Oh McCain, again you slip in the ever muddying waters of your own past.  Not only are you attempting to smear Obama with voter registration fraud with regards to ACORN, but now, you are just making it even more visible that you sir, are the biggest fraud ever. If ACORN was so horrible, than what in the world possessed you to attend this event and speak so highly of their efforts.
Video Proof McCain was for ACORN before he was against them

What makes America special, is what's in this room tonight.

Digg It


Now even the likes of Michelle Malkin is frothing with anger. McCain, hasn't anybody ever taught you how to look within thyself before you look with a jaundiced eye at others. 

Michelle Malkin frothing

If you want to know why see-sawing John McCain has had to be goaded, prodded, begged, and dragged into spotlighting Barack Obama's radical ACORN roots, here's your answer:

Turns out John McCain had no problem calling ACORN members his friends during his ill-fated illegal alien shamnesty crusade.

Ugh.

pro-shamnesty rally organized by a coalition led by ACORN. As the release notes, he made a second appearance for the group in NYC. Read it and gag:
ACORN is now gleefully reminding McCain of his common cause with the group to paint itself as bipartisan -- while at the same time issuing the usual strident, anti-conservative statements that ought to be immediate grounds for revoking its non-profit tax status.

"I'll rely on people to judge me by the company that I keep," McCain said in February.

That's not working out so well now, is it?

This is getting ridiculous. McCain on 60 minutes tonight decided to once AGAIN stick obstinately to his support for deregulation after this last week stating that we needed more regulation.  My head is spinning, my mouth is hanging open in awe at the series of flip-flops this Senator has presented us in the last week.

Q: In 1999, you were one of the senators who helped pass deregulation of Wall Street. Do you regret that now?

McCAIN: No. I think the deregulation was probably helpful to the growth of our economy.

Video link below:

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/21/mccain-deregulation/

Seriously.  Talk about shooting from the hip and shooting yourself in the foot.

Oh Sarah...don't talk about things you have no idea about.
We have just read about Sarah Palin's continued attacks on Obama. Fine...it's her job to mark the differences between their campaigns, but I think that Lieberman (now on task to educate her on foreign affairs) needs to tutor her more carefully.

Senator Obama said that the surge "succeeded beyond our wildest dreams."

"I think, said Senator Obama, "that the surge has succeeded in way that nobody anticipated." I guess when you turn out to be profoundly wrong on a vital national security decision, maybe it's comforting to pretend that everyone else was wrong too.

But I remember it a little differently. It seems to me there was one leader who did predict success, who refused to call retreat and risked his own career for the sake of the surge and victory in Iraq, and ladies and gentlemen, that man is standing right next to me, Senator John McCain.

Now, if we are truly to believe that McCain stood alone regarding the surge, despite that his judgment was in error regarding going into Iraq in the first place...perhaps we should be reminded of his actual stance on the surge.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTcdeZNvJTc&eurl=http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/5/16042/51359/692/588153

He sure seemed to have doubts then. And I'm surprised...did she actually read or watch the interview with O'Reilly?  Because surely she would have referenced Obama's continued response to the question:

"I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated," Obama told O'Reilly of President Bush's decision last year to increase troop levels. "It's succeeded beyond our wildest dreams."

But he added, "The Iraqis still haven't taken responsibility. And we still don't have that kind of political reconciliation."

Asked to list U.S. enemies, Obama responded, "Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, a whole host of networks that are bent on attacking America who have a distorted ideology who have perverted the faith of Islam and so we have to go after them."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/04/obama_appears_on_oreillys_show.html

Now remind me, wasn't the purpose behind to surge to pressure the Iraqi administration to take responsibility?  Was that not one of the preconditions when we surged?

Oh Sarah...don't talk about things you have no idea about.
We have just read about Sarah Palin's continued attacks on Obama. Fine...it's her job to mark the differences between their campaigns, but I think that Lieberman (now on task to educate her on foreign affairs) needs to tutor her more carefully.

Senator Obama said that the surge "succeeded beyond our wildest dreams."

"I think, said Senator Obama, "that the surge has succeeded in way that nobody anticipated." I guess when you turn out to be profoundly wrong on a vital national security decision, maybe it's comforting to pretend that everyone else was wrong too.

But I remember it a little differently. It seems to me there was one leader who did predict success, who refused to call retreat and risked his own career for the sake of the surge and victory in Iraq, and ladies and gentlemen, that man is standing right next to me, Senator John McCain.

