DC Area Voters

Originally posted by vansmack:
Ralph Nader on Meet the Press this Sunday can only mean one thing….

February 24, 2008
Ralph Nader Starts Presidential Bid

By REUTERS
Filed at 2:39 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Consumer advocate Ralph Nader, blamed by many Democrats for their loss of the White House in the 2000 election, said on Sunday he is launching another independent campaign for the White House.

Nader, who will turn 74 this week, announced his longshot presidential bid on NBC's "Meet the Press" saying that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans were addressing problems facing Americans.

Nader called Washington "corporate occupied territory" that turns the government against the interests of the people. "In that context, I have decided to run for president," he said.

Democrats said they do not expect Nader, who also ran as an independent in 2004, to have much of an impact.

"When you get into running for your third or fourth time, I don't think people will pay that much attention to it, and I wouldn't see it having any effect on the race," Virginia Democratic Gov. Tim Kaine said on "Fox News Sunday."

In an interview with Reuters, Nader said he will push the candidates on a number of issues including health care and changing the tax system to shift the burden away from wage earners and put it on things like pollution, tobacco and "Wall Street speculation" and reduce taxes on wages.

Nader dismissed Democratic criticism of his latest bid for the White House.

"For anybody who thinks that the third try is something that should be demeaned, it represents persistence, it represents never giving up the struggle for justice," Nader said. "The forces of injustice never take a holiday."

Nader ran for president in 2000, when he got about 2.7 percent of the national vote as the Green Party candidate. Many Democrats blamed Nader for draining votes from Democrat Al Gore and tipping the election in favor of Republican George W. Bush. He also ran as an independent in 2004, but got only a tiny fraction of the vote.

Nader said he expects to do better this time and will work to get his name on the ballot in all 50 states.

Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee, appearing on CNN's "Late Edition," said he thought Nader could pull votes away from the Democratic nominee.

"Naturally Republicans would welcome his entry into the race and hope that maybe a few more will join in," Huckabee said.

Democratic candidates Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama criticized the independent candidate.

"That's really unfortunate. I remember when he did this before, it didn't turn out to well, for anyone, especially our country," she said. "I hope it's kind of a just a passing fancy that people won't take too seriously."

Obama, Clinton's rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, was asked on Saturday about a Nader candidacy. "My sense is that Mr. Nader is somebody who, if you don't listen and adopt all of his policies, thinks you're not substantive," he said.

Alright Ron Paul supporters, I'm really hoping you can convince Ron Paul to run as an independent as well.

He's got the money, does he have the ego, I mean balls?

Where's the ground swell?

Originally posted by Brian Wallace:

Originally posted by vansmack:
Ralph Nader on Meet the Press this Sunday can only mean one thing….

No. I don't think he's actually going to run this time.

I've just stopped keeping score at this point….

Farrakhan loves Obama….

<img src="http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44450000/jpg/_44450729_obama_ap_203b.jpg" alt=" - " />


http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/primaries/17984/louis-farrakhan-endorses-obama-at-saviours-day-event-in-chicago-a-tale-of-who-shall-be-king/

Just a few quotes from the great nation of islam leader….

The Jews don't like Farrakhan, so they call me Hitler. Well, that's a good name. Hitler was a very great man.

They call them terrorists, I call them freedom fighters

Many of the Jews who owned the homes, the apartments in the black community, we considered them bloodsuckers because they took from our community and built their community but didn't offer anything back to our community.

The white man is our mortal enemy, and we cannot accept him. I will fight to see that vicious beast go down into the late of fire prepared for him from the beginning, that he never rise again to give any innocent black man, woman or child the hell that he has delighted in pouring on us for 400 years

Hillary stiffing small businesses:

February 23, 2008
Small Vendors Feel Pinch of Clintonâ??s Money Troubles
By MICHAEL LUO
It was just $2,492.63, a pittance, really, alongside million-dollar television buys and direct mail drops.

But with Senator Hillary Rodham Clintonâ??s bid for the Democratic presidential nomination enduring a rough patch, Peter Semetis, the owner of a deli and catering business in Lower Manhattan, had been following the news and growing increasingly worried that he was not going to be paid for the assorted breakfast trays, coffee, tea and orange juice he had provided the campaign for an event in mid-December.

â??Iâ??m afraid of her dropping out of the campaign and me becoming a casualty,â? Mr. Semetis said.

