Subscribe: Comments on: Union Boss on Obama
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade B rated
Language: English
campaign  clinton  delegates  hillary  lobbying  lobbyists  mccain  might  obama  republicans  states  story  super delegates  times  wins 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Comments on: Union Boss on Obama

Comments on: Union Boss on Obama

DPF's Kiwiblog - Fomenting Happy Mischief since 2003

Last Build Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2018 18:54:17 +0000


By: Craig Ranapia

Sat, 23 Feb 2008 09:51:33 +0000

Heh that is a great quote. He might also be right.
Yeah, because the Clinton Attack Machine is such a pack of cream puffs. I'd also respectfully suggest that anyone who thinks the Teamsters -- one of the more significant union endorsements out there -- are a pack of latte-sucking girly-boys really need to cash the reality check now. Seriously, isn't listening to the Clintonistas muttering about the "Republican attack machine" about as tired as listening to Helen warning that National has a secret agenda to bite the head off your child's kitten? Here's the newsflash: The Republicans aren't going to play nice with whoever wins the Democrats nomination, just as I'm reasonably sure the 'opposition research' and carefully coded sneers about his age are going to be rolled out against McCain by the usual suspects. It's called a general election campaign, Yankee style. Hold your nose and enjoy the ride.

By: itiswhatitis

Fri, 22 Feb 2008 23:06:30 +0000

They all have connections, its the type of connections that are worrysome. I for one, as a "westerner" am worried about McCain apologising to his supporters that there will be "PTSD" and loosly bleeting that there will be "100 years of war" and "more wars". America occupy over 200 countries, with new stories coming out about the US intention to remain in Iraq indefinately, due to "quietly building bases in Iraq" The US intention is very clear.

By: kiwi in america

Fri, 22 Feb 2008 16:46:34 +0000

itiswhatitis Nice try mate. Perhaps Ms Sloan's 'neutral' comments on this subject should be weighed alongside the knowledge that she has been a consultant for numerous Democrat Congressmen and Senators such as John Conyers, Chuck Schumer and Joe Biden. And of course we'd accept CREW as a non-partisan commentator but for this interesting assessment from "Roll Call" "While CREW will not release its donor records, since 2003 the group has received $125,000 from the Arca Foundation, according to the foundation’s annual reports. Over the same period, Arca — a family foundation that has backed a host of liberal causes — has provided about $1 million to organizations to advocate opening ties to Cuba and reducing barriers to travel. The Arca Foundation’s executive director, Donna Edwards, was listed as a director of CREW on the organization’s 2003, 2004 and 2005 tax forms. Edwards ran against Rep. Albert Wynn (D-Md.) in 2006 and again is challenging him in the Democratic primary. CREW has never filed an allegation against Wynn, but two days before the 2006 primary, the organization posted to its Web site a Washington Post story headlined “Wynn Accused of Inflating His List of Endorsements" Read the whole link. But of course Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton have absolutely no connections whatsoever to lobbyists do they?

By: itiswhatitis

Fri, 22 Feb 2008 10:21:53 +0000

McCains shit is starting to hit the fan. The no lobbyist man, When McCain huddled with his closest advisers at his rustic Arizona cabin last weekend to map out his presidential campaign, virtually every one was part of the Washington lobbying culture he has long decried. His campaign manager, Rick Davis, co-founded a lobbying firm whose clients have included Verizon and SBC Telecommunications. His chief political adviser, Charles R. Black Jr., is chairman of one of Washington's lobbying powerhouses, BKSH and Associates, which has represented AT&T, Alcoa, JP Morgan and U.S. Airways. Senior advisers Steve Schmidt and Mark McKinnon work for firms that have lobbied for Land O Lakes, the UST Public Affairs, Dell and Fannie Mae. [...] In McCain's case, the fact that lobbyists are essentially running his presidential campaign -- most of them as volunteers -- seems to some people to be at odds with his anti-lobbying rhetoric. "He has a closer relationship with lobbyists than he lets on," said Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "The problem for McCain being so closely associated with lobbyists is that he's the candidate most closely associated with attacking lobbyists." Public Citizen, a group that monitors campaign fundraising, has found that McCain had more bundlers -- people who gather checks from networks of friends and associates -- from the lobbying community than any other presidential candidate from either party. Oooops

By: Rex Widerstrom

Fri, 22 Feb 2008 06:16:11 +0000

Mad TV's take on the race.

