Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Election 2008

Battle for PA: Bitter Voters, Republican Converts and Huge Turnouts for Both Campaigns

By Steven Rosenfeld, AlterNet. Posted April 21, 2008.


For a state that hasn't had a competitive presidential primary in decades, there is enormous voter interest in the Dem candidates.
Advertisement

As Pennsylvania's Primary ended its final weekend of campaigning, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) refined his message of change by saying he was the only candidate who would end Washington's way of doing business, while Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) emphasized that she was better prepared to implement a Democratic agenda as president.

The contrasting leadership styles played out against backdrop of intense public interest in an increasingly blue state that has not seen a competitive presidential primary in decades. The Philadelphia Inquirer reported on Sunday that there are 325,000 newly registered Democratic voters across the state -- a figure equal to Pittsburgh's population -- with 15 percent telling pollsters they are undecided.

Both candidates brought thousands of people to each of their many events.

On Friday, Obama held his biggest rally yet in any state, drawing 35,000 people in Philadelphia. Still, local political activists predicted Tuesday's vote would be close in Pennsylvania's biggest city, an Obama stronghold, as the both its current mayor and governor -- a past mayor -- are pushing longtime Democrats to support Clinton.

Meanwhile, Clinton has also drawn crowds outside Philadelphia as she and supporters, including former President Bill Clinton, have focused more in the western part of the state, notably in the Pittsburgh and Scranton areas, as the campaign is concluding. She is expected to carry that region and the Lehigh Valley, northwest of Philadelphia.

Notably, it was not difficult to find Republicans at Obama and Clinton events. However, although only a few said they changed their voter registration to Democrat, a prerequisite to vote in the state's Democratic Primary.

The final campaigning also came as both campaigns spent heavily on media. Both aired numerous television commercials, as well as making pre-recorded phone calls to voters. While staffers at both campaigns accused each other of throwing political mud, many voters said they were looking at who could be the best change agent in Washington.

The Obama train

On Saturday, Obama held a series of rallies at commuter railway stations heading west from Philadelphia, starting in the suburbs and then crossing countryside until arriving at the state capital, Harrisburg, for a finale on the Statehouse steps. These suburban and outlying communities were considered swing voters, newspapers said on Sunday.

At a few minutes before 2 PM, Obama and Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) disembarked from a chartered AMTRAK train to speak at the Paoli Rail station, a half-hour from downtown Philadelphia. Obama stood to the left of the gritty, old station house with rusting beams showing. Behind him, the rail line was old enough that the copper electrical lines above the tracks had bronzed while the nearby steel towers were rusty. Across the street were mom-and-pop stores, not national chains. The crowd was mostly white.

Upfront, near the podium, was a broad-shouldered middle-aged man holding up a poster that said, "Middle-aged white guys for Obama," a message targeting pundits who have said that demographic was likely to pull the state toward Clinton. Jim Fields of Malvern was ready to talk to the media.

"The reason I am for Obama," he said, "is he inspires people and I am tired of settling for the lesser of two evils. I wouldn't have put Hillary in that class if Barack had not come along; but it's also because of Hillary's tactics."

I asked if he was referring to televised ads that were aggressive.

"I'd call them destructive," Fields said. "The only way that she will get the nomination at this point is tearing down Barack, and the last thing we need is four more years of Bush -- which is what we'll get from McCain."

He then described why he made his sign.

"One of the reasons I brought this particular sign is I was tired of the media claiming people like us (middle-aged white guys) are her core constituency," Fields said. "Who is she to say that about us? The arrogance she has shown to people like us is demeaning."

Standing next to Fields were two Republicans, Keith York and Edward Krajewski.

"All my life I have been a Republican," York said. "I have never voted Democrat in my life. It has gotten to the point where a lot of Republicans have no idea of what is going on. They are just voting Republican because they think Democrats are going to take away their guns or raise their taxes. In the last election I voted for Bush because of that."

York said he was "sick and tired" of the billions being spent in Iraq, and frustrated that he -- a businessman -- was trapped with his current health care because his wife was ill.

