<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
   <title>tdemorsella&apos;s Blog</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/tdemorsella/" />
   <link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/tdemorsella/atom.xml" />
   <id>tag:www.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk/blogs/tdemorsella//2270</id>
   <updated>2008-03-11T01:49:29Z</updated>
   
   <generator uri="http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/">Movable Type Pro 4.21-en</generator>


<entry>
   <title>Calling All Former Clinton Supporters Cont&apos;</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/calling-all-former-clinton-sup-1.php" />
   <id>tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk//17.182715</id>
   
   <published>2008-03-11T01:49:29Z</published>
   <updated>2008-03-11T01:49:29Z</updated>
   
   <summary>Yesterday we started a really intense and cathartic discussion among those of us who originally supported Hillary Clinton, but now find her &quot;scorched earth candidacy&quot; so repulsive that we are struggling with the idea of voting for her should she...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>tdemorsella</name>
      
   </author>
   
      <category term="Cafe" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
   
      <category term="Election Central" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/tdemorsella/">
      <![CDATA[Yesterday we started a really intense and cathartic <a href="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/calling-all-former-clinton-sup.php">discussion</a> among those of us who originally supported Hillary Clinton, but now find her "scorched earth candidacy" so repulsive that we are struggling with the idea of voting for her should she become the nominee.&nbsp; <br /><br />So far there are <a href="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/calling-all-former-clinton-sup.php">71 responses</a> who shared their sad path from Hillary.&nbsp; Unfortunately it got pushed off the front page and several people who wanted to continue the exchange, including myself, had trouble finding it.&nbsp; <br /><br />So I thought I would reintroduce it so it could again briefly stay on the first page and explain how I found it.&nbsp; You can find all of you comments on the "Your Profile" page.&nbsp; For newbies like me, it is located at the top of the page on the right side, underneath the search box.&nbsp; <br /><br />To read <a href="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/calling-all-former-clinton-sup.php">my post</a> about how I went from Clinton supporter to someone who is opposed to her and how 71 others got to that point, as well as share your own experience go to the following<a href="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/calling-all-former-clinton-sup.php"> link.</a><br />]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>

<entry>
   <title>Calling All Former Clinton Supporters</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/calling-all-former-clinton-sup.php" />
   <id>tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk//17.182440</id>
   
   <published>2008-03-09T04:54:21Z</published>
   <updated>2008-03-09T04:54:21Z</updated>
   
   <summary><![CDATA[ I am reaching out to former Clinton supporters who no longer support her and think they might have difficulty voting for her in the general election.&nbsp;&nbsp; I want to understand how you got to this place of opposing her...]]></summary>
   <author>
      <name>tdemorsella</name>
      
   </author>
   
      <category term="Cafe" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
   
      <category term="Election Central" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/tdemorsella/">
      <![CDATA[

<p>I am reaching out to former Clinton supporters who no longer
support her and think they might have difficulty voting for her in the general
election.&nbsp;&nbsp; I want to understand how you
got to this place of opposing her after being a supporter.&nbsp;&nbsp; Most of us are not the “Hillary Haters” who
have an irrational aversion to her that the Clinton supporters portray us to
be.</p>



<p> I believe understanding how the Clintons lost us as
supporters, could be the key to understanding them, understanding how to get
some of them to see our point of view, and also help them better understand
us.&nbsp; So, I’m posting my story of how
they lost me below, and I was hoping some of you could explain why you switched.</p>



<p>&nbsp;I used to be a big Bill Clinton fan. &nbsp;When I heard he was being interviewed on TV,
I was there. While I didn’t feel warm and fuzzy about Hillary Clinton, I
believed in their “vast right wing conspiracy” and felt her critics were being
unfair.&nbsp; The Ken Starr witch hunt made
it easy to believe it. I ignorantly glossed through all the scandals and
usually came to the conclusion that they all were all witch hunts with no basis
in fact.&nbsp; I did not take time to read
and absorb the news stories or research the issues being discussed.&nbsp;&nbsp; I also overlooked that other than Bush, no
other administration had as many scandals, indictments, or convictions.&nbsp; By 1999, all the controversies, trials,
convictions, suicides and accidents of witnesses finally started to get to me,
but I felt that all politicians were corrupt and continued to support
them.&nbsp; </p>



<p>&nbsp;I assumed that when Clinton ran for office, that I would
support her.&nbsp; I thought having a
Democrat in the office again would be good, and it would also be nice to have a
female leader.&nbsp; I did not love her, but
I did admire her.&nbsp; When she and other
Democrats voted for the war, I was disappointed.&nbsp; I realized that most voted that way out of fear of loosing their
seat.&nbsp; However, Hilary went further, she
regularly promoted her position and aligned herself with other hawks.&nbsp; She was not a reluctant co-conspirator like
most Dems.&nbsp; She also voted against the
Levin Amendment, which would have tied Bush’s hands from acting unilaterally
and became hawkish in general.&nbsp; I
understood that she was doing it to overcome potential resistance to her as
president because of her gender, but felt she was selling out for her future
run for the Presidency.&nbsp; However, long
after the war became unpopular she was still taking hawkish stances with regards
to international issues, so I no longer believe she has taken these positions
to appear strong, but is actually being true to herself.&nbsp; I could no longer support her because I
thought that once she got in office it would be likely that she would continue
with her hawkish positions.</p>