By: kiwi in america

Fri, 22 Feb 2008 06:07:15 +0000

PhilU Fantasy time for you again. The NY Times published a story with no substance to back it up. Not one person has come forward to corroborate their story - zero/zilch/nada. Turns out the McCain campaign was sent a bunch of questions by Times reporters the very detailed answers to which were conveniently left out by the NYT- the most crucial of which was to prove that the lobbyist abjectly failed to get McCain to vote on anything that she was lobbying for. Seems that "The New Republic", a well known left leading monthly, has a take that is that they were about to publish an expose on how a huge fight broke out at the NYT between chief editor Bill Kelleher and the reporters over the varacity of the story with Kelleher feeling to not run the story. The talk is they went with this with no evidence to beat TNR to the punch. Not one member of McCain's former campaign staff alleged to have been worried about possible impropriety has been named nor has anyone on the Times even tried to defend their piece. There has been nobody anywhere who can substantiate this story. Of course had such accusations been made of the messiah Obama, the NYT would be accusing the publisher of sleaze and innuendo of the lowest and basest kind. A new low for the Times whose circulation and share price have been in free fall for the last 2 years.

By: francis

Fri, 22 Feb 2008 05:59:57 +0000

Tim? Read much? Have you actually looked at ANY of the demographic studies on support bases?

By: Rex Widerstrom

Fri, 22 Feb 2008 05:40:36 +0000

McCain had sex? He might get away with it, as long as he didn't try to hit on Mrs Lincoln after the assassination... :-D

By: philu

Fri, 22 Feb 2008 05:17:02 +0000

wrong in someone he then granted poitical favours to.. tsk..tsk..! phil(

By: PaulL

Fri, 22 Feb 2008 05:14:51 +0000

philu: define "wrong place." Sounds a bit suspect - it's like he's been shooting for the brown instead of the pink. I think that you'll find the left's favourite newspaper (the NY Times) has muck raked up something that was denied in the past, and replayed it again for presidential season. Problem is, they've gone with it too early, it will have blown over long before the election proper. Might even be a Republican plant - clearing the decks so to speak. I also see that it has had the effect of unifying many on the right behind McCain - they really hate the NY Times.

By: PaulL

Fri, 22 Feb 2008 05:12:24 +0000

It is definitely tight. The Clinton supporters claim that Obama has no substance, he'll fall apart against McCain. The Obama supporters claim that Clinton cannot win against McCain because too many people hate her. The reality is that neither is true. Clinton won't pull out till the convention, nor will Obama. Clinton will seat the Fl and MI candidates - to deny that is to deny the voters in those states any representation. Then it will be all on, and very bitter. Good fun probably. McCain is old, but competent. The Republicans will be united behind him, and both Obama and Clinton will appeal more to the hard left. It will be a tight contest all the way through. Despite what people may try to claim, I reckon both the Democrat primary, and the eventual election, are on a knife edge. That is what makes it such great political theatre.

By: philu

Fri, 22 Feb 2008 05:09:48 +0000

i see mccain has been sticking his dick inthe wrong place.. and 'granting favours' the person he had sex with.. phil(

