The Skinny Tall Black/White Dude w/t the Big Voice from Chicago via Hawaii is gonna kick ASS!

[FrenchieCat]

That's what I think!

plus I like how he talks, how he looks, how he carries himself, and what he represents to America in the 21st century.

The Amazing Money Machine

June 2008 Atlantic Monthly by Joshua Green

How Silicon Valley made Barack Obama this year’s hottest start-up



History has a way of prizing timeless qualities like vision and oratory above temporal things like money. So if Barack Obama becomes our nation’s first black president, civics textbooks will probably never note his fund-raising prowess or the financial challenges he had to overcome simply to compete with the likes of Hillary Clinton. But Obama would not be where he is today if he did not possess a preternatural ability to elicit huge sums. Obama prompts an impulse in people to reach for historical antecedents when describing him—as a speaker, Martin Luther King Jr.; as an inspiration to young voters, Robert F. Kennedy. No one I’m aware of has suggested an apt comparison for Obama, the mighty fund-raiser. But whenever I think about the quarter billion dollars he has raised so far, the image that leaps to mind is Scrooge McDuck diving joyously into his piles of gold.

The story of Obama’s success is very much a story about money. It provided his initial credibility. It paid for his impressive campaign operation. It allowed him first to compete with, and then to overwhelm, the most powerful Democratic family in a generation—one that understood the power of money in politics and commanded a network of wealthy donors that has financed the Democratic Party for years.

What’s intriguing to Democrats and worrisome to Republicans is how someone lacking these deep connections to traditional sources of wealth could raise so much money so quickly. How did he do it? The answer is that he built a fund-raising machine quite unlike anything seen before in national politics. Obama’s machine attracts large and small donors alike, those who want to give money and those who want to raise it, veteran activists and first-time contributors, and—especially—anyone who is wired to anything: computer, cell phone, PDA.

...Silicon Valley was a notable exception. The Internet was still in its infancy when Bill Clinton last ran for president, in 1996, and most of the immense fortunes had not yet come into being; the emerging tech class had not yet taken shape. So, unlike the magnates in California real estate (Walter Shorenstein), apparel (Esprit founder Susie Tompkins Buell), and entertainment (name your Hollywood celeb), who all had long-established loyalty to the Clintons, the tech community was up for grabs in 2007. In a colossal error of judgment, the Clinton campaign never made a serious approach, assuming that Obama would fade and that lack of money and cutting-edge technology couldn’t possibly factor into what was expected to be an easy race. Some of her staff tried to arrange “prospect meetings” in Silicon Valley, but they were overruled. “There was massive frustration about not being able to go out there and recruit people,” a Clinton consultant told me last year. As a result, the wealthiest region of the wealthiest state in the nation was left to Barack Obama.

...lotsa more http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200806/obama-finance

[LittleBlue]

1. Hell yes!

K&R.

[oldpol]

67. don't forget he's from Kansas too!

hard core Red state--Barack Chalk Jayhawk

[slinkerwink]

2. GoBama!

[NJSecularist]

3. So he's the next Richard Nixon?

Is he going to buy his way to the presidency like Nixon did?

If Obama cares about a level playing field, he'll accept public financing for the general election. Public financing should be a main tenet of the Democratic party.

[Oleladylib]

6. Nope it's show him da money...BIG money

[FrenchieCat]

13. The amount required to put down the older machine.

The difference is that Obama had Foresight, while Hillary can only look back on hindsight. Which will take us forward, I ask?

[LittleBlue]

9. Yeah, let's kneecap him!

Campaign finance reform was supposed to be a protection against large, moneyed interests having inordinate influence compared to the average person. Obama has raised most of his money from those average people giving $50 at a time. I see no reason to limit the influence of average people.

[NJSecularist]

14. No, he has raised most of his money from bundlers.

[LittleBlue]

18. Any evidence of that?

For months we've heard Clinton's donors are maxed out, and Obama's average donor gives less than $100.

Forgive me for not believing you without some sort of proof.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

55. That is the current talking point/claim amongst hillary supporters

in regards to Obama's great success at grassroot fund raising to try and diminish its significance

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

78. I thought that was last mo.s TP. This weeks is "vast left wing media conspiracy"

heheheh

[Turn CO Blue]

59. Any links? SHOW YOUR PROOF.

[Hansel]

80. Yep, I know I gave him a bundle.

Well $100, but it seems like a bundle to me.

