Ok, so I have seen the argument about running a campaign showing how effective a candidate can be as president.   Someone will say look how well Obama has run his campaign, this is surely a sign of how well he will do as president.

This will be followed up by someone arguing that G. W.
Bush ran amazingly effective campaigns  and then pointing out what a terrible president he has been.


So this begs the question, how effective has Georgie boy been.  I believe this is a separate question from how well has he run the country.

Actually Bush has been very effective.  I know this is a controversial idea, however I think he has accomplished absolutely everything he wanted to do.  It's just that what he has wanted has not been good for the country.

However believing he was ineffective is to believe he never intended to do exactly what he has done.

War with Iraq desired from day one?  Check.

Drain the fed and place the money in the pockets of his business buddies?  Check.

Make the government seem like it's the problem?  Check.

Not get impeached?  Check.

Destroy the constitution and make it easier for future Neo cons to run our country like a monarchy?  Check.

Get elected a second term?  Check.

He only failed on one account.  He overestimated the amount of blind patriotism that could be drawn from one terrible event.

If you can believe that these things were the things he hoped to accomplish then he has been extremely effective.

terrible?  Yes.

Terrible, but effective.

Ok, so I am sure everyone heard the pfleger comments.  I would first like to point out that I think it's unacceptable and inappropriate for a church forum.  I also wish that Obama's church would just go away for about six months.

So with my objections to the comments made I will say this.

This man was trying to be funny.  It was a totally inappropriate place for this type of humor, however I have to admit....

If he had been Chris Rock,...  and that had been on comedy central I have to admit I would be laughing my ass off.  Just like I laugh my ass off when Stephanie Miller "onion belts" Mcain on Air America, and yes how I laughed when Saturday Night Live did the pillow for Barack sketch.

I know I will get some flaming for this post, however I think my main question is, when did it become so offensive to make fun of candidates.  (and I am not talking about when preachers do it because that is offensive but when comedians and television personalities do it everyone gets uptight.  I don't remember people getting uptight when Bill Clinton was portrayed stopping at a Mcdonalds in the middle of his jog for a bag of cheeseburgers.  What's changed here?  We as a culture have always lampooned and ridiculed our elected officials.  It's kind of the American way.)

Ok, so no one can say this whole thing hasn't gotten ugly.  Everyone has there feelings as to where it started.  Me personally, I saw Clinton supporters getting real ugly with the kool aid comments and the cult of Obama stuff, however i fully understand that Clinton supporters feel like they were getting trashed first.  I don't know who's right, and I don't care.  Me personally, I think the MSM started the whole thing with little needle and pin comments that put us all on edge, made us all feel defensive and angry.

That's my theory anyways.  Ratings are good when things are ugly. 

The facts are these, both candidates have drawn amazing support, and at the beginning of this race either one could have won in a landslide.  However, we are now in a different position, where both candidates have a real chance of losing.  The media loves Mcain, and them ignoring him is good for him.

Whichever way this goes roughly half of us will be disappointed.   Some of us will be damn right angry.  I'm not fond of Clinton.  Mainly because I live in a caucus state and am highly insulted by her insistence on every vote counting but being completely willing to disenfranchise me even though I did not have a choice in how to vote.  I will admit that after that she would have to earn my vote in the fall.   It won't take much because in my heart I know she will be 1000 times better for this country then Mcain, but effort will have to be made.   I know this sounds like an attack.  It really isn't.  This is how her comments have made me, as a voter, feel. 

I feel like we need to stop dismissing each other.  We have real concerns, real feelings about what has been said and done.  On both sides.  By dismissing each other we just make it worse.   When my concerns are out right dismissed as hateful anti Clinton rhetoric it makes me angry at Clinton and her supporters.  I know Clintons supporters feel the same way.

We all want whats best for this country, and it is obvious that it is not the Warmonger. 

The point of this post is just a hope that we can look at each other and realize that we want the same thing.  A hope that we can come on this board and voice our concerns with the other candidate without being dismissed or insulted.  A hope that we can voice those concerns in a manner that does not insult others. 

This was posted because of some of the things I have read recently.  It seems to be the first reaction that everyone jumps to is attacking people without realizing that they are voicing real concerns that they have.  I have been guilty too. 

(I am going to start with a language warning, I may use phrases and words that may mean you want to avoid reading this to your children)

Ok, so I am tired of all the bashing of candidates based on the rantings of there supporters.  I am also tired of everyone accusing one side of something they are guilty of as well. 

I can't believe I have to post this explanation because I have been dealing with it for well on the last ten years now.   People are nasty on the internet.