<p>&nbsp;That change in my perspective changed the way I saw the news
about her.&nbsp; Instead of glossing over
stories assuming that they were part of the “conspiracy,” I would actually
listen, read and watch with a more open mind, as well as do my own
research.&nbsp; At first, I still defended
her, but not as vigorously.&nbsp; The more I
read and investigated, the more disturbed I got.&nbsp; By the fall, I was at the point preferring all of the democratic
candidates to her, but I still would have voted for her, and I still was a Bill
Clinton fan.&nbsp; When my candidate, Edwards
dropped out, I went for Obama.&nbsp; I do not
agree with everything he does, but I do find him inspiring and believe he has a
record of reaching out to would be foes, which is what our country needs right
now.</p>



<p>Then came the plan to make Obama “the Black candidate.”&nbsp; As a Black woman who had supported the
Clinton’s for so many years, this devastated me.&nbsp; They cravenly rejected their most loyal constituency, risking
dividing the party for her to win.&nbsp; I
think she had a good chance of winning without doing that.&nbsp; I started researching to find out how I
could have missed this about them.&nbsp;
Without my “I love the Clintons” lenses on, they began to seem like monsters
on corruption, attacking democrats other than Obama, human rights, the environment,
telecommunications monopolies, Haliburton, poverty, cheating, manipulation,
bold faced lies…. the list goes on.&nbsp; I
think I just chose to dismiss and excuse this stuff in the past.&nbsp; </p>



<p> At first, I was angry with myself for being so easily fooled,
but when I listen to people who still support Clinton, I see that they sound
just like I did.&nbsp; I understand that many
of her supporters, see the Clintons as vilified by the press, republicans,
independents,&nbsp; and now democrats.&nbsp; They do not really read the bad stuff about
them with an open mind because they see all these controversies, not as pattern
of behavior, but as more attacks by those who oppose them.&nbsp;&nbsp; That is why I believe Obama supporters
should cut them some slack.&nbsp; We see her
as dividing the party, pitting Black against White, women against men, Latino
against Black, women against women, Blue collar against white collar, and
Democrat against Democrat, all while motivating republicans to vote for her now
to inspire their party to come out to vote for her in the general
election.&nbsp; Some of us believe having
them back in the White House would not be better than having Mc Cain in office
and that they could cost us the congress again..&nbsp; They see her as David fighting off the mighty Goliath.</p>



<p>So my question to other former Clinton supporters is what
event caused you to stop supporting Clinton?&nbsp;
How do you think current supporters see her current scorched earth
tactics that appear to be taking the party down?&nbsp; Do you think these supporters will wake up like we did or is the
story they have been telling democrats too compelling?</p>

]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>

<entry>
   <title>Voting Irregularities In Texas</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/voting-irregularities-in-texas.php" />
   <id>tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk//17.182252</id>
   
   <published>2008-03-07T20:28:53Z</published>
   <updated>2008-03-07T20:28:53Z</updated>
   
   <summary><![CDATA[My husband just sent me this info about the Vote is Texas.&nbsp; What do you guys think?&nbsp; Have you heard anything?Didn't anybody notice this?It is now 24 hours after the polls closed in Texas.In 21 counties, with 100% of precincts...]]></summary>
   <author>
      <name>tdemorsella</name>
      
   </author>
   
      <category term="Cafe" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
   
      <category term="Election Central" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/tdemorsella/">
      <![CDATA[My husband just sent me this info about the Vote is Texas.&nbsp; What do you guys think?&nbsp; Have you heard anything?<br /><br />Didn't anybody notice this?<br /><pre>It is now 24 hours after the polls closed in Texas.<br /><br />In 21 counties, with 100% of precincts reporting, Nobody voted in the Republican presidential primary.<br /><br />In 3 counties, with 100% of precincts reporting, Nobody voted in the Democratic presidential primary.<br /><br />In the 21 counties with NO Republican voters, there were<br />87,919 registered voters, and<br />36,239 ballots cast,<br />all of them Democratic.<br /><br />In the 3 counties with NO Democratic Voters, there were<br />5,212 registered voters, and<br />1,865 ballots cast,<br />all of them Republican.<br /><br />In Maverick County,<br />ALL 9,661 ballots cast were Democratic.<br /><br />In Hansford County,<br />ALL 1,235 ballots cast were Republican.<br /><br />ONE-PARTY TEXAS COUNTIES, PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY, 2008<br /><br />            County        Registered  Republican Democratic<br />                                  Voters          Votes        Votes<br />Armstrong            1404          369            0<br />Borden                  432            0          139<br />Brooks                6385            0        3185<br />Cottle                  1230            0          471<br />Crockett              2654            0          1166<br />Culberson            1959            0          526<br />Dickens                1410            0          612<br />Duval                    9331            0        5053<br />Foard                  1043            0          432<br />Hall                      2110            0          813<br />Hansford              3101        1235              0<br />Hardeman            2969            0        1086<br />Hudspeth              1557            0          476<br />Kent                              665              0              250<br />La Salle                      4071                0            1392<br />Loving                    116            0            22<br />Maverick              26224            0          9661<br />Reeves                  6337            0          2228<br />Roberts                  707        261              0<br />Stonewall              1087            0          483<br />Throckmorton        1175            0          513<br />Upton                    2139            0            823<br />Zapata                  7148            0          3190<br />Zavala                    7877            0          3718<br /><br /><br />But don't take my word for it.  See for yourself.<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://enr.sos.state.tx.us/enr/mar04_135_race0.htm">http://enr.sos</a><a href="http://enr.sos.state.tx.us/enr/mar04_135_race0.htm">.state.tx.us/enr/mar04_135_race0.htm</a><br /><br /><a href="http://enr.sos.state.txus/enr/mar04_136_race0.htm">http://enr.sos</a><a href="http://enr.sos.state.txus/enr/mar04_136_race0.htm">.state.txus/enr/mar04_136_race0.htm</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#TX">http://www.cnn</a><a href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#TX">.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/ #TX</a><br /><br /><br />Election officials in the State of Texas<br />have some explaining to do.</pre>]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>