[SoonerPride]

The public HAS financed his campaign

Big money donors are off the table.

PACs and influence peddlers are out in the cold.

This is a campaign funded by WE THE PEOPLE

And you know how I can say that?

THEY FILE FEC REPORTS which show where the money comes from and how much.

This is a publicly financed campaign

[NJSecularist]

15. Bundlers have financed his campaign.

[LittleBlue]

19. Again with the bundlers

Please explain to me exactly what you mean, and give some references to refute the print evidence I've seen for months in every major news outlet.

[NJSecularist]

20. Here is the definition of bundlers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_in_the_United_States

Another consequence of the limitation upon personal contributions from any one individual ($2300 for each election, with a total of $4600 for a primary and general election as of 2007) is that campaigns seek out "bundlers", people who can gather contributions from many individuals in an organization or community, and present the sum to the campaign. Campaigns then elevate and publicise these bundlers to an elite level. Bundlers became especially important after the 2002 revision to campaign finance law made unrestricted soft money more difficult to get through corporations and other big organizations.

And here's a list of some of his bundlers:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Barack_Obama/Campaign_Financing#Lobbyist_bundlers

[LittleBlue]

23. Those are from groups of individuals.

Where are the PACs? Where are the lobbying firms? I don't see any influence being bought here.

[ekwhite]

73. Perhaps we should take a look at the Clinton Campaign Bundlers...

Here is a link to the SourceWatch page on the finances of the Clinton campaign. Did you honestly think that no one would check on HER finances?

She has many more bundlers than the Obama campaign, and has accepted money from PACs and lobbyists. And do we really want to bring up bundlers given her relationship to Norman Hsu?

[FrenchieCat]

21. Lotsa ignores you are talking to.

Personally, I realize that not ALL of his money was raised on line, but most of it was. Bottomline is that he hasn't been stuck in fundraisers, and hasn't had to charge plain folks coming to his rallies any fees. Bottomline is he didn't take money from lobbyists and Corporation. The fact is that if Hillary would have had any Foresight, she would have jumped on it.

That's why those folks you are arguing with are on ignore for me. I determined that they were a waste of my time long ago.

Hillary is the old corporate candidate who had to have folks sleep in the Lincoln bedroom to get a payback.

That's why Polosi could go tell those Hillary backers to kiss her ass. And I'm sure she enjoyed articulating that to the monied bullies.

Ignores are jealous. They didn't go with the innovating and fresh thinking candidate.
That is not our fault.

[mcctatas]

25. You're just bitter because the only one financing hillary at this

point is hillary. All of her big money donors (and there were many) have seen the light and fled the scene...

"As smoke surrounds the Clinton campaign victory in New Hampshire, I am most disturbed about the voting count and the fact that Clinton is the biggest recipient of Lobbyist donations. Second to Hillary is McCain, who seems quite prepared to continue the drum beat of war. Could Clinton’s rhetoric be a bait and switch? Maybe. I just don’t trust her."

"This is from opensecrets.org, and it doesn’t appear to say anything good about Hillary Clinton’s intentions, in the case that she may owe favors. It appears Ms. Clinton receives the most money in donations from the defense sector. Here is the data below:"

http://whazgoinon.wordpress.com/2008/02/05/hillary-clinton-recipient-of-most-donations-from-the-defense-industry/

[eridani]

40. They kickstarted it. Then the little guy amounts took over n/t

[roseBudd]

61. Link please, or as Tweety would say.... "You don't know, do you?"

[SoonerPride]

12. The public HAS financed his campaign

Big money donors are off the table.

PACs and influence peddlers are out in the cold.

This is a campaign funded by WE THE PEOPLE

And you know how I can say that?

THEY FILE FEC REPORTS which show where the money comes from and how much.