This has always been true even when applied to something as vastly unimportant as a video game forum.  Now psychologically this has to do with non human contact, no reprocusions etc etc.    The internet actually DRAWS these people in.  People who are to shy or to weak to be this way in person release it all on the internet.

They are the vocal minority people. 

They are a bunch of ass holes (male and female) who get off on insulting people online.   (including your presidential choice)

Both sides have people like this.  Obama may at times seem to have more of these people but this is mainly because of the fact that he has run a very tech savvy campaign, thus drawing in more of these internet trolls.

I have been personally insulted by Clinton supporters many many times online.  Only a very very few times in person.  In fact at the second round of WA caucuses yesterday I mingled freely having very intelligent conversations with people regardless of there preference.

I have been accused of never leaving my parents basement which is entirely untrue.

I have been  accused of being stupid and naive.  Which is not true.

I have been accused of being sexist not because of anything I said, but because of who I support.  Which is not true.

I have been accused of all these things and more, and in much more hateful wordings the I have given here. 

These nasty things get spewed from both sides.  I hate seeing hateful stuff towards Clinton and her supporters and I hate seeing this stuff about Obama and his supporters. 

My main concern is that I have seen people on here that can normally be counted as reasonable contributers doing the same.  I will admit I have fucked up myself and responded in anger because I have been insulted.  However I looked at what I had done and wished I could take it back because it is not who I am to respond to these people in kind.  It hypocrisy to do so.

I have been intending to write this post for a while, but today I was inspired to do so because of a comment I have seen posted on multiple threads.  I will not say who posted it, and it isn't the nasiest thing I have seen.  however the tinge of nastiness to it coupled with an ugly hypocrisy made me want to post. 

I am going to respond to this comment, it is from a Clinton supporter.  You may call me biased and truth be told I am, but so are you.  It is ok to be biased as long as we can still listen to others and put our biases aside.  Presidential campaigns are all about people being biased and chosing sides.

Comment below

"well, at least one good thing about Clinton, her supporters don't come in their pants when they see her on youtube. It's extremely distasteful to observe the smug and smarmy attitude of Obama's folk, even more distasteful than the Rev Wright's dashiki. I assure you, when pretty boy screws up foreign policy and the economy, you won't be coming in your collective pants anymore, you'll be shitting bricks : )"


This comment disgusts me.  Now she may be right that there is a group of Obama supporters who may be over excited about Obama.  There is a group out there that feels he is more then he is.  However, we are not all this way.  Many of us do get excited but realize he is just a politician.  we still prefer Obama.

What I find really insulting coming from a woman who has probably dealt with a lot of sexism is the comment that we come in our pants. 

How would you all feel if I made a post stating that Clinton supporters get all wet when they see her on You tube?  You would be pretty fucking pissed right?  You would be pissed and you would have the right to be.

This post suggests that we support Obama because he has a dick and so do we.  I have no doubt there is a group out there that does.  I am not happy about that group.  I was also not happy when her rep got up during our caucus yesterday and said she supports Clinton not because of her policies or qualifications but because she had a vagina.

I was excited to vote for the first female president.  I didn't expect someone to come along who I thought would make a better president.  This will be historical either way, and I am excited to vote for either of them.   A white woman or a black man.  I will be truly excited about whoever it is for it's historical importance.  However I will not make my decision based on who I feel is more historical. 

I commend both candidates for having the bravery to do what they are doing, I know they are probably both getting death threats as we argue. 

Support who you support, but lets not delve to the level of these trolls in order to do it.

Ok, I will start out with a statement that I have avooided making. I support Obama, however I do believe that if Clinton got the nomination and took the presidency she would do very good things for this country, and be a very good president. I say this because I think it is true, but also because this post is not meant to be an attack, just a concern.

I know that the frequent demands from Obama and his surrogates for Clinton to release her taxes, the records of the donations to the presidential library, and her first lady papers (which have been released now) have been a sore spot to her supporters.

However here is what I am asking here. As Clinton supporters wouldn't you like to know what's in these records? I mean, if there is nothing there, which is probable, then it's no big deal and shows all the naysayers that they were wrong.

Also, I tell you what, if there really was something in Obamas records that would definitely mean he would lose the nomination in the fall, I would want to know it now, before the point of no return.

We all know what the accusations are, wouldn't it be better to put them to rest?

Once again, I say this is not an attack or a trap. I just see a lot of people get offended at these requests and I don't quite understand. I didn't like the Reverend Wright stuff, or the Rezco stuff. However I am glad it came out now and was addressed to my satisfaction. I know not everyone is satisfied by his responses by the way, but I am.

I know a lot of people will look at this and think I am trying to trap you or cause general nastiness. I know you have no reason to believe me but I really am trying to take points of contention and start real conversations about them.