So on Thursday, he went to small claims court and filed suit. Mr. Semetis, 53, said he was hardly a political pundit but like others across the country, he had become caught up in the election in the last year and was able to offer some analysis. â??There is potential for her to lose Texas,â? he said â?? an assessment not at odds with the polls â?? â??which would pretty much force her to quit.â?

Mr. Semetis catered a Clinton event, a rally she did not attend, at the offices of District Council 37, the public employeesâ?? union, on Dec. 15, charging the campaign $2,300, plus $192.63 in tax. Officials promised him that his business, Sale & Pepe Fine Foods, would be paid by check or credit card in a couple of weeks. After a few weeks passed, he started calling to see about the holdup.

Often he never reached anyone; other times he was told that his bill had been put through to the campaignâ??s headquarters in northern Virginia.

Unbeknownst to Mr. Semetis, Mrs. Clinton was navigating some dire financial straits. She was having a dismal month of fund-raising while spending a million dollars a day to battle Senator Barack Obama. She finished January essentially in the red, with $7.6 million in debts, and she was forced to lend her campaign $5 million.

It was when news broke about Mrs. Clintonâ??s loan earlier this month that Mr. Semetis became positively alarmed and started calling the campaign almost every day. â??The fact sheâ??s lost 10 states in a row has increased the phone calls,â? he said.

After a reporter from The New York Times contacted the Clinton campaign on Friday, Howard Wolfson, Mrs. Clintonâ??s communications director, said a check to pay Mr. Semetis had been put through the day before, and he furnished a copy of the check, dated Feb. 21, as proof.

When asked to explain the delay, he said only: â??We do our best to pay our vendors in a timely fashion.â?

Mr. Semetis, however, is not the only one who has been having trouble lately collecting money from the Clinton campaign. The Hotel Ottumwa, a family-owned hotel in Ottumwa, Iowa, played host to an event attended by former President Bill Clinton on New Yearâ??s Eve for several hundred people and had been trying for almost a month and a half to get paid.

The hotel had initially asked for payment of the $9,125 bill up front but kept being put off. But the owners figured that if any political campaign was good for it, Mrs. Clintonâ??s would be.

â??People were a little more comfortable with Clinton because theyâ??ve got money,â? said Kay Whittington, one of the hotel owners.

Last week, the owners heard about an item on the local news about a Des Moines cleaning company, Top Job Services Cleaning, which had been trying unsuccessfully to recoup $7,500 from the Clinton campaign.

Hotel Ottumwaâ??s owners contacted the television station, which broadcast the hotelâ??s story right away. Both businesses were paid last week.

Oddly enough, Mr. Semetis, the deli owner, said he was a longtime Republican who was supportive of Mrs. Clinton, because he believed Mr. Obama was too inexperienced and Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, would be too much like President Bush.

Mr. Semetisâ??s business closed for several weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, forcing him to downsize, and Mr. Semetis said he was still trying to regain his footing.

â??This is not politically motivated, believe me,â? he said. â??This is financially motivated.â?

Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
Farrakhan loves Obama….


http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/primaries/17984/louis-farrakhan-endorses-obama-at-saviours-day-event-in-chicago-a-tale-of-who-shall-be-king/

Just a few quotes from the great nation of islam leader….

The Jews don't like Farrakhan, so they call me Hitler. Well, that's a good name. Hitler was a very great man.

They call them terrorists, I call them freedom fighters

Many of the Jews who owned the homes, the apartments in the black community, we considered them bloodsuckers because they took from our community and built their community but didn't offer anything back to our community.

The white man is our mortal enemy, and we cannot accept him. I will fight to see that vicious beast go down into the late of fire prepared for him from the beginning, that he never rise again to give any innocent black man, woman or child the hell that he has delighted in pouring on us for 400 years

well then, Obama must think all of those things as well

Originally posted by callat703:
I guess you've illustrated my point.

If you don't believe that it is possible to work within the system to change it, then I think we all lose out. If it really isn't possible to build true consensus, then our government is broken beyond repair and we should hunker down for the inevitable loss of prestige, stability and power that will come with that.

The trick - ultimately - is compromise. And I think Obama's record working with the GOP in Illinois is indicative of his ability to do just that. Not only that, perhaps Obama's biggest strength is his ability to motivate the public to demand action. Politicians answer to their constituents - and Obama has been able to motivate people to do, say, and believe in more than they have before. Given the national stage to put forth a platform, I really believe he can lead the American people to demand policy changes.

That is the "change" that is talked about - it is a change in attitude; a change in belief that Washington isn't accountable to the people they represent.

