Clinton Cribs from the Bush Florida Stolen Election in 2000

Why is Bill Clinton out peddling the Clinton-Obama ticket? Why else than the fact than Hillary can't win on her own. She needs to hoodwink the voters into believing that she will have Obama on her ticket, saying vote for me and you get Obama as a side dish. No thanks, I'd rather have a real meal with a genuine menu, not a hodpodge because the cook can't do her own thing. Do all those blue-collar workers who voted away their own jobs with the Bushes and Clinton really want more of the same and business as usual? Haven't we had enough? Haven't we already been through the routine of "two for the price of one"?

The Pritzker family is one of America's wealthiest, and has been near the top of Forbes magazine's "America's Richest Families" list since the magazine began in 1982. The family is most famous for owning the Hyatt hotel chain, but also controls the TransUnion Credit Bureau and the Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines. Obama's Sub-Prime Conflict By Dennis Bernstein February 28, 2008 I remember my first piggy bank: a little pink piggy, made of plastic, with a little slot at the top. The slot was big enough, perhaps, to fit a half dollar, a great deal of money to me at the time. “A penny earned is a penny saved,” my father told me, as we dropped the first few coins into the opening, and I heard them hit bottom and bounce. And I can’t tell you how excited I was when we broke it open, after a year or so, and I couldn’t fit another penny into the slot. I tallied up my stash—close to five dollars, I recall— and decided what I would do with my small fortune. I bought a kite, and my imagination soared even higher than my beautiful Chinese box-kite as to what I would save up for next. My pop gave me a powerful push in the right direction, when it came to savings: A penny saved really was a penny earned. Unfortunately, this wasn’t the case for the 1,406 people who lost much of their life savings when Superior Bank of Chicago went belly up in 2001 with over $1 billion in insured and uninsured deposits. This collapse came amid harsh criticism of how Superior's owners promoted sub-prime home mortgages. As part of a settlement, the owners paid $100 million and agreed to pay another $335 million over 15 years at no interest. The uninsured depositors were dealt another blow recently when the U.S. Supreme Court let stand a lower court decision to put any recovered money toward the debt that the bank owners owe the federal government before the depositors get anything. But this seven-year-old bank failure has relevance in another way today, since the chair of Superior’s board for five years was Penny Pritzker, a member of one of America’s richest families and the current Finance Chair for the presidential campaign of Barack Obama, the same candidate who has lashed out against predatory lending. During a recent campaign stop in south Texas, Obama met with San Antonio-area residents who had been particularly hard hit by the sub-prime meltdown. He expressed dismay over how lobbyists for the sub-prime lending industry had spent more than $185 million in the last several years for their cause. “To give you a sense of what that kind of lobbying gets you,” Obama said, a “CEO of the largest sub-prime lender was promised a $100-million severance package at a time when more than two million Americans were facing foreclosure, including nearly 14,000 right here in San Antonio.” Though Superior Bank collapsed years before the current sub-prime turmoil that is rocking the world’s financial markets – and pushing those millions of homeowners toward foreclosure – some banking experts say the Pritzkers and Superior hold a special place in the history of the sub-prime fiasco. “The [sub-prime] financial engineering that created the Wall Street meltdown was developed by the Pritzkers and Ernst and Young, working with Merrill Lynch to sell bonds securitized by sub-prime mortgages,” Timothy J. Anderson, a whistleblower on financial and bank fraud, told me in an interview. “The sub-prime mortgages,” Anderson said, “were provided to Merrill Lynch, by a nation-wide Pritzker origination system, using Superior as the cash cow, with many millions in FDIC insured deposits. Superior’s owners were to sub-prime lending, what Michael Milken was to junk bonds.” In other words, if you traced today’s sub-prime crisis back to its origins, you would come upon the role of the Pritzkers and Superior Bank of Chicago. One Failure to the Next Superior was founded at the tail end of 1988 in the wake of the failed Lyons Savings Bank. The Feds were trying to keep a lid on the magnitude of the S&L post-deregulation crisis and were selling failed or failing thrifts for a song, along with a lucrative package of special benefits. Chicago’s billionaire Pritzker family and their partners bought Lyons Savings for a quite reasonable $42.5 million, but were also given $645 million in tax credits. The kicker was that the buyers only had to come up with $1 million in cash, and got access to the $645 million, and all the bank’s deposits insured by the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC). The Pritzker family’s Superior Bank “started life with enormous tax benefits and a substantial amount of FSLIC-guaranteed assets under a FSLIC assistance agreement,” said financial consultant Bert Ely in a Oct. 16, 2001, statement before the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs. Ely stated, “Superior’s trick, or business plan” under Penny Pritzker’s