Being that this is a post about a Clinton concern I strongly urge Obama supporters (at least in this post) to refrain from attacks. I haven't brought up the accusations for a reason, as of yet they are unfounded and I do not want this post to turn into finger pointing and cursing. On both sides we have a tendency to defend our candidates on every front. Sometimes the concerns really should be discussed rationally.

P.S. I also urge Clinton supporters to respond the same, but I put emphasis on our side because I feel a responsibility as an Obama supporter and the poster to create a certain environment when discussing Clinton.

I see a lot of attacks from both sides on this site. I am pretty tired of the pokes and jabs personally. I will also admit that in some instances I have seen posts that have made me angry enough to take part in this poking and jabbing. I am not perfect.

As an Obama supporter who is becoming increasingly distasteful of Senator Clintons tactics (or should I say the tactics of her advisor's and surrogates) I would like to have a discussion as to why I shouldn't have to hold my nose and vote for her if she does take the nomination.

First off I spend about two hours a day on this site (at least), and have read many many many posts and responses. I will be honest, I have not seen a whole lot from Clinton supporters that is pro Clinton. I have mostly seen why we shouldn't vote Obama and defense of her tactics. I may have missed something I'll admit as things scroll through pretty quickly. I also understand how many posts are focused on attacking Clinton and that this automatically puts you on the defensive or on the offensive.

Second I will tell you why (even though I was looking forward to voting for her) I am not now. I did not expect a candidate like Obama to come along, and the fact is, no matter what anyone says he is doing things differently. I have never trusted politicians, not Bush, not Bill Clinton, not W. Bush., not Gore, or Kerry. So I never expected to see a politician that I felt I could trust on at least some level.

The truth is that Clinton is doing things the old way from everything I have seen, the way I never trusted. I would like to trust that what she
says she is going to do she means, but we have been made promises every 4 years for a long time, and I just don't see how someone who is doing the same thing can be trusted to do something different in office. I
would be saying the same thing about Edwards, this is not an attack on Clinton, but an attack on politicians in general.

So here is what I would like to discuss. Why do you support her? What makes her better in your eyes (not what makes him worse).

I hope no one feels my post is anti Clinton, I was just trying to do exactly what I ask people to do when they are not Obama supporters and want to know
why I am. I ask that they tell me why it is they do not support Obama so we can discuss those issues instead of me just going off on some tangent.

I think many Obama supporters out there feel the way I
do, and I wanted to give Clintons supporters an opportunity to really just discuss there candidate in a positive light.

Please, everyone try to make this a civil discussion (that means Obama supporters too. I really do want to give Clintons supporers a thread where they do not feel they need to attack in order to just be heard.

First lets be honest.  There is a lot more racism left in this country then anyone wants to believe.  A lot of hate on both sides of the isle.   I am sure most black men, women, and children can understand why reverend Wright is so angry with America.  Why many of the things he says are true.

The truth is Obama has spent 20 years with this pastor.  I am sure not every sermon was like this, but I am sure he has heard these sermons.  

Here is what I respect about the man. 


Through all this time Obama hasn't let himself become like reverend Wright.  It would have been easy for him to become hateful of this country, of white people.  Hate is easy.   Instead Obama reached for hope. 

I think Obama was very inspired by reverend Wright.  I think his actions paint the picture of someone who saw this man, and others who so identified with him and wanted to help.  The reverends wounds from a past filled with hatred (from white people towards his people) were so deep that they made him hate the country that caused them.

I could be wrong, but I think Obamas actions, words, and demeanor suggest that he went into politics in an effort to help this country move in a direction where no man, woman, or child would ever have to feel the way this man does.

Regardless of skin color.

His message of unity seems to be directly inspired by this man. 

I believe there are two kinds of hate.  There is the hate bred by ignorance, and there is hate bred by pain and suffering.

reverend Wright is not in need of our disgust or anger, he is in need of healing. 

I truly believe that is what Obama is trying to do.  He is trying to take steps towards this healing for reverend Wright and every American who has ever been made to feel like he has. 

Listen to the cheers during the reverends sermon.  Me?  I here a lot of pain and suffering being given an outlet.

Obama gives a different outlet.  Hope.

From:  Jeffrey H. Birnbaum

taken from Washington Post.com

Mark J. Penn is a man who wears many hats: high-paid political and corporate pollster, chief executive of an international communications and lobbying company, and chief strategist to New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Enough connections for you?

Well, there are more. Penn's firm, Burson-Marsteller Worldwide -- with 2,000 employees and $300 million a year in revenue -- owns BKSH & Associates, the major lobbying firm chaired by Charles R. Black Jr. That's right, Black, counselor to Republican presidents, reports to Clinton's top strategist.