Now, if we are truly to believe that McCain stood alone regarding the surge, despite that his judgment was in error regarding going into Iraq in the first place...perhaps we should be reminded of his actual stance on the surge.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTcdeZNvJTc&eurl=http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/5/16042/51359/692/588153

He sure seemed to have doubts then. And I'm surprised...did she actually read or watch the interview with O'Reilly?  Because surely she would have referenced Obama's continued response to the question:

"I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated," Obama told O'Reilly of President Bush's decision last year to increase troop levels. "It's succeeded beyond our wildest dreams."

But he added, "The Iraqis still haven't taken responsibility. And we still don't have that kind of political reconciliation."

Asked to list U.S. enemies, Obama responded, "Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, a whole host of networks that are bent on attacking America who have a distorted ideology who have perverted the faith of Islam and so we have to go after them."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/04/obama_appears_on_oreillys_show.html

Now remind me, wasn't the purpose behind to surge to pressure the Iraqi administration to take responsibility?  Was that not one of the preconditions when we surged?

I am curious to find the answers to some of these very questions.  To be fair, I am sure there are some good explanations, however the Clinton campaign when releasing these numbers to the FEC must have realized that these numbers are not succinct to their claims after Pennsylvania.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/21/04953/3738/252/519453

FEC REPORTS IN: HRC 20 Mil in Debt & Caught in Lie about April 23rd. by vertexoflife [Subscribe] Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:21:28 PM PDT

The FEC reports just came in, you can view them here, here and daily raising totals here.

Here is the info about HRC's two loans to herself.

Some money quotes:

  6.  Cash on Hand at BEGINNING of the Reporting Period 31711745.93

 7. Total Receipts This Period 26,911,626.98

 8. Subtotal (6 + 7) 58,623,372.91

 9. Total Disbursements This Period 28,956,919.81

1. Cash on Hand at CLOSE of the Reporting Period 29,666,453.10

1. Debts and Obligations Owed TO the Committee 0.00

 Itemize all on SCHEDULE C or SCHEDULE D

1. Debts and Obligations Owed BY the Committee 19,480,893.26

 Itemize all on SCHEDULE C or SCHEDULE D

1. Expenditures Subject To Limitation 0.00

1. NET Contributions (Other than Loans) 193,492,741.31

1. NET Operating Expenditures 185,147,033.59

$5 mill of receipts = loan from the candidate

Making HRC 19 million in debt, with 10 million of that her own money.

Unless the 10 Million dollar loan was not included in her debts, which then puts her at 30 million in debt.

She also said that she raised ten million on April 23, after the Pennslyvania Primaries, well, here are the totals:

April 23, 2008 1,738,154.61
April 24, 2008 2,578,730.28
April 25, 2008 787,048.99

Here is there Terry said that they would be raising ten million after PA:

Hillary On Track To Raise $10 Million Since Polls Closed Yesterday
By Greg Sargent - April 23, 2008, 1:11PM

On MSNBC just now, top Hillary adviser Terry McAuliffe claimed that by the end of today, the Hillary campaign will have raised $10 million since she was declared winner yesterday.

The number of new donors to the campaign, according to McAuliffe: Fifty thousand.

Plus, a bit down the way, third link at the top, there's something a little fishy:

April 26, 2008 314,722.71
April 27, 2008 126,573.57
April 28, 2008 203,280.36
April 29, 2008 432,857.69
April 30, 2008 9,504,619.08

They raised 9.5 million in one day? huh?

UPDATE: Rangermatt in the comments noticed that Obama has this too, but on April 1st. perhaps this is a case where a bunch of donators were lumped together in one day? is this legal? You can take a look at his donations by date here. Also in the comments jforeman notes that

A commenter on mydd (I know, I know) (0+ / 0-)

says that non-itemized donations (under $200) are often bundled and reported as a single line item on the last day of the month.

Still, that means that 84% of her small-dollar donations for the month would have had to occur on one day for the $10 million number to be plausible.

This sounds much more plausible, but is still interesting 84% of her under 200$ donations in one day?

This is also interesting. Mostof the money was raised in D.C.--   7,709,576.28  of it.

There are few questions about general vs. primary money. Here is the info about it:

NO ELECTION WAS SUPPLIED     7,466,272.73
General 2008  657,740.40
Primary 2008  12,922,677.91

I am not quite sure where this is going, but I feel like someone needs to start calling the HRC campaign on all of their little lies. (See: Florida, Michigan, 2200+ delegates needed, fund raising totals, etc.) I hope the MSM catches on to these little oddities. Why does a non-state (D.C.) have many more donations than the most populous state in the nation (Cali.)? Is most of this money from P.A.C's?

http://www.jabberwonk.com/flinker.cfm?cliid=13lkzo

The $5.31 cents I save for the summer will be great!  I think I might spend it on a latte, since I am a latte sippin liberal! 