<entry>
   <title>The Clinton InfoUSA Ties May Lead to a Scandal</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/the-clinton-infousa-ties-may-l.php" />
   <id>tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk//17.182243</id>
   
   <published>2008-03-07T20:02:37Z</published>
   <updated>2008-03-07T20:02:37Z</updated>
   
   <summary><![CDATA[I have a feeling of deja vu.&nbsp; The Clinton White House is likely to be again faced with many scandals if Hillary gets in.&nbsp; Below is a brief description of one.&nbsp; It involves Hillary and Bill Clintons' long financial relationship...]]></summary>
   <author>
      <name>tdemorsella</name>
      
   </author>
   
      <category term="Cafe" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
   
      <category term="Election Central" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/tdemorsella/">
      <![CDATA[I have a feeling of deja vu.&nbsp; The Clinton White House is likely to be again faced with many scandals if Hillary gets in.&nbsp; Below is a brief description of one.&nbsp; <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18958566">It involves Hillary and Bill Clintons' long financial relationship Info U.S.A.'s CEO is Vinod Gupta,</a> who now faces questions from the Securities and Exchange Commission and a lawsuit with his company's stockholders over his relationship with the Clintons. <br /><br />Last year, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton rented out some of her lists to&nbsp; It is drawing attention because, campaigns usually do not rent out of give access to their donor lists until the campaign is over.&nbsp; They rented the list for $8,225 however most say it is worth $800,000.&nbsp; Clinton says the rental was for her Senate campaign and that the rentals took place before she began her formal campaign for president last January.&nbsp; That would mean that the debt went unpaid for at least 11 months, even though Info U.S.A.&nbsp; settles accounts within 64 days.<br /><br />Over $900,000 was spent flying the Clintons to various places, which could violate federal campaigning and ethics rules.&nbsp;&nbsp; Hilary says he has been reimbursed.&nbsp; Gupta also owns the Opinion Research Corporation, which conducts the political polling for the television network CNN - which in my opinion is very pro-Hillary.<br /><br />Vin Gupta has a long history of giving and raising campaign money for the Clintons and after they&nbsp; left the White House he hired Bill Clinton as a consultant.&nbsp; Clinton has been paid $3.3 million, in addition to the options on 100,000 shares of stock. The corporate spending on behalf of the Clintons helped fuel a shareholder lawsuit against Gupta and 10 corporate directors.<br /><br />As usual, I think that as usually, all parties involved will be prosecuted and that the Clinton will get out of this, but it still sounds like a brewing scandal the nation will have to face if Hillary is in office. &nbsp;<br /><br />You can read more at <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18958566">NPR</a>]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>

<entry>
   <title>Clinton Received $500 - $2,500 Contributions from Nonexistent &amp; Poor Immigrants</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/clinton-received-500-2500-cont.php" />
   <id>tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk//17.181851</id>
   
   <published>2008-03-06T16:55:18Z</published>
   <updated>2008-03-06T16:55:18Z</updated>
   
   <summary><![CDATA[According to an investigation conducted by the Los Angeles Times, Hillary Clinton received $500 - $2,500 contributions totaling $380,000 from dishwashers, waiters and others with low paying jobs from&nbsp; some of the poorest Chinese neighborhoods in Queens, Brooklyn and the...]]></summary>
   <author>
      <name>tdemorsella</name>
      
   </author>
   
      <category term="Cafe" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
   
      <category term="Election Central" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/tdemorsella/">
      <![CDATA[According to an investigation conducted by the <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-donors19oct19,0,4231217.story">Los Angeles Times</a>, Hillary Clinton received $500 - $2,500 contributions totaling $380,000 from dishwashers, waiters and others with low paying jobs from&nbsp; some of the poorest Chinese neighborhoods in Queens, Brooklyn and the Bronx. Most have occupations that would normally make it difficult for them to donate such high amounts of money.&nbsp;&nbsp; Some of the addresses and phone numbers of these donors proved to be false or non-existent.&nbsp; Many are recent immigrants from Fujian province and seem to think that if she becomes president,she will be able to reunite them with their families.&nbsp; Some lack the legal-resident status required for giving campaign money. Most have not registered to vote.&nbsp; Some speak little or no English. Many said they gave to Clinton because they were instructed to do so by local association leaders.&nbsp; Clinton has not returned the funds to any of the contributors who gave illegally.<br /><br />You can read more about the donations and the investigation at <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-donors19oct19,0,4231217.story">The LA Times.</a><br /><br />Has Clinton truly been vetted?<br /><br />]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>

<entry>
   <title>Obama&apos;s TX &amp; OH Closer is Out</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/obamas-tx-oh-closer-is-out.php" />
   <id>tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk//17.181142</id>
   
   <published>2008-03-03T18:27:33Z</published>
   <updated>2008-03-03T18:27:33Z</updated>
   
   <summary><![CDATA[Last week, we heard rumors that Obama had purchased two minute blocks of time in all the major markets in OH and TX to appear today through Tuesday.&nbsp; We I saw it on MSNBC's First Read and I think what...]]></summary>
   <author>
      <name>tdemorsella</name>
      
