot of folks that I would be in this race till the end.  I keep my promises and I'm not a quiter"

Don't let Hillary and Bill fool you -- she's in this race to the very end.  If it causes the Party to lose the election in November, so be it -- "I'm within my rights.", she'll say.

If Barack Obama and his supporters, along with any super delegates, truly plan on winning this nomination -- they'd best be getting to that magic number of 2026 -- BEFORE -- May 31st when the Party meets, or risk having any sort of leverage against Hillary R. Clinton.

I'm sick and tired of hearing Hillary Clinton or her supporters pushing the wonderful idea of a WOMAN being President of United States.

Almost every speech she makes you hear that comment either from her or someone introducing her.

I cannot remember one time hearing Barack Obama pushing the idea of a BLACK MAN being President of United States.

Hillary's camp started claiming that this campaign has been very "sexist".  You know, I agree there have been some comments that shouldn't have been made, but what can they expect if all they do is push the FACT that she is a WOMAN?

In the state of Kentucky, exit polls show that 21% of those voters voted were effected by 'race'.  Hillary won 9 out of 10 of those voters.  Shouldn't she be telling folks she doesn't WANT their vote?

Today, down in Florida, Hillary is pushing 'democracy' and our Constitution giving people the right to vote.  Pushing for the rights of citizens to have a say in elections.  Claiming that her and Obama's core mission is to make sure Florida and Michigan's votes get counted.  That's what she's "always believed" -- since when Hillary?  

I'd appreciate hearing one statement referring to Florida's or Michigan's vote being 'counted' -- since Aug 2007 and BEFORE Barack Obama won in Iowa?  Just one.  She was one of the first to sign the agreement that they would NOT count.

Talk about being sexists, racist and flip flopping....oh and let's not forget.....Disobeying the rule of law!

Hillary Clinton and her supporters want Americans to ignore the DNC rules or change them so that ‘she’ can win this Democratic nomination. 

I’d be real curious how Hillary would respond to a New York voter asking her to ‘change or ignore the rules’ when it comes to required courses needed to graduate from high school or college.

How do you suppose Hillary would respond after getting the following letter from a voter in New York. 

Dear Senator,
 
I am working toward a degree in Political Science at Columbia University.  I’m a senior and (in my opinion) should be able to graduate this summer.  However, the university is saying that I haven't taken the required courses  even though I have more than enough credit hours.

I’ve been working my way through college over the past few years.  I have over 300 credit hours, 128 are all that are needed according to catalog.  However, they say I need to take English and more math classes to qualify for the degree I’m going for.

I don’t think this is fair.  I’ve got a huge lead in credit hours and because of the wide array of courses (cooking, auto mechanics, sewing, etc..) I’ve taken, I’m ready on day one to go to work – isn’t that what counts?

Please contact the university and ask that they ignore the rules and allow me to graduate.

Thank you,

New York Voter 

It amazes me how the Clintons don't seem to care what impression they are leaving our younger generation by constantly ignoring the rules, our laws or even flat out lying about things like having an affair or what happen during trips to places like Bosnia.

How will parents explain to their young impressionable teenagers why Hillary was able to 'change the rules' during the middle of the Democratic primary so that she could win the nomination?  How will they explain its 'ok' to break the rules sometimes?

I was wondering why nobody's talking about that fact that John McCain now advocates a WITHDRAW DATE from Iraq?

I thought setting DATES was emboldening the enemy? 

What's to stop the terrorists from just sitting back and waiting till 2013 when we are to leave, according to McCain, then claim Victory for themselves -- that they pushed us out?

Why isn't anybody pointing this out?

Is it because McCain added the words, something like, "victory will be ours"?

How can he know that?  Does he have a crystal ball that allows him to read the future?

What's stopping Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton from saying the same thing?  "We will be out of Iraq by 2009 -- having accomplished victory there".

This is a perfect opportunity to jump on the GOP for supporting McCain's 'plan'.  Why then; but not now or 2009 or 2010, etc..?

Remember the famous US spy-plane forced to land in China in May 2001?

That was Bush's first BIG foreign policy alert - his first Saber Tooth Rattling!

I have to laugh about it now.  It was well known that folks were concerned about Bush not having any foreign policy experience --- this was the Bush camp's way of SHOWING STRENGTH against the big bad enemy!!!

Remember how BUSH refused to CALL the the leader in China directly and chose instead to communicate thru the media - making everyone worry that WAR was imminent?

After it was all settled and our people came home - Bush went for a visit and shook hands with the leadership.

Ahhh Memories.....

You may or may not have read about a Jerusalem newspaper that is reporting that President Bush and VP Cheney wanting to attack Iran before the end of Bush’s term.  The only reason that they haven't is that Sec. Of Def. Gates and Condi Rice are opposed to it ‘at the moment’.

Quoting some of Countdown’s Keith Olbermann, of MSNBC, comments from June 5, 2007, do you remember July 10, 2004 when Homeland Secretary Ridge warned of information about al-Qaeda attacks during the summer or autumn? Four days after that, the head of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Deforest B. Soaries Jr., confirms he has written to Ridge about the prospect of postponing the upcoming presidential election in the event it is interrupted by terrorist acts. 