Look, no matter who you support, can we just call a bad idea, a bad idea.  If we are so staunch in our support, that it results in us not even listening to the facts or questioning their decisions, then we are no better than the less than 25% of Americans who still believe in Bush.

Seriously now, how far will your support bring you, to the point that you still agree with bad policies or suggestions, just to support your candidate?

Obama's campaign has disavowed Wright's media tour, and a correspondent notes an interesting detail:

Wright was invited to the National Press Club by a journalist and minister who supports Clinton.

The Tribune reports that Wright was invited by Barbara Reynolds, a former USA Today editorial board member who has written on personal blog of her support for Clinton.

I don't mean to suggest some kind of plot. Her agenda here seems to have been the same as Wright's: To protect the minister's reputation from, among others, Obama.

"[I]t is a sad testimony that to protect his credentials as a unifier above the fray the Senator is fueling the media characterization that Rev. Dr. Wright is some retiring old uncle in the church basement instead of respecting Wright for the towering astute father of progressive social and global causes that he is," Reynolds wrote in March.

Reynolds' is well placed to defend Wright. Her bio says she teaches "prophetic ministry and the media" at Howard University's divinity school.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/

Oh God.....

One day before Pennsylvania primary voters go to the polls, Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and Barack Obama, D-Ill., spent the day trying to reach undecided voters, and rally their supporters to the polls.

On the eve of the Pennsylvania primary, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., tells "Good Morning America" she would "obliterate" Iran if they attacked Israel. (AP/ABC News)

For the last six weeks they have battled and bickered and both have unleashed a barrage of negativity in television ads that have aired thousands of times in the state.

Clinton Ad Features Osama bin Laden

In an ad that began airing in Pennsylvania Monday morning, Clinton implies she is tougher than Obama.

"Who do you think has what it takes?" the narrator asks in an ad depicting historical images of crises that presidents have had to deal with: Osama bin Laden, headlines about the stock market crash of 1929, long gas lines from the 1970s oil-shocks, images of the Cold War, Hurricane Katrina and soldiers. It features the first image of Osama bin Laden to be used in a TV ad this political season.

"It's the toughest job in the world," says the ad's narrator. "You need to be ready for anything — especially now, with two wars, oil prices skyrocketing and an economy in crisis."

The ad quotes President Harry Truman's famous line: "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen," — to cast Obama as complaining about last week's ABC News presidential debate.

Responding to the ad, Obama spokesman Bill Burton accused the New York senator of engaging in scare tactics.

Clinton on an Iran Attack: 'Obliterate Them'

Clinton further displayed tough talk in an interview airing on "Good Morning America" Tuesday. ABC News' Chris Cuomo asked Clinton what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons.

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton said. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

Watch the full interview with Sen. Hillary Clinton on "GMA" Tuesday.

Obama, for his part, has to be worried about obliterating his repeated promise of a "new kind of politics." But he told ABC News' Robin Roberts on "Good Morning America" his attacks are necessary.

"You've always got to measure if somebody throws an elbow at you, and after three or four times of gettin' elbows in the ribs, you know, at what point do you sort of say, 'OK, you know, we, we, we've gotta put a stop to that'?" Obama said.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/WN/Vote2008/story?id=4698059&page=1

To be honest, I'm kind of sick of NAFTA at this point...but here we go again...

At Toronto's Empire Club of Canada this week, two former US ambassadors to Canada -- one Democrat and one Republican -- debated how concerned Canadians should be that the Democratic candidates are serious about re-negotiating NAFTA.

It was the Democrat, James Blanchard, who told Canadians not to worry, according to Canadian press accounts. 

Blanchard, former Governor of Michigan, is a Michigan state co-chair of Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign, one of her major "HillRaiser" fundraisers, and served as US Ambassador to Canada during the administration of former President Bill Clinton.

Hillary Clinton has pledged to voters that she will force Canada to re-negotiate the deal or the US will opt out of it.

"I've said that I will renegotiate NAFTA, so obviously we'd have to say to Canada and Mexico that that's exactly what we're going to do," Clinton said during a recent debate. "We will opt out of NAFTA unless we renegotiate it.”

But Blanchard seemed to pooh-pooh that bold statement, telling attendees that Democrats are more concerned about China and Mexico than they are Canada.