   </author>
   
      <category term="Cafe" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
   
      <category term="Election Central" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/tdemorsella/">
      <![CDATA[Last week, we heard rumors that Obama had purchased two minute blocks of time in all the major markets in OH and TX to appear today through Tuesday.&nbsp; We I saw it on <a href="http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=725044">MSNBC's First Read</a> and I think what his team put together is great.&nbsp; It speaks to his experience, his positions and his disinterest in player dirty politics with Clinton.&nbsp; It is a wonderful, eloquent, closing statement, similar to her closing statement at the Austin debates two weeks ago, but more fleshed out and not the words of Edwards or President Clinton.&nbsp;&nbsp; You can view it at the following <a href="http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=725044">link.</a> He might just take her out in both states.&nbsp; I hope it plays in Rhode Island as well. <br />]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>

<entry>
   <title>Clinton To Sue Over Texas Caucuses</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/02/clinton-to-sue-over-texas-cauc.php" />
   <id>tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk//17.180688</id>
   
   <published>2008-02-29T07:54:39Z</published>
   <updated>2008-02-29T07:54:39Z</updated>
   
   <summary>McClatchy Newspapers is reporting that the Texas Democratic Party is warned that its March 4 caucuses could be delayed or disrupted in response to notification from Clinton aides that their could be an &quot;imminent&quot; lawsuit over its complicated delegate selection...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>tdemorsella</name>
      
   </author>
   
      <category term="Cafe" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
   
      <category term="Election Central" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/tdemorsella/">
      <![CDATA[McClatchy Newspapers is reporting that the Texas Democratic Party is warned that its March 4 caucuses could be delayed or disrupted in response to notification from Clinton aides that their could be an "imminent" lawsuit over its complicated delegate selection process.<br /><br />To find out more go to <a href="http://www.kansascity.com/449/story/510802.html">KansasCity.com</a><br />To read the Texas Democratic Party's Letter to the candicates, <a href="http://media.star-telegram.com/smedia/2008/02/28/20/Campaign_Letter.source.prod_affiliate.58.pdf">click here</a><br />]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>

<entry>
   <title>Resources for Comparing Obama&apos;s and Clinton&apos;s Record</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/02/resources-for-comparing-obamas.php" />
   <id>tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk//17.180070</id>
   
   <published>2008-02-25T23:24:34Z</published>
   <updated>2008-02-25T23:24:34Z</updated>
   
   <summary><![CDATA[A few days I posted a diary from the Daily Kos, in which the author sought to uncover the two candidates' intentions in the senate.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; You can view it at the following link.&nbsp; Later a few of you pointed out...]]></summary>
   <author>
      <name>tdemorsella</name>
      
   </author>
   
      <category term="Cafe" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
   
      <category term="Election Central" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/tdemorsella/">
      <![CDATA[A few days I posted a diary from the Daily Kos, in which the author sought to uncover the two candidates' intentions in the senate.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; You can view it at the following<a href="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/02/senate-record-comparison-obama.php"> link.</a>&nbsp; Later a few of you pointed out some flaws in her research.&nbsp; However, I thought the author's intentions were pure.&nbsp; I believe getting to the truth was her intention and I learned some things about the candidates as a result.&nbsp; I seems as if most of you feel the same.<br /><br />Since then, I've found a few additional materials from a few additional&nbsp; sources.&nbsp; You will have to decide for yourself on how truthful or objective the resources are.&nbsp; <br /><br />1. The first resource is an article from The National Journal, entitled <a href="http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/080225nj1.htm">A Dimes Worth of Difference.</a>&nbsp; The article attempts to analyze the records of both, primarily based on their votes in the senate.&nbsp; On the front page they showcase a <a href="http://nationaljournal.com"><a>Graphic called "What votes Clinton and Obama differed on"</a></a><br /><br />2.&nbsp; The Guardian newspaper, in the UK seeks to presents the article <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jan/22/hillaryclinton.barackobama">Past Holds The Key to Democratic Future.</a>&nbsp; They posit that Clinton and Obama's Senate voting records offer clues as to whether they will keep their campaign pledges.<br /><br />3.&nbsp; Hilzoy, the author of the blog, Obsidian Wings, the author attempts to analyze both of the senators' records in a series of three posts called,  More Than You Ever Wanted To Know About Clinton and Obama's Legislative Records Project, by reviewing the bills and amendments that Clinton and Obama have co-sponsored *at the earliest possible date* , which as we all have discovered is likely only a proxy for taking real action to get legislation written and passed... but it at least weeds out symbolic, free-riding cosponsorship.&nbsp; The first post is titled, <a href="http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/02/solutions-adden.html">Solutions: Addendum.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </a>The second post is called, <a href="http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/02/but-wait-theres.html">But Wait. There's More!</a>&nbsp; The final piece is called <a href="http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/02/all-the-rest.html">All The Rest.</a><br /><br />The New York Times also created a graphical breakdown of <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/07/29/us/politics/20070730_OBAMA_GRAPHIC.html">Obama's work in the Illinois Senate.</a><br />
<br />
In response to the repeated claim by Clinton, the Republicans and and
the media that Obama has not done anything, Hilzoy has posted <a href="http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/02/obama-actually.html">Obama: Actually.</a><br />
<br />
Has anyone found other articles or resources on the web that address Obama's and/or Clinton's record?&nbsp; Please post them in the comments section. <br />]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>