"Here we are getting nowhere," he said. When asked what he thought of Clinton, York replied, "Don't tell me you know how the little guy feels when you made $109 million." That figure is the Clinton's earnings in their recently released federal tax returns.

York said he did not change his party registration in time to vote in the Democratic primary, although he was videotaping Obama's speech. However, his friend, Edward Krajewski, said he did register as a Democrat.

"I am from Pennsylvania. I am a typical white male. I am bitter," Krajewski said, referring to remarks made by Obama at a recent California fundraiser to characterize some Pennsylvania voters that has drawn much criticism. When asked if he was being serious, he said, "Yeah, I am. I am bitter about the economy, and the war in Iraq has a lot to do with our economy, with taking half a trillion dollars, when Bush said it would be 80 billion and we'd get out."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: election 2008, hillary, obama, pennsylvania

Steven Rosenfeld is a senior fellow at Alternet.org and co-author of "What Happened in Ohio: A Documentary Record of Theft and Fraud in the 2004 Election," with Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman (The New Press, 2006).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Election 2008! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Terrorist
Posted by: HeKnew on Apr 21, 2008 12:56 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Shillary & SmoovB are the neo-Nazi good cops.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Terrorist Posted by: Squarehead
» RE: Terrorist...Duh? Posted by: upHurled
Terrorist
Posted by: HeKnew on Apr 21, 2008 12:57 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Direct Democracy

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary Huckabee
Posted by: Tom Degan on Apr 21, 2008 1:57 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary has to understand that it's over. She's going to win Pennsylvania - I don't think there's any argument about that - but in order for her to really make a score, she's got to win big, really, really big. Like the man once said, that ain't never gonna happen, baby!

If she loses Indiana and still continues to fight on, she's going to look foolish - that is, of course, unless the Clintons have some kind of twisted master plan (even if only in their own heads) to deny Senator Obama the nomination.

Sooner or later the Clintonistas are going to have to admit that the game is over. The longer they continue to deny the undeniable, the more it looks as if they are going to try to steal this thing. Does anyone have that kind of power within the Democratic Party? If they do, that party ought to cease to exist.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
And now a word or two about Capital Punishment

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hillary Huckabee Posted by: PJAW
Her Husband Will Be There
Posted by: Urstrly on Apr 21, 2008 4:00 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why am I surprised that Clinton supporters cite Bill's being there as a reason to elect her? It's so sexist, but it must be working for her. As far as I'm concerned, his being there is a negative. No vice president would be able to operate with integrity, and he's been caught catting around in the last year. Talk about distraction!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
» RE: DEMS WANT OBAMA OUT NOW Posted by: PAhipEmom
» Don't answer these kinds of things Posted by: Joshua Holland
OBAMA LIES AGAIN AND AGAIN
Posted by: rozz62 on Apr 21, 2008 4:50 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
OBAMA LIES AGAIN AND MAINSTREAM MEDIA LIKE CNN HIDES IT!
VOTERS ARE SICK OF THE MEDIA EXCUSING OBAMA NO MATTER WHO HE OFFENDS!!!!

Sen. Obama referres to himself as 'a constitutional law professor on the campaign trail. TRUTH: He never held any such title! Obama changed website bio to reflect that he was a 'lecturer' rather than 'professor. Chicago Daily Herald

Obama gets 4 Pinocchio’s for 100 Years War-Wondered why the national media won’t call out Obama for his serial distortions on McCain’s Iraq comments, the Globe tried to help Obama rationalize it. Michael Dobbs scolded Obama in today’s Fact Checker


MSNBC-OBAMA: ANOTHER SUPER, EXAGGERATION
Washington Post caught Obama in a lie about the Kennedy family role.
The WashigntonPost Fact Check- Senator Obama CAUGHT LYING about Kennedy Role in Helping His Father Contrary to Obama's claims in speeches Kennedy family did not provide the funding for a September 1959 airlift of 81 Kenyan students to the United States that included Obama's father. According to historical records and interviews with participants, the Kennedys were approached for support for the program a year later, July 1960. family responded with a $100,000 donation, which went to pay for a second airlift in September 1960.