''Their concern is job loss or unfairness in dealing with countries that have low wage and labor standards and low environmental standards,'' Blanchard said, according to the Canadian Press. ''I have not seen anything that would constitute a threat to trade with Canada."

The story said that Blanchard this week "played down her antipathy toward the free-trade deal, saying she has visited Canada many times and understands the country well."

Conversely, the Republican, former Massachusetts Gov. Paul Cellucci -- who served as US Ambassador to Canada for President George W. Bush -- said "there ought to be some concern here in Canada" because both Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama have "been making some pretty strong statements" against trade agreements such as NAFTA.

The sincerity of the Democrats' opposition to various trade deals has emerged as an issue in the primary season, as the candidates pursue labor union voters in industrial states such as Pennsylvania, which will hold its contest this Tuesday.

An Obama economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, met with Canadian officials and left the impression he was assuring them not to take Obama's anti-NAFTA rhetoric too seriously.

Clinton, for her part, has claimed to have always opposed NAFTA even though she help promote the trade deal in 1993.

Her campaign adviser, Mark Penn, met with Colombian officials to help promote the Colombian trade deal that Clinton herself opposes. Her husband also supports the deal and was paid $800,000 by a pro-trade Colombian company in 2005 to deliver speeches in which he promoted it.

When Blanchard resigned as Bill Clinton's ambassador to Canada, the Montreal Gazette reported that he "helped pave the way for the so-called "concessions" on labor and environmental issues that gave Prime Minister Chretien a face-saving excuse for dropping his opposition to NAFTA."

Blanchard eventually became a lobbyist, and has represented Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cisco Systems, and Qualcomm. As a HillRaiser he has committed to raising at least $250,000 for Clinton's campaign.

-- jpt

To be honest, I'm kind of sick of NAFTA at this point...but here we go again...

At Toronto's Empire Club of Canada this week, two former US ambassadors to Canada -- one Democrat and one Republican -- debated how concerned Canadians should be that the Democratic candidates are serious about re-negotiating NAFTA.

It was the Democrat, James Blanchard, who told Canadians not to worry, according to Canadian press accounts. 

Blanchard, former Governor of Michigan, is a Michigan state co-chair of Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign, one of her major "HillRaiser" fundraisers, and served as US Ambassador to Canada during the administration of former President Bill Clinton.

Hillary Clinton has pledged to voters that she will force Canada to re-negotiate the deal or the US will opt out of it.

"I've said that I will renegotiate NAFTA, so obviously we'd have to say to Canada and Mexico that that's exactly what we're going to do," Clinton said during a recent debate. "We will opt out of NAFTA unless we renegotiate it.”

But Blanchard seemed to pooh-pooh that bold statement, telling attendees that Democrats are more concerned about China and Mexico than they are Canada.

''Their concern is job loss or unfairness in dealing with countries that have low wage and labor standards and low environmental standards,'' Blanchard said, according to the Canadian Press. ''I have not seen anything that would constitute a threat to trade with Canada."

The story said that Blanchard this week "played down her antipathy toward the free-trade deal, saying she has visited Canada many times and understands the country well."

Conversely, the Republican, former Massachusetts Gov. Paul Cellucci -- who served as US Ambassador to Canada for President George W. Bush -- said "there ought to be some concern here in Canada" because both Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama have "been making some pretty strong statements" against trade agreements such as NAFTA.

The sincerity of the Democrats' opposition to various trade deals has emerged as an issue in the primary season, as the candidates pursue labor union voters in industrial states such as Pennsylvania, which will hold its contest this Tuesday.

An Obama economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, met with Canadian officials and left the impression he was assuring them not to take Obama's anti-NAFTA rhetoric too seriously.

Clinton, for her part, has claimed to have always opposed NAFTA even though she help promote the trade deal in 1993.

Her campaign adviser, Mark Penn, met with Colombian officials to help promote the Colombian trade deal that Clinton herself opposes. Her husband also supports the deal and was paid $800,000 by a pro-trade Colombian company in 2005 to deliver speeches in which he promoted it.

When Blanchard resigned as Bill Clinton's ambassador to Canada, the Montreal Gazette reported that he "helped pave the way for the so-called "concessions" on labor and environmental issues that gave Prime Minister Chretien a face-saving excuse for dropping his opposition to NAFTA."

Blanchard eventually became a lobbyist, and has represented Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cisco Systems, and Qualcomm. As a HillRaiser he has committed to raising at least $250,000 for Clinton's campaign.