<entry>
   <title>Senate Record Comparison: Obama vs. Clinton</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/02/senate-record-comparison-obama.php" />
   <id>tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk//17.179882</id>
   
   <published>2008-02-24T17:57:37Z</published>
   <updated>2008-02-24T17:57:37Z</updated>
   
   <summary><![CDATA[I found the following over on one of the Daily Kos Dairies.&nbsp; The author gave her permission for others to distribute it.&nbsp; It is a summary of the good intentions, successes and failures of both candidates in the senate. While...]]></summary>
   <author>
      <name>tdemorsella</name>
      
   </author>
   
      <category term="Cafe" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
   
      <category term="Election Central" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/tdemorsella/">
      <![CDATA[I found the following over on one of the Daily Kos Dairies.&nbsp; The author gave her permission for others to distribute it.&nbsp; It is a summary of the good intentions, successes and failures of both candidates in the senate. While the author now supports Obama, she had been inclined toward Hillary before doing her research. I think it is one of the most well researched, fact based pieces on both their records that I have ever encountered.<br />
<br /><a href="http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633">I Refuse to Buy into the Obama Hype (now a supporter)</a> by <a href="http://grassroots-mom.dailykos.com">Grassroots Mom</a>
 
Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:13:32 PM PST<p>The next President is going to have some MAJOR challenges.
<br />I refuse to buy into the hype, on either side, but especially on
that of Obama. &nbsp;However the "empty rhetoric" v. "history of
accomplishments" arguments have prompted me to check it out on my own,
not relying on any candidate's website, book, or worst of all
supporters' diaries, like this <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/20/1567/00748/51/460644">one</a>.</p>

<p> I went to the <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov">Library of Congress Website</a>.
The FACTS of what each did in the Senate last year sure surprised me.
I'm sure they will surprise you, too. Whether you love or hate Hillary,
you will be surprised. Whether you think Obama is the second coming of
JFK or an inexperienced lightweight, you will surprised. &nbsp;Go check out
the <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov">Library of Congress Website</a>.
After spending some time there, it will be clear that there is really
only one candidate would is ready to be the next president, even better
than Gore. If you don't want to spend an hour or two doing research,
then I'll tell you what I discovered on the jump.</p>


<ul><li><a href="http://Grassroots-Mom.dailykos.com/">Grassroots Mom's diary</a> ::  :: </li><li> <br /></li></ul><p>I
looked up Obama and looked up Clinton. I looked at the bills that they
both authored and introduced. Anyone who has been around politics, and
is honest, realizes that there are a lot of reasons why a Senator votes
one way or another on bills or misses votes. However an examination of
the bills that each of these Senators cared enough about to author and
introduce revealed much to me: &nbsp;what they care about, what their
priorities are, how they tackle problems. And the list of co-sponsors
showed something about how they lead, inspire and work with others.
Finally, looking at which bills actually passed is pretty indicative of
how effective each would be at getting things done.</p>

<p>Before I get into the nitty gritty, let's all be honest here. It is
damn hard to get anything through Congress these days. And Obama and
Clinton care about the same issues and have obviously worked together
on a lot of legislation, whatever Sen. Clinton's campaign may imply.
She is a frequent co-sponsor on his bills, and he on hers. They are
both completely competent senators.</p>

<p>I started with Sen. Clinton.</p>

<p>I'm not a Hillary Hater, but I certainly didn't like her much
either. I didn't like her DLC history; her votes on Iraq, Iran or the
bankruptcy bill; her characterization of the years she spent as First
Lady as "executive experience." Hillary Clinton is no Eleanor
Roosevelt. Perhaps more like Lady Bird Johnson. Hillary claims to have
brought us SCHIP (with a little help from Ted Kennedy). Lady Bird
brought us Head Start as well as cleaner, nicer highways. Anyone 40 or
older probably remembers when the nation's highways were basically
disgusting garbage dumps lined with billboards. But no one thinks Lady
Bird should have been president. Might as well argue for Barbara Bush
because of her efforts on family literacy, or Nancy Reagan and the War
on Drugs.</p>

<p>Hillary Clinton does have a solid record in the Senate, however.</p>

<p>I came away from my research really knowing a lot more about what is
important to Hillary in her heart: kids and their well being. My
research changed my feeling about her significantly. About 40% of her
bills dealt with health care and/or kids. As a mom with small kids, I
like her passion for children's issues. But curiously, her big bill to
deliver health care to every child, the one she lauds on her website,
S.895 : "A bill to amend titles XIX and XXI of the Social Security Act
to ensure that every child in the United States has access to
affordable, quality health insurance coverage, and for other purposes"
had not a single co-sponsor. Not one, according to the Library of
Congress. Why is that? Is it a bad bill? Or is she not able to recruit
support for her signature issue? Or did she just submit it simply to
put in the hopper, so to speak, so she could claim she was working on
it. I honestly don't know the answer, but I find it curious and
suspicious that not even Ted Kennedy co-sponsored it. Its sister bill
in the house, H.R. 1535, introduced by John Dingell has 42 co-sponsors.
It's just weird. I honestly don't know what to make of it.</p>

<p>S.895 was major. But most of her other bills are much smaller in scale and scope — more targeted and more careful.</p>

<p>For example, she introduced one bill that offered tax credits for
building owners who clean up lead paint. Which is a very good thing.
And Obama is a co-sponsor. "S.1793 : A bill to amend the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a tax credit for property owners who
remove lead-based paint hazards."</p>