Judicial Watch:
By Klaus Marre-Obama ‘intended to leave no paper trail’ OBAMA REFUSES to cooperate in releasing 8 years of his state senate records. One main reason REZKO!

Politico reports, “During his first run for elected office, Barack Obama played a greater role than he acknowledges in crafting liberal stands on gun control, the death penalty and abortion– positions that appear at odds with the more moderate image he’s projected during his presidential campaign. The evidence comes from an amended version of an Illinois voter group’s detailed questionnaire, filed under his name during his bid for a state Senate. In response to a Politico story, Obama’s answers he never saw questioaire?

NBC- Aswini Anburajan
OBAMA LIES IN PENNSYLVANIA AD
It's unfortunate that Senator Obama is using false advertising to explain why he can be trusted to do something about energy prices. In his ad, Obama says, I'm Barack Obama, and I don't take money from oil companies or lobbyists, and I won't let them block change any more. Obama has been the recipient of more than $220,000 from the oil and gas industry just since as of Feb/08. Two of Obama's campaign bundlers are also CEOs for oil and gas companies, per his campaign Web site? Obama needs to answer to VOTERS about his dealings with one of his largest contributors Exelon, a big nuclear power company that he cut deals behind closed doors protecting them from full disclosure in the nuclear industry. Exxon, Shell, and others are among his biggest donors

Obama in last debate- My writing wasn't on that particular questionnaire ...... as I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: OBAMA LIES AGAIN AND AGAIN Posted by: mahabhusuku
» RE: OBAMA LIES AGAIN AND AGAIN Posted by: upHurled
» The Right Wing.... Posted by: CatDad
» RE: OBAMA LIES AGAIN AND AGAIN Posted by: Ocean tides
If you like the status quo
Posted by: surfreality on Apr 21, 2008 6:03 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
vote McBush... er um duh, McCain.
If you want a little change, vote Hillary.
If you want real change: Obama.

Hillary would just triangulate this nation into another 8 year republican regime after her 1 disastrous term...

Bill paved the way for W. Hillary will do no better.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CLINTON/BUSH more of The SAME
Posted by: williameon on Apr 21, 2008 6:05 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Corporate: Military, Media and Banking, Propaganda Machine is hard at work.
Spewing more ABC, NBC, CBS, FAUX:
BU__! SH__!

The Reptilians are in this for one reason and one reason only.
To Funk Up the Democrats and screw freedom.
The Rovian Spin Meisters are using their patsy:
The Crass Media to pick the Candidates on both sides.

There is only on Media in America.
The Corporate: Military, Media, Banking, Propaganda Machine.

The Corpirate
CLINTON/BUSH Dynasty must continue
For them to stay in power.
More of the same.

Is that what you want?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

President Obama and nothing will change
Posted by: solrev on Apr 21, 2008 6:35 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Seems like a long time ago that, I bet Obama would win or lose Pennsylvania by less than 5 points, either way it will be a dagger in the heart of the Clinton campaign. The supers will flock to Obama like bees to honey. Clinton may hang around until the money she has already invested is gone, but she will not throw money down a rat hole. I think it will be good for Obama, if Clinton stays in but lightens up. She could run a bare-bones losing campaign that would support Obama, and maybe win a VP. Now for the bad part, if Obama wins the Presidency with one of those 50% mandates, nothing will change. Without a 75% mandate, Obama will not be able to do anything with that fork tongue nest of vipers in congress. With a 75% mandate Obama could grab the tails of the snakes and snap their heads off. The mandate of we the people is out there, but if Obama does not go after it, is he just another snake in the grass? The media mouth conservatives did not support McCain and they soon found out they did not have a dog in the hunt. The same goes for the sidewinder conservatives. The evangelicals have kept a low profile after getting so much credit for electing Bush. The social conservative Baptists supported Huckaboom. So, who are the people that support McCain? They are a part of we the people. If Obama figures out why they support the “flip flop I was taking a bath late on a Saturday night” McCain, that part of we the people could easily swing to Obama. They are not the ideological republicans. A strong “give peace a chance” campaign by Obama would ease their fear. The goal is not to get out of Iraq that is a result. The goal is to establish peace in the Middle East, with that message the McCain people would not hesitate to join the rest of we the people. Blessed are the peacemakers for they will be called the children of God, now you can add the conservative Baptists to we the people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: President Obama and nothing will change Posted by: allyourbasearebelongtous
Q&A on Halliburton
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Apr 21, 2008 6:38 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
""I am a vet," he continued, noting he was in the Special Forces in Vietnam. "Why are we paying Halliburton $100 an hour to peel potatoes in K.P.?"

