I've made my opinion of the Clintons' morality clear enough in the past. Won't blast them any more now.

Update: Nancy Pelosi shits on Clinton's potential delegate-related shenanigans.

Clinton's accusation of Obama lacking specifics is entirely grounded in his style of stump speaking. She conveniently forgets all the hours-long briefings he held about healthcare, foreign policy, et cetera. Think what you will of "Yes We Can," but not being a know-it-all on the stump is a real refresher.

He did an interview with 60 Minutes recently where he told the interviewer that he was criticized for being too "professorial" early in the campaign. He was too specific and it wasn't connecting with voters. Not everyone has a political machine with a ridiculously popular spouse in their corner to make it easier to talk specifics. Even so, Hillary is a fuckin' hypocrite that doesn't talk specifics very often herself to begin with. That Texas debate will get very heated and I think her nasty personality is going to turn voters off. Barack is a calm person without her annoying, shrill voice and I think it'll be pretty funny to watch her go down in flames with the constant negative crap while he's sitting there throwing it back in her face with SPECIFICS. It's one thing to attack someone in a speech or TV ad, it's another to do it to their face and expect them not to defend themselves.

Two debates is perfect. Enough for Clinton to risk cracking her facade, yet not enough for her to get as much free publicity as she wanted.

Vladimir Putin, of all people, zings Clinton hard.

Clinton: "This is the president that looked into the soul of Putin, I could have told him, he was a KGB agent, by definition he doesn’t have a soul"

Putin: "At a minimum, a head of state should have a head."

This is a great summary of the situation from Barack himself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVPIixS2HMU&feature=user

Yeah, nevermind about seeing Obama in Lubbock. If it's on a Thursday, I have school, so I don't think I am going to miss that. But Firebird, how many you think will go, cause I know Tech is not the most liberal campus ever. The whole panhandle is really conservative. By the way, I live in Amarillo.

If he can turn out a crowd in Elko, Nevada, he can turn out a crowd in Lubbock.

His speech will likely be at night, or at least I hope it is. I only have one class on Thursdays so I might skip it as well as work (I work at the University Library). Attendance is required in my Economics class but I think we're allowed to get away with an absence or two before he starts dropping our grade. Come to think of it, I might go to the 8 AM version of the class. He has said we can do it and he even has a place at the back of his sign in sheet for 11 AM people during the 8 AM class and 8 AM people during the 11 AM class.

As for Tech, it's not just about Tech. It's about Lubbock. I am currently volunteering at an after school program and most of the kids are Hispanic or black. There are a lot of poor minorities in Lubbock. It's literally like a segregated town where the freeway separates the rich side from the poor side. And actually, the area where I am volunteering is located on the other side of some railroad tracks, so that phrase "the other side of the tracks" can sometimes be completely true.

Ask your professor and boss for permission. They might just wholeheartedly agree.

I just thought of something. My teacher has an 8 AM and he lets each of our classes go to whichever lecture as long as we take the tests with our actual scheduled time. He has a place at the back of his sign in sheet for kids from the other class. Depending on the timing, I might even be able to go to work. If the speech is at say 11 AM or something, I could go to class at 8 AM, go to the speech, and still work a fairly normal schedule. I normally work 1-4 on Tuesday/Thursday.

That would be wonderful! If not, you can ask to work another shift or something.

Lubbock may actually be fertile Obama country. Conservatives are a lot more anti-Clinton than they are anti-Obama, and many of them are anti-McCain as well. Since Texas holds an open primary, and McCain already has the nomination in the bag, try to convince Republicans to vote for Obama -- tell the Lubbock Obama office/team that as well. If anything, sell it as an anti-Clinton vote.

The Lubbock news station that broke this story updated their story about Clinton's appearance by having quotes from the local Democratic office. The lady said that since it was announced Bill was coming to town, they have had a flood of admitted Republicans calling in to ask if they are allowed to vote in the Democratic primary. I'm gonna take a guess they're not asking that because they want to vote for Bill's wife, judging by how hostile conservatives in Texas are towards her (particularly around here).

Here's the article about Slick Willie and the Republican inquiries:

http://www.kcbd.com/Global/story.asp?S= ... v=menu69_2

Oh of course. Clinton would not be a running mate to Obama.

Well one thing's for sure. Hillary would have to hope they (the media) never show both Obama's introduction and then her speech afterwards. He made McCain look AWFUL the other day and something similar (to a lesser degree) would happen to Clinton if Barack was the guy introducing her. But I guess they would mostly campaign separately to try and reach as many voters as possible since they are each stronger than the other in certain areas of the electorate.

I don't think Barack would do it though simply because he feels she is too entrenched with Establishment politics that nothing different would happen than the last 15 to 20 years of stalemate in Washington. Barack had an interesting point today about how people always say it's a gamble to support him because of his youth and supposed inexperience but that in his eyes the real gamble is sending the same people back to Washington over and over yet expecting a better result.

It's such a dumb criticism. McCain is making the same charge. They don't seem to have much else to criticize so why not use a speech to talk about how speeches don't accomplish anything. Well no shit. Just because he doesn't outline all of the specifics in a stump speech (who would sit through that) doesn't mean the specifics don't exist. Andrew Sullivan said that he DID sit in on a discussion with Obama over his tax policies and got bored because of all the details.

I think Obama is an eloquent and energizing speaker AND has the plans to back it up. It's the best of both worlds and one shouldn't confuse flowery language with a lack of substance.

But as has been proven with the negative attack style politics in this country, if you say a lie enough times and it goes unanswered, the public will fall for it. Barack has answered it in his speeches but that's not enough. He needs to put out a shitload of TV ads telling people to visit his website for the truth rather than the spin coming from Clinton and McCain. The truth: his website has more detailed plans than theirs. Neither one of them has a 9 page PDF document on a supposedly minor issue like disabilities (just an example of how much information is on his website). Neither of them has a 60 page e-Book. In fact, both of them have pretty standard looking websites with nowhere near the detail on the issues that Barack provides with his website.

Damn. That sucks.

This, folks, is absolutely disgusting. Hillary is definitely getting a lot of support from ignorant, racist Democrats across the country. Those polls that show she has support from non-college educated people was already proof but now we have a nice quote in the Washington Post from one of her supporters.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... id=topnews



We don't know? Oh no, it's the other way around you ignorant, racist bitch.

Democrats aren't racist, remember? According to Mike and Beeble, all racists are in the Republican party.

LOL yeah. Just in this campaign alone we have the Clintons using racial undertones in South Carolina, and for all we know, the voters in Ohio might be getting some of those Karl Rove-esque "anonymous" phone calls that mislead the voters. Or perhaps they're just ignorant racists, kind of like Mr. Robert Byrd, a former KKK member and one of the most esteemed people in the Democratic Party. Having said this, I do think the Republicans feed on the votes of ignorant people like this woman in Ohio. There's no other explanation to as to how someone like Bush could have been elected twice, particularly the second time around. As far as I'm concerned, I'd rather not have those people vote for Obama if they are doing it begrudgingly and with ignorance and hate in their heart about his background (of which they are obviously CLUELESS to the real facts).

This article doesn't give much detail as to what the bold part means. In question would be if the voting machines were giving inaccurate results (which shouldn't surprise anyone) or if these are hand counts that are bringing up the actual votes.

American Research Group is saying Obama has a 48%-42% lead in Texas and CNN just released a poll showing Obama down in Texas by only 2%. I guess there was another poll outside the one from a couple days ago that had similar numbers. As long as tomorrow night goes smoothly for him, and he does decently in the debates, he may be able to finish this (well, as finished as it's likely to get) on March 5th.