leadership was apparently “to concentrate on sub-prime lending, principally on home mortgages, but for a while in sub-prime auto lending, too.” In December 1992, the Pritzkers acquired Alliance Funding, a wholesale mortgage organization. In a 2002 article in In These Times about Superior Bank’s collapse, business writer David Moberg reported that the bank’s operations were “tainted with the hallmarks of a mini-Enron scandal…And yet the bank’s owners, members of one of America’s wealthiest families, ultimately could end up profiting from the bank’s collapse, while many of Superior’s borrowers and depositors suffer financial losses.” Moberg wrote that “the Superior story has a familiar ring. … Using a variety of shell companies and complex financial gimmicks, Superior’s managers and owners exaggerated the profits and financial soundness of the bank. While the company actually lost money throughout most of the ’90s, publicly it appeared to be growing remarkably fast and making unusually large profits. Under that cover, the floundering enterprise paid its owners huge dividends and provided them favorable loans and other financial deals deemed illegal by federal investigators. “Superior’s outside auditor, which doubled as a financial consultant, engaged in dubious accounting practices that kept feckless regulators at bay. Many individuals—disproportionately low-income and minority borrowers with spotty credit records—had apparently been exploited through predatory-lending techniques, including exorbitant fees, inadequate disclosure and high interest rates.” When it collapsed in 2001, Superior Bank represented the largest failure of a U.S.-insured depository institution for a decade. “The failure of Superior Bank was directly attributable to the Bank’s Board of Directors and executives ignoring sound risk management principles,” said FDIC Inspector General Gaston Gianni Jr. in a Feb. 7, 2002, report. Banking whistleblower Anderson noted that “Superior failed at a time of historically low interest rates, high employment, a strong economy, and a growing housing market. … There was no reason for it to fail unless you consider gross negligence, a flawed business plan, and a conspiracy to deceive the regulators who were clearly asleep and were negligent themselves in their duties of protecting the class of underinsured depositors.” Pioneering Work Anderson said the bank owners and board members used Superior for their pioneering work in sub-prime lending, developing the financial instruments that helped set the stage for the current sub-prime meltdown. “The Pritzkers like to say they did sub-prime lending to help the disadvantaged get into the home equity business, [but] it would be more accurate to state they ran a very large nation-wide predatory lending operation,” Anderson said, citing criticism of Superior’s lending practices in a letter written to the Office of Thrift Supervision on July 3, 2002, by the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, an association of more than 600 community-based organizations that promote access to basic banking services. As an owner and board chair of Superior, Penny Pritzker also was named in a RICO class action suit on behalf of the more than 1,400 depositors at Superior, who initially lost over $50 million of their life savings. "This is a story of two Americas with two sets of laws, one for the rich and powerful and another for the rest of us,” said Clint Krislov, the depositors’ attorney, in a recent interview. “My clients will all be dead, before they get back their money, given the Supreme Court’s recent decision to uphold the lower court, which put the predatory owners on the front of the line, if any money is recovered.” The Pritzkers arrayed a powerful and well-connected legal team including former President Bill Clinton’s impeachment lawyer Lanny Davis, two ex-comptrollers of the currency, and two former General Counsels to the FDIC, the American Banker Magazine reported. Given the political sensitivity of the sub-prime mortgage crisis, Anderson said he believes Penny Pritzker should resign her post as Obama’s Finance Chair, the person who oversees the campaign’s fundraising. Otherwise, Anderson said, Pritzker’s presence could undercut Obama’s credibility on the issue of predatory lending and create a possible conflict of interest if Obama is elected President and tries to crack down on sub-prime abuses. Obama campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor had no comment about the controversy surrounding Pritzker, but added: "Barack Obama has already made it very clear that he's going to crack down on fraudulent brokers and lenders." One might wonder why Hillary Clinton’s campaign hasn’t jumped on this issue. Maybe it’s because Penny’s little brother, J.B. Pritzker, is a mover and shaker in the Clinton campaign. In May of 2007, Jay Robert, aka, (J.B.) Pritzker, threw his support behind Hillary Clinton, representing a coup for her campaign by wresting the billionaire out of Obama’s home town of Chicago, and better still, the brother of Obama’s Campaign Finance Chair. J.B. Pritzker announced he would head a new grassroots organization called Citizens for Hillary Clinton. Pritzker told reporters at the time, the new organization would go into states "where we haven't fully organized" and seek out campaign supporters as well as raise funds. Apparently the Pritzkers will be sitting at the head table at the Inaugural Ball if either Democrat wins. http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/022708a.html