<p>Obama's anti-lead bill (S. 1306) directed the Consumer Product
Safety Commission to classify certain children's products containing
lead as banned hazardous substances. He had another bill prohibitting
the interstate transport of children's products containing lead.
(S.2132) And Hillary co-sponsored each of these.</p>

<p>In other words, they both care about protecting children from lead.</p>

<p>The difference is in the scope and the approach.</p>

<p>Obama's bill shows how he thinks big: do everything we can to make
sure that lead-painted Thomas the Tank Engine toys don't get into the
hands and mouths of millions of toddlers in this country.</p>

<p>Or Hillary: encourage people by offering tax credits to clean up
lead paint in old buildings. People have been talking about lead paint
in old buildings hurting kids in living in inner cities, since, well
when I was a kid — for decades. If it is still a big problem, is
offering tax credits for clean up, i.e. scrape down the walls and
repaint, the best way to protect kids from lead?</p>

<p>How many of you parents have lead paint problems? How many have (or
had) toxic Thomas the Tank Engine Toys? They are everywhere. The local
bookstore and kid's shoe store and the doctor's office and the
preschool and the toystore all have train tables. There is nowhere you
can go anymore with toddlers that doesn't have a Thomas the Tank Engine
train table covered with toxic toys. But that's just my feeling.</p>

<p>Obama's bills risk pissing off the toy industry and the Chinese. Hillary's risks nothing.</p>

<p>A lot of Clinton's health bills focus on children. Or women. She
introduced a billl for research in the causes of gestational diabetes,
for more pediatric research (S.895) and a rural agriculture bill to get
farm-fresh veggies into schools (S.1031).</p>

<p>Her bill dealing with the crisis in foreclosure is actually S.2114 :
"A bill to amend the Truth in Lending Act, to provide for enhanced
disclosures to consumers and enhanced regulation of mortgage brokers,
and for other purposes." Again, no co-sponsors. &nbsp;Obama also introduced
a bill in the face of the mortgage foreclosure crisis: S.1222 : "A bill
to stop mortgage transactions which operate to promote fraud, risk,
abuse, and under-development, and for other purposes." Sponsor: Sen
Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 4/25/2007), co-sponsored by Dick Durbin.</p>

<p>In her ads and speeches, Clinton claims that she's fighting to stop
foreclosure while implying that Obama is empty rhetoric. Actually,
Clinton is calling for "enhanced disclosures to consumers and enhanced
regulation", while Obama's bill will "stop mortgage transactions which
operate to promote fraud, risk, abuse, and under-development." &nbsp;After
looking at the two bills, Obama's appears to be tougher, more directly
addressing the problem.</p>

<p>Speaking of Obama, here's a list of some of his proposed legislation.</p>

<p>Four bills on energy including
<br />• S.1151 : A bill to provide incentives to the auto industry to
accelerate efforts to develop more energy-efficient vehicles to lessen
dependence on oil;
<br />•S.115 : A bill to suspend royalty relief, to repeal certain
provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and to amend the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal certain tax incentives for the oil and
gas industry; and •S.133 : A bill to promote the national security and
stability of the economy of the United States by reducing the
dependence of the United States on oil through the use of alternative
fuels and new technology, and for other purposes.</p>

<p>Clinton had only one bill that I could find that addressed the same
issue, S.701 : A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
impose a temporary oil profit fee and to use the proceeds of the fee
collected to provide a Strategic Energy Fund and expand certain energy
tax incentives, and for other purposes. &nbsp;</p>

<p>Obama wants to "repeal certain tax incentives for the oil and gas
industry". Clinton sees the answer in a "temporary oil profit fee" and
to "expand certain energy tax incentives" for alternative energy.
Obama's alternative energy bill (S.133) was co-sponsored by Harkin,
Lugar and Salazar. Clinton's bill again had no co-sponsors.</p>

<p>On health care he introduced ten bills/amendments, including one
amendment that passed: S.AMDT.1041 to S.1082 To improve the safety and
efficacy of genetic tests. Other issues addressed in his proposed
health care legislation were AIDS research (S.823 ), hospital report
cards (S.692 — the V.A., and S.1824 — Medicare), better emergency care
(S.1873), and drug price controls (S.2347).</p>

<p>Clinton's health care bills, for the most part, didn't impress me
much, although she introduced many more bills in this area than Obama
did:</p>

<p>S.CON.RES.63 : A concurrent resolution expressing the sense of the
Congress regarding the need for additional research into the chronic
neurological condition hydrocephalus, and for other purposes.
<br />S.RES.176 : A resolution recognizing April 30, 2007, as "National Healthy Schools Day".
<br />S.RES.222 : A resolution supporting the goals and ideals of Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month.
<br />S.201 : A bill to establish a grant program for individuals still
suffering health effects as a result of the September 11, 2001, attacks
in New York City and at the Pentagon.
<br />S.907 : A bill to establish an Advisory Committee on Gestational
Diabetes, to provide grants to better understand and reduce gestational
diabetes, and for other purposes.
<br />S.993 : A bill to improve pediatric research.
<br />S.982 : A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide
for integration of mental health services and mental health treatment
outreach teams, and for other purposes.
<br />S.1065 : A bill to improve the diagnosis and treatment of
traumatic brain injury in members and former members of the Armed
Forces, to review and expand telehealth and telemental health programs
of the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs,
and for other purposes.
<br />S.1075 : A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to
expand access to contraceptive services for women and men under the
Medicaid program, help low income women and couples prevent unintended
pregnancies and reduce abortion, and for other purposes.
<br />S.1343 : A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act with
respect to prevention and treatment of diabetes, and for other
purposes.
<br />S.1712 : A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to improve newborn screening activities, and for other purposes.</p>