This is a publicly financed campaign

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ekwhite]

70. Que?

You are honestly comparing Barack Obama to Richard Nixon? That is not even logical. Nixon constructed the 'Southern strategy' to win. He relied on racist code words, disarray in the Democratic party, some generated by his operatives, and general dissatisfaction with Lyndon Johnson to win the presidency. Richard Milhouse Nixon ran in the Republican primary as the inevitable candidate.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, has run a mostly clean and inclusive campaign, and has developed a method of fund raising that does not depend on back-room deals and promises to big donors, but instead depends on the use of technology to leverage small donations.

Like it or not, with our current campaign financing system, accepting public financing and staying within the required limits will only hamstring the Democrats.

[kwenu]

75. Well it isn't. And he won't be hobbled in order to provide you the loss you desire.

He's in this to WIN!!!

[Oleladylib]

4. Fudgemarble?

[FrenchieCat]

8. I'm very similar, and I'd call it creamy cafe au lait w/t a hint of fudge.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FrenchieCat]

17. Is there a point here? Are you calling me a mutt?

Cause I'd hate to use dog bitch in any description if I'm forced to give you a retort.

[ekwhite]

76. Did you ACTUALLY just call Frenchie a "mixed breed"?

Good god - are you going to start ranting about miscegenation next?

[NOLALady]

34. More like

Golden.

[Cha]

5. Yay..you posted this riveting on the money article, Frenchie:)

<snippers>

"To understand how Obama’s war chest has grown so rapidly, it helps to think of his Web site as an extension of the social-networking boom that has consumed Silicon Valley over the past few years. The purpose of social networking is to connect friends and share information, its animating idea being that people will do this more readily and comfortably when the information comes to them from a friend rather than from a newspaper or expert or similarly distant authority they don’t know and trust. The success of social-networking sites like Facebook and MySpace and, later, professional networking sites like LinkedIn all but ensured that someday the concept would find its way into campaigning. A precursor, Meetup.com, helped supporters of Howard Dean organize gatherings during the last Democratic primary season, but compared with today’s sites, it was a blunt instrument.

Obama’s campaign moved first. Staffers credit the candidate himself with recognizing the importance of this new tool and claim that his years as a community organizer in Chicago allowed him to see its usefulness. Another view is that he benefited greatly from encouraging a culture of innovation and lucked out in the personnel department, with his own pair of 20-something wizards. Joe Rospars, a veteran of Dean’s campaign who had gone on to found an Internet fund-raising company, signed on as Obama’s new-media director. And Chris Hughes, a co-founder of Facebook, took a sabbatical from the company and came to Chicago to work on the campaign full-time."

[FrenchieCat]

10. Foresight and insight. That's what this country needs.

Some new innovative blood.

It can take us far.

We are lucky! :)

[loyalsister]

66. So much Kerry

He mentored Obama and they looked toward this election based on what he and his most formidable competition (Howard Dean)did right. I think he must have considered the possibility that we would do well to have a charismatic candidate this time around. Kerry is no dummy.
Obama appears to be the candidate who is coming out of a primary process that almost represents the best of 2004 and lessons learned in many ways.
I would add that it was good to have a large field with a lot of diversity.

[David Zephyr]

39. Great stuff!

Nice pic, too.

[sonias]

7. Excellent article

You really have to be amazed about the fundraising success of this campaign. I love it - we are the new hot start-up of the year. Yea just us little 1.5 million investors with the belief that our "CEO" can change America. Yes he can!

:applause:

Sonia

[Cha]

16. I know! I've never been

part of a start up company before and we struck pay dirt

[KittyWampus]

22. This touches on how Kerry's fundraisers and data helped Obama.The Clintons really screwed the pooch

Gorenberg tapped into his broad network of entrepreneurs and venture capitalists and discovered that many of them were eager to get involved—eager enough not just to give but to tap their own networks to raise money for Kerry. Collectively, these “raisers” generated a great deal of money, and much of it came from new sources, particularly what Gorenberg likes to call the area’s new middle class. “There is a tremendous amount of wealth in Silicon Valley,” John Roos, Obama’s Northern California finance chair and the CEO of the Palo Alto law firm Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, told me. “Not just massive individual wealth, but wealth spread collectively among the engineers, lawyers, and executives who made gains in the good years and now have the ability to contribute a $2,300 check without it being a significant hit to them.”