Well, first you have to understand that Dick Cheney never really left Halliburton. He has many funds that invest in Halliburton, Exxon, Chevron, etc. - managed by Vanguard, mostly, according to - estimates are Cheney has millions in Halliburton as follows:

The disclosure form paints a somewhat more nuanced picture. The Vanguard Group holdings are easily among Cheney's largest holdings. Assets are given in ranges (from $100,000 to $1M; from $1M to $5M; etc). Cheney's statement includes two holdings in the $500,000-$1M range; two holdings in the $1M-$5M range; and three holdings in the $5M-$25M range. Thus Cheney's assets invested with Vanguard Group total $18M to $87M. Given the size of Vanguard's stake in Halliburton, it is hard to imagine a mathematical possibility that Cheney's assets are unconnected to Halliburton's fortunes.

All in all, Cheney has steered some $7 billion in contracts to his old company.

Vanguard has about $1 billion in Halliburton

That's hardly the end of it, though. Vanguard has $6 billion in ChevronTexacoUnocal, $15 billion in ExxonMobile, $4 billion in ConocoPhillips, $1 billion in Valero, and lower amounts in BP and Shell.

Vanguard also is heavily invested in coal-fired power generation - they have a billion in Southern Co., and a few billion in other electric utilities.

It sure doesn't stop there - want to know why Cheney backs the federal bailout of subprime scam arists?

Vanguard has $3 billion in Goldman Sachs, $4.5 billion in JP Morgan Chase and Co, $1.5 billion in MerrilLynch, etc.

How about another big beneficiary of Cheney policy (face it, Bush was always just a sock puppet)? Weapons manufacturers?

Vanguard has $2 billion in Boeing, $1 billion in Lockheed, $1 billion in Northrop, $1 billion in Raytheon, etc.

What about Cheney's health care policies? Vanguard has $5 billion in Pfizer, $2 billion in Bristol-Myers, and $4 billion in Merck.

How about the corporate media? $2 billion in CNN (Time Warner), $1.5 billion in FOX (NewsCorp), $1.8 billion in ABC (DIsney), $11 billion in NBC (General Electric), and about $1.2 billion in Viacom & CBS.

Oh, and they never, ever pressure news executives to drop stories. Really.

We can continue - agribusiness? Sure. Vanguard has $1 billion in Archer Daniels Midland - who relies on government subsidies in order to dump corn at below-market prices in Third World countries - that's the heart of their business plan, as well as reliance on cheap imported labor in the U.S.

Once you get past the first few facades of the corporatocracy, you run into these large funds and holding companies that are set up to hide the real ownership - which always leads back to shady political interests, Saudi oil sheikhs, U.S. oil billionaires and the like.

Cheney is a crook, but there are a lot like him. . . and more and more, Hillary Clinton is looking like just another dedicated servant of the same interests that Cheney serves - her tax returns, her daughter's shady 6-figure job at Marc Lasry's vulture fund, Avenue Capital Group, her general support for "protecting our strategic interests in the Middle East" - these all point to where her true loyalties lie - with WalMart & friends. She was a corporate lawyer, remember?

Obama is a relatively unknown quantity, at least.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If people were movies...
Posted by: HughScott on Apr 21, 2008 6:51 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary would be "The Manchurian Candidate" and
Obama would be "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington."

