This is the Presidential Campaign Thread.

Barack Obama Vs. John McCain.

Edited November 6, 200817 yr by Toups

Now that Hillary is losing the Clintons want to change all the rules!

I guess this is also being covered up.

From CNN:

Poll: Obama leads in Montana

Posted: 01:15 PM ET

From CNN Associate Producer Martina Stewart

(CNN) – Sen. Barack Obama appears to be headed for a win in one of the final contests of the Democratic nomination race, according to a new poll of likely Democratic primary voters in Montana.

Obama’s support stands at 52 percent and Clinton’s is at 35 percent. Thirteen percent of those who participated in the survey were unsure who they preferred as the Democratic nominee.

The poll of 400 likely Democratic primary voters in Montana was conducted May 19-21 and has a margin of error of plus or minus five percentage points.

Montana and South Dakota will hold the last Democratic presidential primaries on June 3; sixteen pledged delegates are up for grabs in Montana’s primary and 15 in South Dakota.

Fidel Castro bashes Obama Cuba policy

Posted: 01:23 PM ET

Castro slammed Obama’s support for the embargo.

HAVANA (AP) — Former President Fidel Castro says Sen. Barack Obama's plan to maintain Washington's trade embargo against Cuba will cause hunger and suffering on the island.

In a column published Monday by government-run newspapers, Castro said Obama was "the most-advanced candidate in the presidential race," but noted that he has not dared to call for altering U.S. policy toward Cuba.

"Obama's speech can be translated as a formula for hunger for the country," Castro wrote, referring to Obama's remarks last week to the influential Cuban American National Foundation in Miami.

Obama said he would maintain the nearly fifty-year-old trade sanctions against Cuba as leverage to push for democratic change on the island. But he also vowed to ease restrictions on Cuban Americans traveling to Cuba and sending money to relatives.

He repeated his willingness to meet with Raul Castro, who in February succeeded his elder brother Fidel to become the nation's first new leader in 49 years.

Castro said Obama's proposals for letting well-off Cuban Americans help poorer relatives on the island amounted to "propaganda for consumerism and a way of life that is unsustainable."

He complained that Obama's description of Cuba as "undemocratic" and "lacking in respect for liberty and human rights" was the same argument previous U.S. administrations "have used to justify their crimes against our homeland."

Castro, 81, has not been seen in public since undergoing emergency surgery in July 2006, but he often publishes columns in state newspapers.

Obama's calls for direct talks with Cuban leaders differ sharply from a more hardline policy favored by current President Bush and Republican presidential candidate John McCain, whom Castro also has

criticized.

Castro's column came three days after a prominent dissident group wrote an open letter to Obama suggesting that his idea of talking directly with Cuban leaders could help win freedom for

prisoners.

"We have great hope that you can contribute to the immediate, unconditional liberation" of prisoners, wrote the Ladies in White, a group formed by relatives of people jailed in a government crackdown on political opposition in 2003.

Filed under: AP • Barack

Edited May 26, 200817 yr by Dr. Jay S.W.

The Clintons are further damaging their reputation, the longer Hillary stays in the race. As a supporter of them, it pains and angers me. Everyone seems to already be referring to Obama as the nominee, which by rights he should be. Hillary's argument died many, many weeks ago, maybe even months now. I would respect her so much more if she just ended this. Cover ups? You know what they say about desperate times.....

Fidel Who?

I wish someone would Ask the Clinton if Hillary would step aside i let Obama have the nom if thier places were switched.

IMHO The Dems would have drummed Obama out of the race LONG ago!

After June 3rd, it will be time to take the bull by the horns and just end the whole thing. This is just getting very silly. Every day it's something new. And all they are doing is playing into the Republican's hands.

I wish someone would Ask the Clinton if Hillary would step aside i let Obama have the nom if thier places were switched.

IMHO The Dems would have drummed Obama out of the race LONG ago!

I guess that's what happens when the same MSM that touted you as the nominee for two years all of a sudden "turns on you" and actually let the people decide.

I felt then, and still feel, that BO is the nominee. It wouldn't hurt anything to let this go until June 3rd.......provided when it is over, she bows out and lets it go.

No wonder why FOX news is in the shitter.....

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Chuck_Ha...tm#Civil_Rights

Chcuk Hagel's voting record.

I'll open the door for you. Me, Jess, and Roman are already inside waiting..

Thanks but in the spirit of disclosure be advised that I was label a right wing Republican something for having the audacity to not care for the Clintons lying about she who was labeled some words I won't repeat Flowers. It was along the lines of saying that a woman who has a very active sex life always lies.

June 3rd is right around the corner so there's no need for anyone to drop out now since the mission is to give everyone their chance to vote. This is really about the super delegates stepping up to the plate anyway since the pledged delegates aren't enough.