-- jpt

At a small closed-door fundraiser after Super Tuesday, Sen. Hillary Clinton blamed what she called the "activist base" of the Democratic Party -- and MoveOn.org in particular -- for many of her electoral defeats, saying activists had "flooded" state caucuses and "intimidated" her supporters, according to an audio recording of the event obtained by The Huffington Post.

"Moveon.org endorsed [Sen. Barack Obama] -- which is like a gusher of money that never seems to slow down," Clinton said to a meeting of donors. "We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party. MoveOn didn't even want us to go into Afghanistan. I mean, that's what we're dealing with. And you know they turn out in great numbers. And they are very driven by their view of our positions, and It's primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don't agree with them. They know I don't agree with them. So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me."

Today, as President of the American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA), I announced our endorsement of Senator Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States. Because the gun issue has recently become a factor in the Democratic primary in Pennsylvania, I want to share the remarks I made today:

As a gun rights organization we have not come to this decision lightly. We were formed two years ago because our research shows that millions of gun owners wanted a change. They not only wanted an organization that would protect their gun rights but an organization that was also committed to the protection of their communities as well as the protection of our lands.

We reached out to the Obama campaign several weeks ago to offer our support and approval as was reported by Paul Bedard of US News and World Report.

We believe recent attacks on Senator Obama's stand on the 2nd Amendment and his commitment to our hunting and shooting heritage are unfair and American Hunters and Shooters Association is stepping up to set the record straight.

Senator Obama has clearly demonstrated his commitment to the 2nd Amendment by his vote in support of the Vitter amendment to HR 5441, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill of 2007. This amendment prevents the Government from confiscating guns in a time of crisis or emergency.

Imagine how the citizens felt during Hurricane Katrina when government agents kicked in doors to confiscate law abiding citizens' guns at a time when they needed them the most. We know Senator Obama "gets it." To say that he is an elitist is patently ridiculous.

To hunters and shooters everywhere, Senator Obama's vote demonstrated a fundamental understanding of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment which means he recognizes the individual right of all citizens to keep and bear arms. Senator Clinton, on the hand, failed to grasp the importance of this critical issue to hunters and shooters and voted against this Amendment. She turned her back on America's gun owners.

In addition, Senator Obama's commitment to conservation and protection of our natural resources and access to public lands demonstrates to us his commitment to America's hunting and shooting heritage.

Senator Obama will be a strong and authentic voice for America's hunters and shooters and it is with great pleasure that we endorse his candidacy.

In the midst of all this back and forth, some real work gets done:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/13/175930/556/888/476095


Meanwhile Obama Joins Dodd to Fix the Housing Mess by kubla000

Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:07:04 PM PDT

A nice little distraction from the daily give and take and give and take...

Obama joins his ally and endorser Sen Chris Dodd on a plan to Fix the Housting Mess...

It is past time for the federal government to take direct and decisive action. To provide immediate relief, I am proud to join with Chris Dodd – the Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee – to introduce legislation creating a new FHA Housing Security Program, which will provide meaningful incentives for lenders to buy or refinance existing mortgages, and to convert them into stable 30-year fixed mortgages so that homeowners facing foreclosure can keep their homes.  

• kubla000's diary :: ::
• 
  

"This will provide a federal backstop for lenders to reduce the principal of loans that are priced higher than the value of a home so that they are affordable for homeowners. It is not a bailout for lenders or investors who gambled recklessly.  It is not a windfall for borrowers. Instead, the Dodd-Obama bill is a responsible and fair way to help bring an end to the foreclosure crisis facing the country.

"This is part of my comprehensive mortgage agenda, which includes resources for pre-foreclosure counseling, a tax break to working families on their mortgage interest payments, and tough penalties on fraudulent lenders. We must provide immediate relief to American families and to the American economy, while also taking the necessary steps to prevent this crisis from happening again."

Good, I was starting to wonder what we are paying these candidates for.  It's good to see that besides stumping, debating and throwing said kitchen sinks, toilets and bath tiles, they are actually getting some  well needed work done.

From a Politico story, Obama has released his earmarks.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/

March 13, 2008
Read More: Barack Obama

Obama's earmarks

He's now released all of his earmark requests for his three years in the Senate.

The move is, among other things, another transparency challenge to Clinton.

A glance at the list shows more or less what you'd expect: Worthy-sounding local micro-projects like the Asian Carp Barrier in Romeoville and the Get The Lead Out Program In Peoria.

Though you can be sure they'll all be scoured for ties to Obama donors and political allies -- the reason politicians are loathe to release these lists in the first place.

...hmmm, I wonder if this is change that Hillary can "xerox"