Enough said.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pittsburgh-Scranton area?
Posted by: mdwoade on Apr 21, 2008 7:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Last time I looked at a map, Pittsburgh was in the far west of Pennsylvania and Scranton is the far east of Pennsylvania. Google maps says they are 300 miles apart. So, where exactly is this Pittsburgh-Scranton area that this article refers to?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Pittsburgh-Scranton area? Posted by: westomoon
Obama vs Clinton
Posted by: cdcmtotr on Apr 21, 2008 7:23 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am now an Obama supporter after Edwards dropped out. I am a women, white, over 50 and I am disgusted with how Clinton and her husband are tearing our party apart. They are discrediting, as often as they can in their undertoned speeches, Senator Obama, so that by the time the election comes in November he will lose to McCain. Then she can point the finger and say see... I told you so. She will run again in 2012. By that time serious, patriotic, progressive and honest people will see through her and she will lose. Why? Because the Democratic party will remember that she was the one who helped the party lose the election in 2008 and not Obama.

Some people say that they had it good under the Clintons and forget what wasn't so good. NAFTA, conglomeration of the media, his affair in the White House. And now Clinton's dealings with Columbia, and some of the " terrorist" countries in the Middle East. I could go on about the amount of money Clinton is getting from the health insurance industry, the military comples, but if you are enlightened you can find out more. Yes, Hillary people will mail back and say all the negatives about Obama. But, they pale in comparison.

There comes a time in any campaign where you have to admit it is all over, congratulate the winner and go on. Hillary can't do that. She appointed herself the winner way back when and assumed the party would just follow along and thank her for her sacrifice.

Sorry sister,show grace and leave; and when you do don't trash the guy who won, it shows pettiness, and a disregard for the party you claim to love. We all are sick and tired of business as usual and we need a refreshing look at how we all can make this the great country it once was. We can't take another four years of what has been a black mark on our country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» WHO gives HOW much to WHOM? SOURCE Posted by: Prairie Waif
» Nice--cough--rationalization Posted by: JimmyVaughan
» RE: Obama vs Clinton Posted by: EinMD
» Grace? She Doesn't Know How Posted by: westomoon
For the Global Greed Queen & King (Hillary & Bill) charity begins at home -- literally.
Posted by: HughScott on Apr 21, 2008 7:23 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Clintons have gotten fawned praise from mainstream media for giving 10 percent of their $109 million income since 2000 to "charity."

At first glance, 10% is a worthy and commendable amount. However, as many things about Hillary and Slick Willie, you have to look beyond their press releases for the facts, as follows:

The Clintons gave most of their tax-deductible donations to THEMSELVES. Case at point -- Clinton tax returns that show $10,256,741 was donated to "CFF" -- the Clinton Family Foundation.

On the 2005 forms and those from previous years, Bill Clinton was listed as CFF president, Hillary had the title of secretary/treasurer and daughter Chelsea was a director.

'The 2006 tax forms also list Gloria Clinton as CFF CEO who was paid $252,500 for her "work" that year.

Of the $10 million-plus the Clintons donated to CFF, the foundation only parceled out $2.5 million to other charities. So what happened the remaining $7.5 million? A good question for the IRS.

Here's something else to ponder. Although the CFF has been in operation since 2001, Hillary failed to list it on annual Senate financial disclosure reports on five occasions.

The Ethics in Government Act requires members of Congress to disclose positions they hold with any outside entity, including nonprofit foundations. Hillary Clinton has served her family foundation as treasurer and secretary since it was established in December 2001, but none of her ethics reports since then have disclosed that fact.

Clinton's spokesman said her failure to report the existence of the family foundation and the senator's position as an officer was an oversight. Her office immediately amended her Senate ethics reports to add that information after receiving inquiries from The Washington Post.

Among the institutions receiving grants from the Clinton Family Foundation were Yale University, where both attended law school; groups named for deceased heads of state in Israel and Jordan; and a charity connected to the Arkansas businessman who helped Hillary Clinton make $100,000 on a commodities trade that stirred controversy.

Finally, freedom-loving Americans should never forget that Bill Clinton received $500,000 for a weekend's "work" lobbying for Arab control of U.S. harbors during the Dubai Ports fiasco.