Go ahead and nominate Obama. The Republicans are slathering at the prospect. He's got baggage. Not only that, he's slinging mud and will it get back tenfold. Just watch the weekly sensationalist tabloids. Obama will be lucky if he gets 100 electoral votes. I was at the evening caucuses in Dallas. I saw Republicans lining up for Obama and not because they love him. Besides, it's the Democratic National Committee that's trying to raise money for Florida and Michigan reruns - not caucuses that discriminate against the elderly and disabled - but real primaries where everyone, not just college kids and young people have a chance to vote. As far as Obama's message of hope - if you want hope, go to church!

UNFAIR AND IMBALANCED..... WATCHING WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THIS SITE..(WAS MY HOME PAGE FOR EIGHT YEARS) IS EXTREMELY DISAPPOINTING AND VERY DISTURBING...I USED TO BE UPSET WITH BARTCOP BECAUSE OF HIS STAUNCH UNWAVERING SUPPORT OF HILLLARY AND SEEMING TO NOT EVEN CONSIDER ANY OTHER OPTIONS.......BUT HE NEVER TORE DOWN ANYONE ELSE...HE SIMPLY KEPT STATING HIS REASONS FOR WHY HE SUPPORTED HER OVER EVERYONE ELSE... I WAS FOR KUCINICH AND THEN EDWARDS AND REALLY NEVER LIKED HER THAT MUCH....BUT AFTER I SAW THE MEDIA GANG RAPE OF HILLARY AND HOW TOTALLY UNFAIR AND BIZARRE THE THE WHOLE THING WAS GETTING...I REALLY STARTED TO EXAMINE THE RESUMES OF THE REMAINING CANDIDATES MORE CLOSELY...ALONG WITH MY NATURAL SUSPICION OF THE MOTIVES OF THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA..I CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT 1) I ALREADY KNOW ALL THERE IS TO KNOW ABOUT HILLARY 2)THE MORE I LEARNED ABOUT B.O. THE LESS I LIKED IT...SINCE IT SEEMED TO BE ALL GOOD SPEECHES AND LITERALLY NO BACKUP..3) THE MORE B.O. REMINDS ME THE OF GWB EIGHT YEARS AGO....IE. HE IS WAY TO COCKY AND ARROGANT WITHOUT HAVING ANYTHING TO BACK IT UP.....HIS BIG FRICKIN ANTIWAR SPEECH WAS DONE IN ONE OF THE MOST LIBERAL ILLINOIS DISTRICTS AND WAS NOT BINDING IN ANYWAY....THE STORY IN THE TRIBUNE ABOUT HOW HE TOTALLY SCREWED OVER ALL HIS FELLOW ....DARE I SAY THE WORD WITHOUT BEING LABELED A CLINTON RACIST...BLACK..DEMOCRATIC OPPONENTS