<p>and on and on. Plenty of these have plenty of co-sponsors.
Obviously, Hillary Clinton really knows her stuff on the issues of
health care. None of them passed, however. On Obama's side, one of his
health care initiatives passed in the Senate, the aforementioned
amendment to Kennedy's S.1082, the FDA Revitalization Act.</p>

<p>Truth be told, it was very depressing doing this research to see all
these great ideas and how little actually gets done. Looking at the
legislative history of Kennedy's bill is a good example. It finally
passed but its sister bill in the House, H.R.2900, was the one that was
finally enacted, and with it, Obama's amendment for safe and effective
genetic testing. Clinton submitted two amendments to this bill, one of
would have eliminated the sunsetting of pediatric data collection; the
other would have begin the process to approve generic versions of
complex and expensive drugs called biologics or biotech drugs. Neither
were adopted.</p>

<p>Now let's look more closely at Obama.</p>

<p>I was blown away as I started going through his record. &nbsp;I've
already mentioned his bills on health care and energy. In addition he
had introduced bills on Iran, voting, veterans, global warming,
campaign finance and lobbyists, Blackwater, global poverty, nuclear
proliferation, and education.
<br /><strong>On Iran</strong>: S.J.RES.23 : A joint resolution
clarifying that the use of force against Iran is not authorized by the
Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq, any
resolution previously adopted, or any other provision of law.</p>

<p><strong>On voting</strong>Passed out of Committee and now on the Senate Calendar for Feb. 22, 2008
<br />S.453 : <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/%7Ec110tjCjdf:e792:">A bill to prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections</a>
Please check this out! This is a great bill. We need this. I can't
believe that this time voter intimidation is not already illegal.</p>

<p><strong>On veterans and military personnel:</strong> S.1084 : A bill to provide housing assistance for very low-income veterans;</p>

<p><strong>On global warming</strong>S.1324 : A bill to amend the Clean
Air Act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation fuel
sold in the United States;S.1389 : A bill to authorize the National
Science Foundation to establish a Climate Change Education Program;
S.AMDT.599 to S.CON.RES.21 To add $200 million for Function 270
(Energy) for the demonstration and monitoring of carbon capture and
sequestration technology by the Department of Energy. (This last one
passed both the House and the Senate as part of the budget bill.)</p>

<p><strong>On campaign finance and lobbyists</strong> S.2030 : A bill
to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require reporting
relating to bundled contributions made by persons other than registered
lobbyists; and S.AMDT.41 to S.1 To require lobbyists to disclose the
candidates, leadership PACs, or political parties for whom they collect
or arrange contributions, and the aggregate amount of the contributions
collected or arranged.</p>

<p><strong>On Blackwater</strong> S.2044 : A bill to provide procedures
for the proper classification of employees and independent contractors,
and for other purposes, and S.2147 : A bill to require accountability
for contractors and contract personnel under Federal contracts, and for
other purposes.</p>

<p><strong>On global poverty</strong> &nbsp;S.2433 : A bill to require the
President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further
the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction
of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the
achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half
the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on
less than $1 per day.</p>

<p><strong>On global nuclear proliferation</strong> S.1977 : A bill to
provide for sustained United States leadership in a cooperative global
effort to prevent nuclear terrorism, reduce global nuclear arsenals,
stop the spread of nuclear weapons and related material and technology,
and support the responsible and peaceful use of nuclear technology.</p>

<p>I counted nine education bills, but it's getting late and I've got to get my kids ready for bed. &nbsp;</p>

<p>As I mentioned earlier, Clinton is a frequent co-sponsor on many of
Obama's bills. So is Ted Kennedy. So are a number of Republicans.</p>

<p>Finally, Obama appears to have a better record last year in the
Senate on getting his bills and amendments passed than does Clinton.
I've listed everything that passed the Senate for each them at the end
in boxes. But check out Thomas.loc.gov for yourself. I may have missed
something.</p>

<p>In my eyes Obama is the superior choice in every way. He cares about
more of the issues that matter to me. Kids and health care are
important but so is the issue of global warming, on which Clinton
introduced not a single bill last year.</p>

<p>Obama is a leader. With bigger majorities in Congress, much of his
agenda should sail through. He can inspire this country to change
course on so many things, from health care to global warming, where
attitudes have to be changed first. I remember Bill Clinton's endless
laundry lists of small, focus group approved initiatives. For those who
say Hillary will not govern like Bill did, I respond that the people
who were doing the market testing of his proposed policies were Dick
Morris, of course, and Mark Penn, who is now running Hillary's campaign.</p>