I just received an email from the campaign saying that Obama has received donations from 936,000 people over the course of this campaign. That is absolutely incredible - almost 1,000,000 people DONATING MONEY to a presidential campaign? To me, that indicates his ability to call upon the collective will of the American people to demand something different. For now, that message is limited to an election - but give him a platform, and I think he turns that motivation to the issues: health care, the war in Iraq, the economy, responsible energy policy, or whatever else you'd like to point out.

What is more powerful than a movement of American people demanding change on a specific issue? The only way sweeping changes have ever been made in this country were due to a mass movement of people demanding it. Obama can lead that movement on any number of issues. If you can get the American people to stand up and ask for something, eventually, things begin to change. You've seen it with this campaign, and I believe you'll see it in the issues with an Obama presidency. Hillary Clinton just can't do that.

To argue that the number of people donating money to Obama's campaign is indicative of "his ability to call upon the collective will of the American people to demand something different" is absolutely ludicrous. Are the citizens of this country who can afford to donate to a candidate necessarily representative of those citizens who actually need change the most? Representative of the majority of citizens in this country, period? Just a thought, but what if Obama's supporters are proportionally wealthier than those of Hillary?

I agree that any candidate who arouses this level of interest amongst the American people is a powerful and exciting one who certainly demands our consideration. Still, you assume that Obama's mass accumulation of followers is directly representative of the number of people in this country bursting out for change; you cannot assume this of ANY single candidate. I'm not claiming that Obama doesn't have the ability to evoke change in office. But people in this country have a multitude of intelligent and idiodic reasons for supporting a candidate, whomever that candidate may be. And I'm not comparing the two, so please don't jump all over me, but a wealth of loyal voters supported Bush, too, and it obviously didn't ensure positive advances.

I respect and appreciate your reasons for supporting Obama. Please do not turn a blind eye to the fact that there are plenty of people in this country who support him because they enjoy being part of this campaign for somewhat selfish reasons. These supporters are everywhere - supporting Hillary for her vagina, etc. And they will disappear just as quickly as they appeared when the beginning of next year rolls around. But don't think, for even a second, that any one candidate is ever the best choice simply because of their wealth of loyal followers.

Originally posted by pdx pollard:

Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
Farrakhan loves Obama….


http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/primaries/17984/louis-farrakhan-endorses-obama-at-saviours-day-event-in-chicago-a-tale-of-who-shall-be-king/

Just a few quotes from the great nation of islam leader….

The Jews don't like Farrakhan, so they call me Hitler. Well, that's a good name. Hitler was a very great man.

They call them terrorists, I call them freedom fighters

Many of the Jews who owned the homes, the apartments in the black community, we considered them bloodsuckers because they took from our community and built their community but didn't offer anything back to our community.

The white man is our mortal enemy, and we cannot accept him. I will fight to see that vicious beast go down into the late of fire prepared for him from the beginning, that he never rise again to give any innocent black man, woman or child the hell that he has delighted in pouring on us for 400 years

well then, Obama must think all of those things as well

no, but his little friend Samantha Power has NO problem proclaiming that she would like to go full force at Israel…

Originally posted by you be betty:
These supporters are everywhere - supporting Hillary for her vagina, etc.

Obviously you've never seen her vagina.

I have. It's not all that you think it would be given how powerful she is.

Originally posted by you be betty:
no, but his little friend Samantha Power has NO problem proclaiming that she would like to go full force at Israel…

Be very wary of single issue politics, my young friend.

Originally posted by vansmack:

Originally posted by you be betty:
These supporters are everywhere - supporting Hillary for her vagina, etc.

Obviously you've never seen her vagina.

I have. It's not all that you think it would be given how powerful she is.

I meant that people support her because she's a woman, and it's stupid. But in other news, I really, really, really don't want to know why you have seen Hillary Clinton's vajayjay.

Hasn't everyone seen Hill's pussy?


<img src="http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/6157/pressroom.gif" alt=" - " />

Originally posted by pdx pollard:

Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
Farrakhan loves Obama….


http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/primaries/17984/louis-farrakhan-endorses-obama-at-saviours-day-event-in-chicago-a-tale-of-who-shall-be-king/

Just a few quotes from the great nation of islam leader….

The Jews don't like Farrakhan, so they call me Hitler. Well, that's a good name. Hitler was a very great man.

They call them terrorists, I call them freedom fighters

Many of the Jews who owned the homes, the apartments in the black community, we considered them bloodsuckers because they took from our community and built their community but didn't offer anything back to our community.