I'm still all for ignoring the claim to the most popular votes since Puerto Rico is about to make my case for me. What difference would it make to get 10 million votes from PR and argue that it proves that one is more electable if none of those voters can vote in the November general election? My response is none at all. Their delegates are another story and they aren't going to go at 100% to either and that's the bottom line.

Cokie Roberts may be suffering from confusion because she seems to have temporarily abandoned her sexism chant and acknowledged that there are young people and even black people who would be upset if the super delegates gave the nomination to HC. Imagine that.

I say Bill Clinton's cover up theory is good short term political strategy but not as effective as the cry of the angry females who took out the ad to fight for the female president. I seriously doubt that the segment of the population to which good ole Bill was appealing is going to get angry enough to fight the fight. I don't think they'll put the pressure on the party as he hopes and I do think the cost of that strategy is that he may have ticked some super delegates off as well as party members. If you make an accusation of bullying, you really have to make sure you are not perceived as one as well.

Long term it hurts because it's reminder # fill in the number, that he and his put upon wife are discounting certain segments of the population that they need in order to make this work. How shocking would it be if HC is the nominee and Republicans are running ads featuring her comparing FL to the fight against slavery?

Voice over: In order to secure the nomination, Hillary Clinton had to claim a conspiracy in the Democratic party, what will she claim in order to win the general election? Is this the kind of leader we really want? Cue up the KO rant.

As for Fox, this is who Terry McAuliffe called fair.

Cokie said what?!

Guess she took her hood and sheets off long enough to actually recognize that fact.

The biggest reason why I don't recognize the PV argument is because the Clinton campaign leaves out caucus states that Obama won. If we're going to be fair.......then let's be fair. Across the board.

How can you make the claims that you're winning the PV and that every vote should count when you don't recognize all the states that voted and use your own math to get to this conclusion?

Cokie said what?!

Guess she took her hood and sheets off long enough to actually recognize that fact.

The biggest reason why I don't recognize the PV argument is because the Clinton campaign leaves out caucus states that Obama won. If we're going to be fair.......then let's be fair. Across the board.

How can you make the claims that you're winning the PV and that every vote should count when you don't recognize all the states that voted and use your own math to get to this conclusion?

I think Cokie Roberts was just having a moment. I think when people are passing themselves off as journalists then they should be providing information and not trying to make the news. The problem with ABC News is clear bias although there may be members of their news team that are not on the same biased page. I heard one of them try to distort the statement about the 1992 Democratic primaries to include Ross Perot which was a huh moment and too bad for the viewers he misinformed.

CNN and their best political team is a sham to me. Some of the analysts are okay and the ones that have their candidate picked out are usually the best since their bias isn't hidden under neutrality. I get the feeling that CNN is in the business of trying to create news instead of providing news information. They have too many unnamed sources and most of what these sources say aren't any different from whatever agenda CNN is pushing at the moment.

After June 3rd they will pay more attention to McCain because they won't get to totally blow up moments on the primary trail anymore.

The popular vote doesn't matter to me with or without caucuses because it will still include Puerto Rico's vote count and they can't vote in the general election. If you're talking popular vote minus PR then the argument is a little better but it's still not what determines the nomination so I would drop it as an argument altogether. It's hollow. And it creates unneeded confusion.

Everything that's been tried has created needless confusion.

Screw CNN. The only reason why I respect Pat Buchanan on MSNBC is because he tells you exactly where he stands. CNN's people try to come off as unbiased and then show their bias every time they open their mouths.

Everything that's been tried has created needless confusion.

Screw CNN. The only reason why I respect Pat Buchanan on MSNBC is because he tells you exactly where he stands. CNN's people try to come off as unbiased and then show their bias every time they open their mouths.

CNN does have analysts who have stated where they stand and they tend to be okay. There are a few others that are okay and not overtly bias one way or the other. The ones that try to create the news are the most annoying. I also have no interest in anyone who expresses support for any of the candidates then puts on blinders. I prefer Obama supporters who can admit when he's wrong, Clinton supporters who can admit when she's wrong and McCain supporters who can admit when he's wrong. The ones who pretend their candidate is always right and none of their wrongs ever matter aren't credible and need to be replaced with people who can exercise some degree of objectivity.

The popular vote doesn't matter to me either. The number of delegates matters. I think Hill and Bill are sending mixed messages. On the one hand the argue that the SDs should nominate Hill because she is the candidate with the best chance of winning the general election. That would be akin to the pre-primary days when the party leaders nominated an individual who they thought could best win and best represent the party in the general election. The decision was based largely on winnability and not a bit on primary results. So as Bill says, Hillary can win the most states in November so she should be the nominee and the primary and caucus results be damned.

On the other hand, Bill and Hill argue all votes ought to be counted, including votes that they agreed earlier should not be counted, and the person with most votes -- in primary elections mind you and not caucuses -- should win.

They argue whatever it takes. I think the broadcast media has crossed the line between reporting and commentary. I think it's a mistake to have the same reporter covering a campaign and doing commentaries.

Edited May 26, 200817 yr by Jess