Hugh E. Scott, Vietnam vet, ex-USAF pilot, lifelong registered Republican, Obama supporter and the editor of www.PhonyFighterPilot.com, the only website about George W. Bush that presents irrefutable, smoking-gun proof of White House corruption.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No pundits yet understand this three party race.
Posted by: amacd on Apr 21, 2008 7:31 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Understanding the current three candidate race for the figure-head presidency of the ‘corporatist Empire’ hiding behind this façade of ‘Vichy American’ government requires a broader understanding of history, revolution, and the nature of these ‘crisis times’ than the ‘Vichy Media’ punditry can integrate, because they all think we are still in ‘normal times’ ---- and, of course, they are also all pawns to the ruling-elite, class-based ‘corporatist Empire’.

1. The dynamic of the multitude, now, during these ‘crisis times’, is already trying to birth a new, three-party alternative to the dying two-party façade of the corporatist empire that has been ruling our country, in claimed ‘normal times’, for more than the past half century.

This birthing effort by the multitude represents a massive and majoritarian movement by a new and naturally recognized ‘working-class’ which is broadly self-defined as the vast common-wealth of all Americans (over 90%) who earn more of their income from actually ‘working’ than from ‘un-earned ‘ interest on idle-elite investment of their accumulated wealth.

2. Ralph Nader first recognized, in his 2000 campaign, that the actual ‘majoritarian’ position of Americans was already aligned with the Green ‘working-class’ values, issues, and economic reality of our ‘common-wealth’, and against the entrenched ‘corporatist Empire’ ---- but that this new majority was not yet self-aware of these changing times, and that the propaganda of the private corporatist controlled ‘Vichy’ political and media monopoly would try to abort any such revolutionary public awareness.

It can be assumed that the ruling-elite ‘corporatist Empire’ hiding behind the façade of their two-party ‘Vichy’ charade of ersatz democracy also was aware of Nader’s truth about the actual majoritarian position in America --- and that they suspected as early as 2000 that their election ‘fixing’ by the end of the Bush regime would have to become more sophisticated and guileful to continue fooling the rubes into ‘wasting’ their voting POWER.

3, The 2008 election scam was designed by the ruling-elite ‘corporatist Empire’ to offer the apparent “hope” of a ‘third party’ alternative to the old two-party (single lock) ‘Vichy’ façade --- but within a corporatist controlled environment.

The three ‘corporate Empire’ vetted candidates we are now looking at were supposed to represent a ‘pressure release valve’ for the frustrated, and increasingly self-aware majority of American voters (actually what Handt and Negri define as the “Multitude”) ---- but keep this not-yet-articulable sense of revolution against Empire and for democracy entirely constrained and controlled within the confines of the corporatist Empire’s ‘Vichy’ charade.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Choose your Poison..!
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace on Apr 21, 2008 8:23 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama is 60% a Republican, and Hillary 80% a Republican..

You pick..choose your poison..!


What a joke..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Where's Clinton and Obama on "Psy-ops" campaign for Iraq war..?
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace on Apr 21, 2008 9:21 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What does Obama or Hillary Clinton have to say about David Barstow's expose in the NY Times on The Pentagon's "psy-ops" "Bovie Scatology" propaganda machine to justify and profit from the Iraq war..?

Nothing..

What a surprise..!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Scranton-Pittsburg area?
Posted by: willymack on Apr 21, 2008 9:35 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
C'mon, Mr Rosenthal, I went to school when it was NECESSARY to have a good knowlege of geography to be passed to the next higher grade. I was also born in Scranton, which isn't that far from New Jersey. Pittsburg is in the far western part of the state, not far from Ohio. Other than that, only a well-informed citizenry can make prudent decisions about ANYTHING, especially as to who gets to sit in the White House. Barack Obama represents a sorely needed new approach to conducting our national affairs. He's an "unknown" only in the minds of those too lazy to do some research on him, or too inflexible in their "thinking" to see what's plain as the nose on their face.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Republican plan: select Hillary, "recreate 1968 Democratic Convention", boost Nader
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Apr 21, 2008 10:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The first volleys have been fired:

On Democracy Now today, was the first rollout of the "Recreate '68" campaign. This is a massive effort - "recreate 68" comes up with 17,000 hits so far in Google.