IN THE PRIMARY...SO HE COULD RUN VIRTUALLY UNOPPOSED MADE ME SICK....A FEW WEEKS AGO I READ AN ACCOUNT OF HIM MAKIN A SPEECH AT A PREDOMINANTLY BLACK CHURCH AND IN THE TEXT OF THE SPEECH WAS A LINE THAT MADE ME TAKE NOTICE....HE SAID TO THE ALL BLACK CONGREGATION....."IMAGINE HOW YOUR GRANDCHILDREN WILL FEEL WHEN THEY SEE MY HAND ON THE BIBLE WHILE IM BEING SWORN IN AS PRESIDENT."......WHATS WRONG WITH THAT YOU SAY?? OTHER THAT THE MOST OUTLANDISHLY BRAZEN PLAYING OF THE "RACE CARD " IN THE HISTORY OF AMERICAN POLITICS,,,???? QUITE FRANKLY, I WAS SHOCKED....BUT OF COURSE NO ONE DARED POINT IT OUT FOR WHAT IT WAS....AND NO ONE DARES TALK ABOUT THE WHOLE ISSUE IN ITS ACUALLITY....OBAMA IS ALLOWED TO PLAY THE RACE CARD ALL HE WANTS...NO ONE DARES QUESTION THAT..FOR FEAR OF BEING LABELED RACIST. OBAMA IS THE ACTUAL RACIST....HE SHAMELESSLY USES HIS RACE TO GET BLACK VOTES...AND THEN ANYONE WHO MENTIONS THAT HE CALLS RACIST. IM SICK OF IT...HES NOTHING BUT A SHALLOW CON ARTIST WITH VERY TALENTED SPEECH WRITERS...WHEN YOU CATCH HIM OFF SCRIPT HE FALLS APART...HES PROBABLY GOT ONE OF THOSE EARPHONES GOING SO HIS 25 YEAR OLD WONDERBOY SPEECH WRITER CAN TELL HIM WHAT TO SAY... ALL THAT BEING SAID...I REALLY HAD NOTHING AGAINST HIM TO START OUT...BUT BEING A 'REAL' DEMOCRAT...(OVER 55 AND LIVED THROUGH ALL THE ACTUAL STUFF) I CANT HELP BUT TAKE THE SIDE OF THE PERSECUTED UNDERDOG...WHEN I SEE IT IS BEING DONE UNJUSTLY. WHICH IS WHAT I SEE BUZZFOX DOING NOW TO HILLARY. WHAT BUZZFOX IS DOING TO HILLARY IS EXACTLY WHAT THE MSM DID TO AL GORE IN 00....AND THEY ARE PROPPING UP SAINT B.O THE SAME WAY THE MSM DID BUSH... IM TOTALLY DISSAPOINTED AND DISGUSTED WITH BUZZFOX...IT IS NO LONGER MY HOMEPAGE....(GO BARTCOP)...THEY HAVE TURNED ME INTO SOMETHING I NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS THOUGHT I WOULD BE...AN AVID SUPPORTER OF HILLARY CLINTON. I CURRENTLY LIVE IN OHIO...AND I THINK THE TECHNICAL TERM FOR IT IS L A N D S L I D E....WE WILL TAKE OBAMA AND ALL HIS LITTLE AIRY FAIRY MILQUETOAST TWINKS DOWN...AND NO FRICKIN WAY WILL HE BE VICE PRESIDENT... THE TERM IS....PAY YOUR DUES BABY...HE HASNT EVEN STARTED YET.... .......... CLINTON-CLARK 08