On July 29, 2004. At their party convention in Boston, the Democrats formally nominate John Kerry as their candidate for President. As in the wake of any convention, the Democrats dominated the media’s attention over the subsequent weekend.

August 1, 2004, Monday morning. Three days later.  The Department of Homeland Security raises the alert status for financial centers in New York, New Jersey, and Washington to orange. The evidence supporting the warning, reconnaissance data left in a home in Iraq, later proves to be roughly four years old and largely out of date.

It’s time the GOP to start planning for their major ‘media’ disstraction strategy -- for either just before or right after the Democratic Convention in Colorado in August.

Is the Jerusalem newspaper ad a pre- ‘warning’?  Will President Bush actually drop some missiles onto Iran or will the threat just be intensified during the Democrat’s convention? 

Place your bets now! 

Thought I'd pass along this latest video that shows Condi Rice, Colin Powell, James Baker and others saying we must talk with the enemy and negotiate to solve problems....without pre-conditions.

Be sure to watch BOTH videos!

Have to pass this along to other viewers -- it says alot!!

Republican James Baker III, who served as Ronald Reagan's Chief of Staff and George H. W. Bush's Secretary of State had an interesting interview on Fox News' Hannity and Colmes show on Friday, October 6 2006 during which he said "Talking to an enemy is not, in my view, appeasement."

Video:

I don't know about you but I really get sick and tired of hearing about Michigan and Florida and how Hillary Clinton won them and that she should be able to claim the votes she won there.

When it is pointed out that Barack Obama did not have his name on the ballot in Michigan, we're told by Hillary, "that's not my fault".

When it is pointed out that Barack didn't campaign in Florida, we're told, "neither did Hillary."

It's apparent that voters need to be reminded of who the two candidates 'were' during the time of the Michigan and Florida primaries in Feb.

Hillary Clinton, as she's repeatedly told us, had over 35 years of political experience behind her.  We were reminded of her achievements when she was America's First Lady for 8 years.  In other words, Hillary Clinton's name was as famous as the Campbell Soup or Walmart.

Barack Obama on the other hand, had his Illinois Senate seat from 1997-2004 and his U.S. Senate seat since 2004.  Only 3 years in any sort of national spotlight.  His name might have been recognized by a Democratic delegate from 2004 where he made a very good speech,  that's it.  I live in Illinois and I barely knew his name.

Hillary Clinton also has a very well liked husband by the name of President Bill Clinton.

Barack Obama's wife was known in Illinois; but not nationally.

Is it any wonder that Hillary Clinton's name would be selected from the ballot in Florida, over a relatively unknown name of Barack Obama?

Michigan of course, didn't have the choice to even make, Hillary was the only one offered.

This nonsense that Hillary 'WON' in those two states is plain -- laughable.

I don't know how those two states will end up being recognized during the Democratic Convention, but they'd best not be given any 'deciding' factor in who wins the nomination.  They disobeyed the DNC rules.  If they are now allowed to be given the same amount of 'importance' as the other 48 states -- just wait and see what happens in 2012.

The media is starting to talk about the fact that Barack Obama plans on 'ending' his primary campaign where it 'begin' in Iowa.

The Obama campaign is very likely to clinch an overall majority of pledged delegates with Tuesday's contests, so the symbolism of his swing-state rally should be obvious: That he considers himself the popularly-elected nominee, and the race is on to fight John McCain.

They are asking the question, will he be claiming victory -- and can he?  They'll be reporting the 'fact' that Barack Obama has now won the majority of the pledged delegates, that he's won more states, he has the popular vote (DNC rules at this time say Florida and Michigan cannot be counted) and he's accumulated over 1.5 million donors.

MSNBC, CNN, FOX, NBC, ABC, CBS will all be repeating these 'facts' on Tuesday night after the Kentucky and Oregon primaries.  A free infomercial if you will.

They'll most likely be predicting that Obama will announce his parties Democratic nominee victory that night.

I happen to disagree.  I don't think Obama will do that.  He knows that Hillary's planning on campaigning in Puerto Rico, South Dakota and Montana between now and June 3rd.  While he knows he's won the DNC rules, delegate count, he also knows each of those primaries can add votes to her popular vote.  If he were to declare victory as the media hints, he could make several of those voters angry enough to vote for Hillary instead of him.

Don't get me wrong.  Obama's camp will most likely continue to 'hint' that he will be declaring 'victory' in Iowa on Tuesday night (to get the media 'talking' about Obama being in the lead); but when that times comes, he will just point out where his campaign stands instead and say something to the effect, "we have states still waiting to vote.  We will fight for their support just as we have all the other states.  I'll also be taking on John McCain and his hero, George W. Bush."

So, go ahead those of you in the media, keep talking about Barack Obama's 'victory' announcement in Iowa -- get him as many viewers as humanly possible.  He needs to let people this is essentially 'over' but that he also respects and desires those other states support.