Amy Goodman: We’re also joined in the studio at KBDI by Mark Cohen. He is an organizer with Recreate ’68, a group of activists attempting to greet this year’s Democratic National Convention with the same demands of accountability and ending the war that animated protesters in Chicago forty years ago.

AMY GOODMAN: And who is “we”?

MARK COHEN: We are Recreate ’68, which is a group of local Denver activists.

Some explanation, huh? It is also interesting to note that this is the first national coverage of this "recreate '68" campaign I've seen, though it has been reposted on a number of other sites:

"Indybay Independent Activist Media"
www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/04/21/18494218.php

"Guerrilla News Network"
Denver_Massive_Protests_Planned_for_DNC
Re_Create_68_Set_on_Parks_During_DNC

For more on GNN, see my commentary on that web site

So, what is this "Recreate '68" all about?

There's some curious issues here. Amy Goodman must be aware that in the 1968 Democratic convention, hundreds of undercover police officers posed as violent activists in order to stage a riot.

Who else is promoting "recreate 68"? Oh yeah - Michelle Malkin.

Allow me to post a comment plucked off the Internet to clarify this point:

Will Repugs use agent provocateurs to promote violence at the convention?

Edited on Mon Aug-23-04 03:04 PM by Cyrano
My guess is that they've already got thugs lined up for next week's convention, to see to it that there will be violence for the TV cameras.

The best thing that can happen for the Rethugs is for NY demonstrations to turn violent next week. And given that BushCo will do ANYTHING to win, I for one have no doubt that they have their agent provocateurs ready to go. It doesn't take that much for a handful of people to turn a peaceful demonstration into a riot.

If you're planning on demonstrating in NY next week, do everything you can to make everyone you come into contact with aware of this tactic. Go out of your way to keep it peaceful. If not, the fascists bastards win the propaganda war, and probably the election.

In case you doubt this, remember, or ask someone older about the 1968 convention in Chicago. It put Nixon into the White House.


I'd have posted this over at Democracy Now's website, but they don't allow reader comments - why is that? Why wouldn't "Democracy Now" host public comments? It's a very democratic thing to do - to allow the public input - but DN just won't allow it.

Furthermore, shouldn't real anti-war protestors being going after the Republican Party - you know, the ones who promise to keep the war in Iraq going for 100 years?

Why do you think that is? Does anyone else find DN's stance here as curiously odd as I do? Does anyone doubt that this regime is running full-fledged COINTELPRO programs as we speak?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

:-)
Posted by: jacksmith on Apr 21, 2008 11:00 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
MY FELLOW “BITTER”, STUPID, WORKING CLASS PEOPLE :-)

If you think like Barack Obama, that WORKING CLASS PEOPLE are just a bunch of “BITTER”!, STUPID, PEASANTS, Cash COWS!, and CANNON FODDER. :-(

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary’s than they had ever been before or since.

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. :-)

Best regards

jacksmith... Working Class :-)

p.s. You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you don't know that the huge amounts of money funding the Obama campaign to try and defeat Hillary Clinton is coming in from the insurance, and medical industry, that has been ripping you off, and killing you and your children. And denying you, and your loved ones the life saving medical care you needed. All just so they can make more huge immoral profits for them-selves off of your suffering...