Hillary reminds me so much of the person who ran against the incumbent Repuglicken in my congressional district. As fellow Democrats told me unsolicited, this candidate cares only about herself and doesn't lift a finger for her constituents. This was only confirmed personally when I went to her as my State representative and she only gave me lip service. When the Democrats re-captured the House of Representatives, my snake-in-the-grass Democratic candidate lost to the Bush-supporting weakling. At least the Bush-supporting weakling had bought-off a number of local unions, just as Bush bought-off the Teamsters in the last election. Hillary has no class. Personally, I liked Bill even though he screwed and tatooed us with his bogus 1996 Telecommunications Act giving us the monopoly Clear Channel Communications. Bill screwed us with his totally lax enforcement of securities regulation causing the dotcom bubble and subsequent loss of $100s of Billions of dollars. He was a bright guy who attracted loyal and competent policy people to work in government. Of course, he totally screwed the public in his handling of the Waco bombing. But that is because he and Hillary play ball with the rightwingnuts that run the FBI, CIA and the military. In essence, I'm proud that Buzzflash has stood up for our collective Progressive Democratic ideals. If not, then how can we keep Paul Wellstone in our memory and hope for a better America. Otherwise, Cheney and his fellow fascists would shoot Dennis Kucinich or Jim Hightower on sight and no one would say boo. Obama needs to lump Hillary with the failed policies of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) that brought us Repuglicken-Lite policies of NAFTA, Enronomics and cowering to Rush Limbaugh/George Bush/Ann Coulter/Sean Hannity/Bill O'Reilly bullies. Obama needs campaign ads that picture Bush and Hillary in the same photo and reads "4 More Years." Obama needs campaign ads that show Hillary and Bill together in front of a chart showing the Nasdaq collapsing 80% under their tutelage. Obama needs to lump Hillary with her failed policies dealing with the mortgage crisis. Obama should get out front in blaming the mortgage crisis on inflated valuations of homes so that the banks could write loans that people couldn't afford. Obama should have ads with Hillary and Greenspan together pushing no regulation of the hedge funds that are the epitome of the Bush culture of corruption. Obama should run ads with Hillary and Halliburton with the caption saying, "Do you support Halliburton's continuing raid on the US Treasury, Hillary does."

http://pundits.thehill.com/2008/03/06/does-hillary-clinton-want-john-mccain-elected-president/

March 6, 2008
Does Hillary Clinton Want John McCain Elected President? (Brent Budowsky)
@ 4:33 pm

It is obvious that Hillary Clinton cannot be nominated with a majority of elected delegates and equally obvious that she has embarked on a campaign of personal destruction as her last hope.

I cannot remember a Democratic candidate for president engaging in such totally negative personal attacks against a Democratic opponent, through her comments and through back-channel efforts by her staff, including attempts to play “the Muslim card.”

Hillary Clinton seeks to destroy her opponent to save her nomination, and will only succeed in destroying the party and her own reputation.

This is why I predict a surge of superdelegates to Obama. They understand her tactics, they understand the danger her tactics pose for the party. They do not want to overrule the verdict of the voters. They realize that a desperate personal-destruction campaign against the probable nominee could turn a possible landslide for Democrats into a major Republican triumph.

Could it be that the outcome Hillary Clinton fears the most is a Democratic landslide led by an inspiring two-term Democratic president who truly turns the page?

Could it be that a preferable outcome would be that she engages in a campaign of total personal destruction of her Democratic opponent, in the hope of electing a Republican who would be a one-term president because of considerable age, allowing Hillary to run in 2012?

There are serious people asking these questions behind the scenes. The more she continues her campaign of destruction, the more we will find Democrats, including myself, believing this “Hillary prefers McCain to Obama” scenario could be true.

Sorry, folks, you've blown it. I won't read you any more, as your perspective has become truly warped. I'm not a fan of Hillary Clinton's, but you have gone so far over the top that it's almost suspect. I don't know where you are coming from any more.