By: kiwi in america

Fri, 22 Feb 2008 04:42:06 +0000

Sid Obama has won 10 states and the Democrats Overseas caucus - a minor technicality I know. The super delegates hold the key. They have not yet broken to Obama in any sizeable numbers although it is clear some of Hillary's super delegates are getting restless. The CW is they are waiting to see what happens in TX and OH. If she wins both and then PA not long after, they are likely to see what happens in the remaining races through at least April and stay put. Don't forget, the proportional system means neither candidate can deliver a knockout blow like can and does happen with the Republicans who have largely winner-take-all primaries. In other words, Obama wins 10 states but only slowly widens his pledged delegates lead and not enough to reach the magic number. Even if Obama wins every primary from now until Denver, he cannot prevail without the super delegates. Clinton's team are working aggresively behind the scenes on key super delegates to have FL and MI delegates seated even if only on a proportional basis based on the actual votes in both states. Right now the DNC have stripped both states of all delegates. If Clinton manages even a proportional seating of these delegates, it almost closes the pledged delegates gap. So all eyes are on TX. Latest RCP average has Clinton up by 3 in TX so very close indeed, up by 10 in OH and up by 15+ in PA. Furthermore, Gallup's daily tracking polls saw Obama's national lead over Clinton peak just before the WI primary and they have been slowly tracking down since then and today Clinton was in the lead for the first time since early Feb. One swallow doesn't make a summer, but as I posted in another thread, media stories on Obama are slowly becoming less friendly and more edgy, his wife goofed big time with her "I only love America now that Barak is running for Pres" comment and his WI victory ramble for 45 mins was universally panned. McCain assumes Obama will win and already is homing in on the huge gaps in his record that the media have largely ignored until now. The Clintons play a hard and long term game and nobody ever got rich betting against them. Wins in these three states would prolong this contest and keep her supers in line for a while longer. After wins in 3 big states and if she can get FL and MI seated and the supers continue to break to her in the ratio they are at right now, she will win. It will be messy but messiness will not deter this women from what she sees as her destiny. In that regard, Buffenbarger's comments may end up being spot on.

By: PhilBest

Fri, 22 Feb 2008 04:25:46 +0000

Whoever gets the Dems nomination, Obama or Hillary, the Republicans will have a field day attacking their politics. But Hillary might still win in that case. Obama probably won't.

By: tim barclay

Fri, 22 Feb 2008 03:54:52 +0000

Hillary will support Obama as she has supported her husband. She is a support person and a fine Senator. That is her destiny and nothing at all wrong with that.

By: baxter

Fri, 22 Feb 2008 03:50:18 +0000

Obama reminds me of David Lange all rhetoric and no substance.

By: Bevan

Fri, 22 Feb 2008 02:51:18 +0000

If Hillary doesnt throw in the towel soon, the democrats will be too fractured for the final round against McCain. Hillary wants the presidency, she has been living and breathing as if she is the heir apparant for the last 2 - 3 years, if she doesnt get the nomination, you can bet she will do her best to torpedo Obama's campaign as her next best bet is to take on McCain in 2012.

By: dime

Fri, 22 Feb 2008 02:34:25 +0000

"He has a point. However, if Obama can beat both Hillary and Bill Clinton (who are hard enough on their own), then he might just have what it takes to take on the dirt-throwing, sleaze-bagging, name-calling, rumour-dropping, lie-peddling degenerates that make up the campaign arm of the Republican Party." but hillary cant attack obama like the republicans can! same party etc.. its gonna be all on! hope karl rove helps the boys out :)

By: NeilM

Fri, 22 Feb 2008 02:20:26 +0000

There's currently a televised presidential candidate debate with Obama and Clinton (sponsered by the coal industry by the way). There answers to a question on how to deal with Cuba sums up there differences - Clinton - "As president I would be ready, to reach out and work with a new Cuban government once it demonstrated that it truly was going to change that direction... But there has to be evidence that indeed the changes are real, that they’re taking place, and that the Cuban people will finally be given an opportunity to have their future determined by themselves." Obama - "I do think it is important, precisely because the Bush administration has done so much damage to American foreign relations, that the president take a more active role in diplomacy than might have been true 20 or 30 years ago...If we think that meeting with the president is a privilege that has to be earned, I think that reinforces the sense that we stand above the rest of the world at this point in time." ie there's really no difference. Obama speaks in generalities, Clinton in specifics. I prefer the detailed approach, I agree with Obama's "meeting with the president is a privilege that has to be earned" but I'd like to know how it's to be earned - which is what Clinton goes into.

By: Tim

Fri, 22 Feb 2008 02:17:55 +0000

I don't agree with Buffenbarger's comments at all. The IAM isn't really a fighting union. Buffenbarger and other union bosses in the AFL-CIO are out of touch with the real working poor in the USA, the black and hispanic (largely female) workers who support Obama. Obama's supporters aren't the "latte-drinkers" Buffenbarger portrays them to be, they're lucky if they get filter coffee. Typical braggadocio from a conservative unionist trying to protect his industry and his patch. No wonder the SEIU, which led the breakaway from the AFL-CIO, is the fastest growing union in the USA.