<p>It's Obama for me! I just sent him $100. My first donation this election.</p>

<p>Yes, We Can!</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Clinton's Successes:
<br />S.694 : A bill to direct the Secretary of Transportation to issue
regulations to reduce the incidence of child injury and death occurring
inside or outside of light motor vehicles, and for other purposes.
(This is currently in conference committee to reconcile difference with
the House bill)
<br />Passed in the Senate:
<br />S.CON.RES.27 : A concurrent resolution supporting the goals and ideals of "National Purple Heart Recognition Day".
<br /> S.RES.21 : A resolution recognizing the uncommon valor of Wesley Autrey of New York, New York
<br />S.RES.92 : A resolution calling for the immediate and unconditional
release of soldiers of Israel held captive by Hamas and Hezbollah.
<br />S.RES.141 : A resolution urging all member countries of the
International Commission of the International Tracing Service who have
yet to ratify the May 2006 amendments to the 1955 Bonn Accords to
expedite the ratification process to allow for open access to the
Holocaust archives located at Bad Arolsen, Germany.
<br />S.RES.222 : A resolution supporting the goals and ideals of Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month.
<br />S.AMDT.666 to H.R.1591 To link award fees under Department of
Homeland Security contracts to successful acquisition outcomes under
such contracts.
<br />S.AMDT.2047 to H.R.1585 To specify additional individuals eligible
to transportation for survivors of deceased members of the Armed Forces
to attend their burial ceremonies.
<br />S.AMDT.2108 to H.R.1585 To require a report on the planning and implementation of the policy of the United States toward Darfur.
<br />S.AMDT.2390 to H.R.2638 To require that all contracts of the
Department of Homeland Security that provide award fees link such fees
to successful acquisition outcomes.
<br />S.AMDT.2474 to H.R.2638 To ensure that the Federal Protective Service has adequate personnel.
<br />S.AMDT.2823 to H.R.3074 To require a report on plans to alleviate
congestion and flight delays in the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia
Airspace.
<br />S.AMDT.2917 to H.R.1585 To extend and enhance the authority for
temporary lodging expenses for members of the Armed Forces in areas
subject to a major disaster declaration or for installations
experiencing a sudden increase in personnel levels.
</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>Obama's Success:
<br />S.AMDT.1041 to S.1082 To improve the safety and efficacy of genetic tests.
<br />S.AMDT.3073 to H.R.1585 To provide for transparency and accountability in military and security contracting.
<br />S.AMDT.3078 to H.R.1585 Relating to administrative separations of members of the Armed Forces for personality disorder.
<br />S.AMDT.41 to S.1 To require lobbyists to disclose the candidates,
leadership PACs, or political parties for whom they collect or arrange
contributions, and the aggregate amount of the contributions collected
or arranged.
<br />S.AMDT.524 to S.CON.RES.21 To provide $100 million for the Summer
Term Education Program supporting summer learning opportunities for
low-income students in the early grades to lessen summer learning
losses that contribute to the achievement gaps separating low-income
students from their middle-class peers.
<br />S.AMDT.599 to S.CON.RES.21 To add $200 million for Function 270
(Energy) for the demonstration and monitoring of carbon capture and
sequestration technology by the Department of Energy.
<br />S.AMDT.905 to S.761 To require the Director of Mathematics,
Science, and Engineering Education to establish a program to recruit
and provide mentors for women and underrepresented minorities who are
interested in careers in mathematics, science, and engineering.
<br />S.AMDT.923 to S.761 To expand the pipeline of individuals entering
the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields to support
United States innovation and competitiveness.
<br />S.AMDT.924 to S.761 To establish summer term education programs.
<br />S.AMDT.2519 to H.R.2638 To provide that one of the funds
appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to
enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5 million or to award
a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or
grantee certifies in writing to the agency awarding the contract or
grant that the contractor or grantee owes no past due Federal tax
liability.
<br /> S.AMDT.2588 to H.R.976 To provide certain employment protections
for family members who are caring for members of the Armed Forces
recovering from illnesses and injuries incurred on active duty.
<br />S.AMDT.2658 to H.R.2642 To provide that none of the funds
appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to
enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award
a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or
grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability.
<br />S.AMDT.2692 to H.R.2764 To require a comprehensive nuclear threat reduction and security plan.
<br />S.AMDT.2799 to H.R.3074 To provide that none of the funds
appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to
enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award
a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or
grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability.
<br />S.AMDT.3137 to H.R.3222 To provide that none of the funds
appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to
enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award
a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or
grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability.
<br />S.AMDT.3234 to H.R.3093 To provide that none of the funds
appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to
enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award
a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or
grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability.
<br />S.AMDT.3331 to H.R.3043 To provide that none of the funds
appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to
enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award
a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or
grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability.
<br />Senate Resolutions Passed:
<br />S.RES.133 : A resolution celebrating the life of Bishop Gilbert Earl Patterson.
<br />S.RES.268 : A resolution designating July 12, 2007, as "National Summer Learning Day".
</p>
</blockquote>

<br /><br />]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>

<entry>
   <title>Weapons Screening Stopped at Obama Rally in Dallas</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/02/weapons-screening-stopped-at-o.php" />
   <id>tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk//17.179725</id>
   
   <published>2008-02-22T19:48:44Z</published>
   <updated>2008-02-22T19:48:44Z</updated>
   
   <summary><![CDATA[The Star Telegram in Dallas reported on Wednesday that the Secret Service order the police to stop screen attendees of the Obama rally for guns and other weapons.&nbsp; Kennedy Deja vu?&nbsp; What is going on?Read the full story...]]></summary>
   <author>
      <name>tdemorsella</name>
      
   </author>
   
      <category term="Cafe" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
   
      <category term="Election Central" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/tdemorsella/">
      <![CDATA[The Star Telegram in Dallas reported on Wednesday that the Secret Service order the police to stop screen attendees of the Obama rally for guns and other weapons.&nbsp;  Kennedy Deja vu?&nbsp; What is going on?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.star-telegram.com/dallas_news/story/486413.html">Read the full story</a><br />]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>

</feed>

 