I used to read Buzzflash everyday but with all your hate for a fellow Democrat I am finding new sites to visit like Bartcop.com. You have lost much credibility with your hatemongering and one-sided approach. Do I love Hillary(?), hell no but I know where she stands on most issues as Obama promises hope. I want a pit-bull to rip the Republicans apart, not a poodle who wants to play nice and makeup with them, Jesus how stupid are you? I think you've bought in to the "we hate the Clintons" right wing media machine. When I hear the "I can't stand Hillary" rhetoric I ask those people why and the answer is right out of the Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'liely, Fox News and now Buzzflash.com playbook. It is rarely well thought out or factual. Way to go. Maybe if you work really hard you can help elect McCain. Bah

If we had a choice between Kucinich and Clinton then I might be able to buy into your scorched earth policy against Hillary. But we don't and Obama is not the savior of the world or the anti-Clinton. He is not even as progressive as John Edwards who would have been my second choice of the available candidates. (Kucinich first) You are alienating a lot of people unnecessarily over a candidate that has not been through the fire and come out the other side.

Every discussion on every subject always has people going after Hillary Clinton for the vote on the resolution. Let's do a rewind....it's the day of the passage of the resolution. Clinton votes no. What happens next....The resolution still passes. Bush goes ahead with his lies and takes us to war. 84% of the American people believe he has done the right thing. Fast forward to today. Clinton is running for President. You can't label her with the war, but guess what....there still is a war...our guys are still dying.....our money is going down the tubes. Clinton one vote made no difference. It was one vote...and you need to get over it. We also know from written record that Obama has said, he is not sure what he would have done if he had been in the Senate and had access to all the Intelligence. There is a quote where he said he agreed with Bush's policy on Iraq. If those comments are not being held against him, then why is a vote which even if it had been cast the other way would have made no difference being held against Clinton. Once Obama entered the Senate he didn't start a stop the war movement. He was basically silent and continued to vote the same way as Hillary. So all we have from Obama is a speech where he says he is against the war which is very different from having to stand on the Senate floor and vote yes or no. Present is not an option in the Senate. Being absent is, however, a option which Obama used the day the Senate voted to make the Iranian guard a terrorist group.

What is happening right now within the Democratic Party is the battle between "the entrenched moneyed interests of the Republicrat status quo in D.C." represented by Hillary Clinton and a less entrenched, though NOT PERFECT, grassroot-fueled coalition represented by Barack Obama. The former will do ANYTHING to hold onto power - break any rules, sink to any level, even if it means handing the presidency to fellow club member McCain. Obama needs to recognize what the game is and adjust. And those who support him need to FLOOD HIS CAMPAIGN WITH MONEY. Money is cred in D.C. The rest is narrative.

Clinton has california:2,318001mio votes,in Ohio 1.2 mio votes, in NY 1,003mio votes, in Texas 1,45 mio votes. This comparison to Florida is ugly. As well as to maintain Obama leads so much in the popular vote. Obama leads in fascist epi-centers like Idaho, despite I cant make out anything despite that hes mainly picked by his own race and is clearly making client policies. Clinton got Latino votes also. Obama had some sorry fuck in Texas and is mainly chosen by right wing whackos. The Obama campaign is furthermore proud to be picked for 20% by registered Republicans in Florida. U guys arent left and ur totally hillarious statement who owns democracy is as well stubborn and impolite. I guess evwerybody. Thank u n good night.

One of the other linkages with the 2000 election I haven't seen explored by Buzzflash and others, revolves around Gore's choice for VP - none other than our pal Joe Lieberman.

What gives me pause is Obama's support for Lieberman. Obama considers Joe his mentor and came to his rescue against Ned Lamont. If you didn't already know that (many progressives don't), you can read about it here:

The Boston Globe: Obama Rallies State Democrats, Throws Support Behind Lieberman

I'm supporting Obama for the nomination, but it certainly makes me a bit less enthusiastic when I ponder his connection with Joe Lieberman. Why is this obvious source of concern being ignored by progressives. I mean, how can you be a progressive and a Joe Lieberman supporter at the same time?

If Hillary gets the nomination, at least I know what I'm getting (far from perfect, but one hell of a lot better than John McCain). With Obama, I'm not completely sure after I couple his Lieberman support with his NAFTA comments to the Canadian consulate (now confirmed by CBC News). Still, all in all, I think he'll make a good President (Once again, not perfect, but a hell of a lot better than McCain).