[FrenchieCat]

24. I have a lot of clients in that area.......Palo Alto, Menlo Park, etc....

and certainly, there is money abounds! I'm amazed that Hillary couldn't see it. Wow, glad she ain't gonna be leading us. That would be like the blind leading the blind!

[Laura PourMeADrink]

26. K&R

[BeyondGeography]

27. Cuz won't be smiling at the next swearing in

[FrenchieCat]

28. Ooh, Lookit this one!

[BeyondGeography]

30. Oh man...Who gave Sasha all those cutie-pie pills anyway?

[FrenchieCat]

31. I Know. She reminds me of my youngest.....who turned 18 today.

She has that mischievous quality about her and the dimples.

:)

[Eurobabe]

53. Hopefully cuz will have met his maker by then

And gone straight to the underworld. :rofl:

[silverweb]

29. You betcha!

Yes, he will!

GObama! GObama!

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## DON'T DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our second quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Whatever you do, do not click the link below!

[Peace Patriot]

35. Facing Great Depression II, gas at $4/gal, mortgage meltdown, skyrocketing

health care, skyrocketing food costs, millions of jobs lost to treasonous corporate outsourcing, homeless, jobless and hungry on the increase, credit card bankruptcies busting peoples' lives, things looking more every day like 1932, the "little people" all over the country dug into their nearly empty pockets to give Barack Obama the most fantastic donor base and campaign chest ever put together BECAUSE THEY ARE SO HUNGRY FOR DECENT GOVERNMENT.

Attribute it to another set of millionaires, and to their technology, if you like. There is some truth to it--that Silicon Valley hadn't been tapped, and that its latest tech/networking genius had yet to be fully utilized politically. But don't ignore the 2008 political miracle of a million small to modest donors in HARD TIMES. That is amazing! The two things work together--the technology and the millions of people ready to donate for desperately needed political change. But this article is rather too buzzed by Silicon Valley and not enough buzzed by the newly energized citizen activist phenomenon, and voter passion, that has arisen around the Obama campaign.

And if Diebold & brethren decide to let him win--in order to protect their long term "trade secret" power over our election results, KNOW WHY. It may be that they don't dare reverse the results this time, but they may well try to hamper him--for instance, by shaving his mandate--and have the EASY capability of doing so. Technology may be working brilliantly for Obama, and thus for our democracy, but it has gravely damaged our most fundamental right: our right to vote and have our votes counted in public view.

This is a grass roots uprising like we have never seen before in this country. The global corporate predators who control everything, including the counting of our votes, fear the American people. They really do. This massive fundraising success--no matter how high they push the price of gas and squeeze us in every way--is loathsome to them. It means that "organized money" (as FDR put it) doesn't rule any more. It means that their filthy TV campaign ad system, which requires any candidate for Congress to start off with a million dollars, so that only the rich can run for office, has finally been busted--and in a presidential campaign, no less. They prevented real campaign finance reform (public financing, ban on private money). We got around that, collectively, with a million donations!

Don't let them take the credit from YOU, small donors. YOU, the people. YOU, the grass roots of this party. YOU DID IT!

[K Gardner]

36. This needs to be an OP.. absolutely brilliant response to wonderful thread ! K&R to all !

[FrenchieCat]

37. Oh....I totally agree.......

But it takes a good combo like what Obama put together. Those folks in Silicon Valley have also had their own share of ups and downs.....

But yes, in the end, everyone knows, that this is a people movement made up of many different kinds of people; some have money to give, but many more others...not as much.

I find that it's all good.

[myrna minx]

58. I love your post, but I'm one of those $50 fancy pants lobbyists.

:D

[mahina]

81. Hey Myrna minx,

can you tell me about the picture in your sig line? That's Jim Jarmusch and Tom Waits, right? Is it from a movie?




(My favorite movie in the world is Down by Law.)