You see, back in 1993 Hillary Clinton had the audacity, and nerve to try and get quality, affordable universal health care for everyone to prevent the suffering and needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of you each year. :-)

Approx. 100,000 of you die each year from medical accidents from a rush to profit by the insurance, and medical industry. Another 120,000 of you die each year from treatable illness that people in other developed countries don’t die from. And I could go on, and on...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yup Posted by: JimmyVaughan
» :-P Posted by: OldRedleg
» Experience? Posted by: RobNLA
Choosing a change
Posted by: jebpgh on Apr 21, 2008 11:16 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm a Pittsburgher, former union member - Steelworkers, registered Democrat. I supported and defended the Clintons for eight long and weary years. I supported them when they dropped the ball on health care. I supported them when the dropped the ball on welfare reform. I supported them when they couldn't distance themselves from the Israeli lobby. I supported them when they worked NAFTA through the Congress. I supported them when they lied and misled the Congress and the people who supported them about their activities in Arkansas. I supported them when they started selling out workers under the WTO and China MFN debates. I supported them when they cut back on housing spending. I supported them when they painted the party into a corner and proceeded to lose control of the Congress.

But it's time to move on. It's time to admit that maybe those were not the best eight years of our lives. that closed down mills and lost jobs and bankrupt boroughs happened on their watch too. Maybe it's time to get a new team in, a younger team with a broad coalition of support and one that can give a new meaning to the Democratic Party.

Hillary wants to take credit for those eight years? Fine, she can also take the blame of indignant Democrats who have had enough.

It's time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary Clinton was #1 recipient of pharma money after Rick Santorum
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Apr 21, 2008 11:19 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From Sourcewatch:

"Despite her rocky relationship with the pharmaceutical industry in the past, Clinton has been very successful at garnering contributions from the industry during her Senatorial reelection campaign."

"As of July 12, 2006, she raised more money from pharmaceuticals than any other candidate with the exception of Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.). At this point, the total figure in contributions from this sector stood at $150,600."

"Some political analysts attribute the charity of pharmaceuticals to two factors. First, Clinton has moderated her positions over the past several years. She has proposed legislation to increase Medicare payments or stave off cuts in payments to doctors, hospitals, nursing homes, managed care companies and home health agencies. In addition, she has introduced a bill to lower the cost of malpractice insurance for doctors who disclose medical errors to patients. With strong support from the industry, she has also pushed legislation to promote the adoption of health information technology."

"Secondly, pharmaceutical companies believe that Clinton will likely be the Democratic nominee for president in 2008, and wish to get on her good side now."

Hillary's whole style can be seen in the previous long post.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How the Republicans plan on winning Pennsylvania in November
Posted by: HughScott on Apr 21, 2008 1:26 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Extracted from the conservative website, Townhall.com:

By combining loyal Republicans with misaligned Democrats in Pennsylvania, the GOP can produce a 656,724 victory margin for John McCain.

Trustees of the Republican Leadership Trust are developing computerized "All in One Political Suite" technology that will jumpstart GOP loyalty, improve voter turnout among registered Republicans and identify potential McCain supporters among misaligned Democrats.

Reviewers monitoring development concur there is no software that even remotely rivals the Republican "All in One" suite.


What better way to turn misaligned Democrats into Republican voters than by wounding Barack Obama with negative ads, the way Mrs. Sniper Fire is doing!

Tell me Hillary doesn't want McCain to win in November if Obama runs against him and I'll sell you the Brooklyn Bridge.

One more question. How many of those new PA "Democrats" (so-called Hillary suporters) are part of Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos -- i.e. stealth Republicans?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pretty Disturbing Stuff
Posted by: deatonfl on Apr 21, 2008 2:34 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Check out this link and tell me what you think now....I found it very distrubing in spite of some of the slant. You owe it to yourself to watch the video and see what you think. Some scary stuff for sure!

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?RsrcID=2036

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Posted by: meetmeineleusis on Apr 21, 2008 3:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A donkey that manages to swallow its own face.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fake Candidates, fake election, fake democracy!
Posted by: sofla100 on Apr 21, 2008 3:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm starting to wonder and be skeptical. Clinton, Obama, McCain? Who will stop the war? Who is not in the pockets of Wall Street and "the big boys?" Ultimately, am I being too cynical in thinking whoever gets elected, WTF is the difference? Fake Candidates, fake election, fake democracy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I don't need all that work
Posted by: GPFrank on Apr 21, 2008 7:13 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Request: to "Pretty Disturbing Stuff" (Eyeblast)
Please do not lead me to something where I have to sign up and log in and then wait and wait for it to come on

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]