- and by the way, so what if Hillary is running a tough campaign? This is a nomination battle - a tough campaign is called for - and will be needed even more when the right-wingers ratchet up the echo chamber.

I'm hoping for an Obama-Clinton ticket, but the other way around would be workable too. We need to keep McCain out of the White House! The stakes are simply too high, especially with Supreme Court nominations highly likely in the next few years.

Here's a big clue why the Clintons are refusing to release their tax returns. Take a look at how Clinton traded his influence to support the brutal dictator of Kazakhstan and shady uranium mining dealings in return for more than a hundred million dollars in contributions to Clinton's foundations:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4306591#4306591

This is unbelieveable! They've trying to hide this and their other scandals behind claims that Sen. Obama is corrupt because he bought a small parcel of land adjacent to his home from a less than reputable figure (who supported the Clintons as well as Obama!)

U-N-B-E-L-I-E-A-B-L-E!

No wonder they're darkening Obama's face in their slimy TV ads and urging Americans to be afraid!

It's deja Rove all over again.

1. Don't think for a nanosecond that Karl Rove has disappeared from politics....in a new chapter to his book ... he's just gone subterranean and could well be orchestrating not only McCain's campaign ( as some reports have it - after having thwarted McCain earlier w/Bush.) What has been levied online is this hushed-up position - that the RNC has actually been fueling Obama's campaign as well as the media fawning over Obama during late 07/early 08. The speculation is that they are setting Obama up for the BIG fall if, and when, he actually becomes the Demo candidate. You know, its so obvious, any time you hear Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter state they would support Hillary - you know there's gotta be an ulterior motive - as there is no better way to inflame the progressives! These media machinations and strategical plotlines sure have the court intriques of the Tudors beat! But be advised, we al need to be a lot more iincisive in our critiques and understanding of what is actually going on. 2. I am formally requesting that Buzz Flash refrain from its blinding frenzy of Matricide ... and return to some modicum of integrity ... the beginning of which would be an acknowledgment of their bias against Clinton and to correct their misrepresentations and the selective framing of issues they have put forth as truthful statements. This would go a long way in restoring peoples faith in Buzz Flash's integrity and honesty - principles of a true progressive stance. These are the principles crucial to any real change.

Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither....

I am sick of Democratic supposedly progressive sites like Buzzflash bashing the Clintons just like the rethugs did in the '90's, Clinton is a strong woman and has been through the Rethug lying and false accusations machine like no other presidential candidate has ever had to endure. She did it with grace and strength that I am sure I would not have had. My tendency would have been to lash out and the devil take it all. Giver her a break, for God's sake, so she voted the wrong way, no Senate member would want to believe that the Leader of the country would betray that country the way Bush did, that does NOT make her Bush!! Most of the people at my work STILL believe that Saddam had something to do with 9/11, that's how a bunch of uninformed sheep think. Either Obama or Clinton would be a better leader than the current traitors governing this country.

I can't understand why Clinton supporters are so sensitive to criticism of her. What Buzzflash says about her is just true. I also don't understand why Buzzflash has to be neutral. It is known as a liberal blog, so I don't expect them to repeat the Bush propaganda without criticism, so why should they repeat Clinton propagana without criticism? Saying that Obama's popularity is based only on a singular ability to speak publicly is an insult to me as a person who believes that Obama has the best chance to be elected President, and can raise the force necessary to sweep Democrats into Congressional offices with him. This is what all progressives should be hoping for, because the definition of "democracy" is at stake. Even Clinton supporters should be able to admit that she will only be able to do what she says she will do, that is, get elected by a small majority, then ally with McCain Republicans in a divided Congress to "solve" problems by "compromising" with them. Whoever thinks that will work hasn't been paying attention. This primary is not about Clinton vs. Obama, it is Clinton, McCain, and Liebermann against the Democratic Party. If you are affluent and connected and like McCain or Clinton, by all means support them, but at least have the courage to say it's because you want to protect and increase your wealth, not because Obama is an airhead. If you are not, keep cheering for Obama.