The connections get even more entangled. Burson-Marsteller is a subsidiary of WPP Group, a London-based advertising and PR giant that owns many of the biggest names on K Street. These include Quinn Gillespie & Associates, Wexler & Walker Public Policy Associates, Timmons & Co., Ogilvy Government Relations Worldwide (formerly the Federalist Group), Public Strategies Inc., Dewey Square Group and Hill & Knowlton.

To be more precise, Penn's parent company employs as lobbyists and advisers an ex-chairman of the Republican National Committee (Edward W. Gillespie), a former House GOP leader (Robert S. Walker), a top GOP fundraiser (Wayne L. Berman), and the former media adviser to President Bush (Mark McKinnon).

WPP's Democrats are just as well known. They include an ex-aide to President Jimmy Carter (Anne Wexler), an ex-aide to President Bill Clinton (Jack Quinn), an ex-Cabinet officer for Clinton and Bush (Norman Y. Mineta), and a former top presidential campaign adviser for Al Gore and John Kerry (Michael J. Whouley).

The range of interests represented by these people is a staggering list of corporate America's who's who, with Penn himself a longtime adviser to Microsoft.

"This is a classic example of how big money has inextricably intertwined the campaign advising and lobbying worlds of modern-day Washington with potential conflicts of interest all over the place," said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a watchdog group.

WPP insists that things are not quite so intertwined and that its units are strictly segregated. "The various WPP businesses are purposely run independently, and there is no risk of any conflict between clients," said Howard Paster, who is Penn's boss, an ex-aide to President Clinton and a high-level volunteer for Hillary Clinton's campaign.

"I also, personally, don't do any lobbying," added Penn, 53.

But WPP does encourage cross-referrals, especially to avoid conflicts within its firms. "We occasionally will do things with one of the other companies," said Quinn, whose firm worked with Burson-Marsteller's polling firm, Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates, on the reelection of Italy's former prime minister Silvio Berlusconi. The polling firm, of which Penn remains president, is the WPP unit that will be paid millions by the Clinton campaign for Penn's attention.

Jefferson's Reprieve?

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has reversed the conviction of a former District police detective in a case that experts believe might make it tougher for the feds to prosecute Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.).

The court voted 7 to 5 on Feb. 9 to overturn the 2002 conviction of Nelson Valdes on three counts of receiving illegal gratuities. Prosecutors said he passed along information from restricted law enforcement databases to an FBI informant who paid him $450.

But the court ruled that the gratuities law did not apply to Valdes's conduct -- his use of the databases was not "an official act" because it did not spur a police investigation.

The same issue hovers around Jefferson. He's under investigation for allegedly taking cash -- $90,000 of which was famously found in his freezer -- in exchange for using his congressional clout to arrange business deals. Two businessmen have pleaded guilty to giving Jefferson money to promote a company marketing new technology in Africa. But was that promotion an "official act"?

Earmarks Were Us

Citizens Against Government Waste is Washington's leading opponent of pork-barrel spending. Its annual Pig Book, which lists the government's narrow giveaways, is used by news outlets worldwide to ridicule federal earmarks.

But now that these pet projects are being scaled back -- the Pig Book this year will be more a pamphlet than a book -- CAGW is expanding its other efforts against government wastefulness. It is stepping up campaigns against farm subsidies and federal interference on the Internet. It's also going global, fostering affiliates as far flung as South Korea and Jamaica.

Democratic Hires of the Week

Democrats, who are now in demand thanks to their takeover on Capitol Hill, are shuffling jobs all over town. Bruce Andrews was stolen away from Quinn Gillespie & Associates to run the Washington office of Ford Motor Co. He will be replaced at Quinn Gillespie by Chris McCannell, former chief of staff to Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-N.Y.).

Elsewhere, Stephen Brown left Dutko Worldwide to open the Washington office for Tesoro, an oil refining and marketing firm. R. Scott Silverthorne left the Capital One Financial's lobby shop to become vice president for government affairs of MasterCard Worldwide. And Broderick Johnson, a former chief House lobbyist for President Bill Clinton, is moving to Bryan Cave Strategies from AT&T. Johnson, one of Washington's top African American lobbyists, was pursued for weeks by several firms and was represented by superlawyer Robert Barnett.

It's All in a Name

RightClick Strategies, a consulting firm that has long helped Republican lawmakers design their Web sites, changed its name after last year's elections to Adfero Group, erasing any implication that it's only right-leaning. The firm said the switch was planned before the Democratic sweep.

Parry, Romani DeConcini & Symms, on the other hand, is extremely straightforward. Its Web site is LobbyCongress.com.

I just found this very interesting.