The white man is our mortal enemy, and we cannot accept him. I will fight to see that vicious beast go down into the late of fire prepared for him from the beginning, that he never rise again to give any innocent black man, woman or child the hell that he has delighted in pouring on us for 400 years

well then, Obama must think all of those things as well

My point was that if Farrakhan had endorsed Clinton it would be on every news channel from here to Timbuktoo, "FARRAKHAN IN HILLARY'S CAMP!! or, "HILLARY PARTNERS WITH NATION OF ISLAM"but because it's the golden child it's swept under the rug, because the media have already decided Obama will be the candidate for the democrats.

Originally posted by you be betty:
To argue that the number of people donating money to Obama's campaign is indicative of "his ability to call upon the collective will of the American people to demand something different" is absolutely ludicrous. Are the citizens of this country who can afford to donate to a candidate necessarily representative of those citizens who actually need change the most? Representative of the majority of citizens in this country, period? Just a thought, but what if Obama's supporters are proportionally wealthier than those of Hillary?

I agree that any candidate who arouses this level of interest amongst the American people is a powerful and exciting one who certainly demands our consideration. Still, you assume that Obama's mass accumulation of followers is directly representative of the number of people in this country bursting out for change; you cannot assume this of ANY single candidate. I'm not claiming that Obama doesn't have the ability to evoke change in office. But people in this country have a multitude of intelligent and idiodic reasons for supporting a candidate, whomever that candidate may be. And I'm not comparing the two, so please don't jump all over me, but a wealth of loyal voters supported Bush, too, and it obviously didn't ensure positive advances.

I respect and appreciate your reasons for supporting Obama. Please do not turn a blind eye to the fact that there are plenty of people in this country who support him because they enjoy being part of this campaign for somewhat selfish reasons. These supporters are everywhere - supporting Hillary for her vagina, etc. And they will disappear just as quickly as they appeared when the beginning of next year rolls around. But don't think, for even a second, that any one candidate is ever the best choice simply because of their wealth of loyal followers.

Sigh. I thought it was clear that I meant this as an example of a larger point (that I stand by as a strong example). I thought it unnecessary to discuss the fact that Obama is receiving larger crowds, more votes, more acclaim as a speaker, more acclaim as being inspiring, etc. etc. etc. The money issue was simply one interesting facet.

But if you look at the numbers: no, Obama supporters are not wealthier proportionally. And importantly - the point is the greater VOLUME of supporters would represent a much larger cross-section of the general populace involved in the election.

Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
Hasn't everyone seen Hill's pussy?

I'd bet Bill hasn't seen it in 25 years.

Originally posted by you be betty:
Just a thought, but what if Obama's supporters are proportionally wealthier than those of Hillary?

The average donation of a Hillary supporter is much higher, which would seem to indicate her donors are wealthier. Most campaigns will take any amount, a lot of Obama donors simply donate $25, you hardly need to be wealthy to donate $25.

Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
because the media have already decided Obama will be the candidate for the democrats.

maybe it was the 11 straight losses that tipped them off, any other candidate than Hillary would have been treated far worse and ignored by now after 11 straight losses, not even close losses

Originally posted by pdx pollard:

Originally posted by you be betty:
Just a thought, but what if Obama's supporters are proportionally wealthier than those of Hillary?

The average donation of a Hillary supporter is much higher, which would seem to indicate her donors are wealthier. Most campaigns will take any amount, a lot of Obama donors simply donate $25, you hardly need to be wealthy to donate $25.

No campaign can take any amount. Seriously? You don't even have to like John McCain to know that.
Anyway, what I meant was not that the individuals who support Obama are wealthier, individually, but as a whole, more wealthy individuals support him.

$25 is also a lot of money to some people, so speak for yourself…though I see no evidence of the majority of said contributors offering up just $25.

Originally posted by you be betty:
No campaign can take any amount. Seriously? You don't even have to like John McCain to know that.

This part, she's right.

Campaign Contribution Limits

Originally posted by you be betty:
Anyway, what I meant was not that the individuals who support Obama are wealthier, individually, but as a whole, more wealthy individuals support him.

This part, probably not, but we won't know for sure until the campaign finance reports are turned in after the primary.

Originally posted by vansmack:
This part, she's right.

Campaign Contribution Limits

i misspoke, I obviously know there are limits, what I stumbled in saying was that there is no bottom limit

I have seen analysis that shows Hillary has a much higher percentage of maxed out donors