How about we actually let the people determine the candidate that represents the “will of the people”? I know, I know ... it sounds a little crazy. But how ‘bout, instead of relying on “media projections,” we let the people of Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Guam, North Carolina, Indiana, West Virginia, Oregon, Kentucky, Montana, South Dakota, and Puerto Rico actually vote first? The people in these states are probably pretty excited to finally have a say in the primary process – for a change.

As for the issue of what happens if we go into a convention dead-locked, that’s a bit tougher. In your editorial, you suggest three standards in concluding that Obama represents the will of the people: 1) he leads in pledged delegates, 2) he leads in the popular vote and 3) he’s won more states. The last one makes no sense – states don’t vote … people vote. It’s the same argument used by the Bush supporters with their idiotic red/blue map after the 2000 election. Yes – Obama leads in pledged delegates, but (like Hillary) he won’t have enough to secure the election. Both will have to rely on the super delegates to secure the nomination. Many people (myself included) have serious issues with the concept of party insiders deciding the candidate instead of the voters, but it’s what the rules provided – frankly, it’s undemocratic and elitist. That being said, the next best measure of the “will of the people” would be, well ……. the people. In other words, maybe the super-delegates should pledge to support whichever candidate gets the most votes. Is such an agreement possible? Who knows. But the alternative could be a situation where one candidate wins the popular vote and yet loses the nomination based on the decisions of these “super delegates.” The result would be chaos and turmoil, possibly lasting for years.

Yeah … we’d still have to deal with the Florida/Michigan debacle. Some Obama supporters have been arguing that their votes should just be tossed out, because that’s what the rules say and that’s what the candidates agreed to. There are two big problems with that. First, as Howard Dean pointed out in his press release yesterday (http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/alerts/336), the rules also provide that, instead of discounting the votes altogether, those states can appeal to the Convention Credentials Committee, who would decided whether to seat them, or they can have a “re-do” of some form in those states. I think sending it to the Committee would be a horrible idea, and some sort of “re-do” would be a much better option. The second problem created by the alternative – i.e. ignoring Florida and Michigan – is the general election. Do you really think ANY democratic candidate will have a shot at these critical states if the national party tells the voters from those states that their votes won’t be counted? Particularly in Florida, where the violation of the party rules (i.e. an early primary) was mandated by a Republican state legislature and a Republican governor? Good luck with that one.

Yeah … the numbers are tough for Hillary. It’s very unlikely she will have more votes than Obama by the end of the primaries, and even more unlikely that she’ll have more pledged delegates. But (in sticking with your “working the ref” analogy), how ‘bout we finish the game instead of calling it at the beginning of the 4th quarter, because one side (Obama) is winning? As you said, “In a democracy, we call this winning the election.”

BTW – Don’t forget the added bonus … you guys get to continue your non-stop trashing of Hillary for the next couple of months! Oh, sorry ……… I forgot ……….. You’re not endorsing any particular candidate ….. You just “lean” towards Obama.

Ok the fact is after this long and sometimes ridiculous campaign that is being propogated by the media in order to raise revenue, The Dems have already selected their fall candidate. That would be Obama... he has expanded the party's base by millions, young, old, black, white and everybody in between. Now if by the now legendary Clinton political tactics they some how steal the nomination, then there will be wholesale revolt by many of the new found base. Especially the Black vote, contrary to the media's misinformation which is trying to get you to believe the "monolythic Latio" vote is so important, Blacks still elect the presidents for the dems. The proof is that GWB got about 30% of the vote in 04. Which came from mostly Christian moderate dems, that ate up Kerry's support. And if they sit on their hands in the fall which every indication says they will because the Clinton machine has successfully done what they do, then look forward to another 4years of Bushcain. Just something to think about.

Did you see Obama concession speech in Texas? The whole thing was taken from West Wing. It was incredible. Now on Today Show he claimed he won Michigan. Is there no end to it?