[myrna minx]

83. Yeah, they're Jim & Tom.

The photo isn't from a movie they did together, but it may be a still from the Down by Law days. But they've been good friends for years. Down by Law is pure genius. :hi: In fact they're in a "group" called the Sons of Lee Marvin :rofl:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jarmusch

Sons of Lee Marvin

Jarmusch is the founder of The Sons of Lee Marvin, a humorous 'semi-secret society'. Members of the society reportedly include musician Tom Waits and actor John Lurie, both of whom have worked with Jarmusch on several occasions. Richard Bose, Nick Cave, Thurston Moore, Iggy Pop (who has also worked with Jarmusch), Josh Brolin and Neil Young are also rumored to be members. The entry criterion for the club is that the person must have some physical resemblance or plausibly look like a son of the actor Lee Marvin — as such, women are not allowed to join. Most current members also share what seems to be a beat mentality in that they represent and express the lives of the down and out.
The club supposedly meets occasionally to watch Lee Marvin movies together. Its members perpetuate the joke in the media.
"I'm not at liberty to divulge information about the organization, other than to tell you that it does exist. I can identify three other members of the organization: Tom Waits, John Lurie, and Richard Bose. You have to have a facial structure such that you could be related to, or be a son of, Lee Marvin. There are no women, obviously, in the organization. We have communiques and secret meetings. Other than that, I can't talk about it."
—Jim Jarmusch: Interview: Vol. XIX - No. 11, 1989: pp 146-150.
The real son of Lee Marvin is said to have objected to the existence of the organization when he encountered Waits in a bar.<5>

[NatBurner]

77. ^^

that's what isn't getting enough attention, imo-
the grass roots aspect of this whole thing

all i hear is "he outspent me by blah to one, so CLEARLY blahblahblegch"
when the REAL story is-

the people, five ten dollars at a time, are propelling obama to win after win-
not millionaires and pac money-
ordinary, every-day citizens

and to me? that's a fundamental change in and of itself

[boppers]

38. Compare videos of Hillary@Google and Obama@Google

Obama knew the culture, and what mattered to it. Oh, and in terms of super valuable tech endorsements (yes, we geeks have those), Obama got some serious heavy hitters.

[eridani]

42. Indeed. Lawrence Lessig is GOD. n/t

[boppers]

45. Well, I would'nt go quite that far...

But Lessig is much like a 900 lb gorilla, albeit a fairly exacting and careful one.

[knixphan]

41. Kick for NEXTGEN

[symbolman]

43. Lemme tell ya

as a guy who was raised 60 miles South of Chicago, and who has lived in Hawaii for years, with a wife who helped Create the Internet graphics scene I couldn't BE any Happier!

One thing I DO know is that you Don't Fuck with an Illinois-Boy (speaking as a member of the Club), or you won't know what Hit You :) The macho Texas types (like Bush) all want to TALK tough, like they're gonna kick your ass while telling you ALL about it, not realizing that the Fight is Already Over..

That's because us Midwestern guys know when a Sucker Punch is appropriate, and will be the best thing to keep the Peace and staunch any blood, so McCain might as well fold right now.. Like I said, the FIGHT is ALREADY OVER :)

Great post. Thanks!!

[VotesForWomen]

44. heh. i'm bookmarking this page. nt

[susankh4]

46. Will Smith for President!

Yeah... who cares if he knows what he's doin? He looookkkkkssssss good. And he makes lots of money.

[eridani]

47. His management of his campaign is adequate proof that he knows what he is doing n/t

[susankh4]

48. No. A campaign is a sales job.

Running a country is a whole 'nother thing.

[eridani]

51. One person does not "run" a country. Obama has hired people who are better in every way

Professionally and morally. Unless you find sociopathic shitstains like Mark Penn to be an example of good judgement.

[Peace Patriot]

72. The point of the article is that Obama LISTENED TO PEOPLE and was open to NEW CREATIVE IDEAS.

And Clinton was not. In fact, Clinton techs were chafing from their inability to get through. THEY could have had a lot of the Silicon Valley money and help. Nobody would LISTEN TO THEM.

Do you think our country is being well-run? Think it maybe needs some new ideas and some help from THE PEOPLE--not only from our most talented, creative, industrious, progressive sector--technology--but also from the millions of people who want and deserve a "New Deal"--a radical shift in what government is FOR, and WHO it is for?

These are the two forces that the article is talking about: the creative, forward-thinking technology sector, and the million donors. Obama has the leadership qualities to LISTEN TO them, to ORGANIZE them, and to do the impossible with their help.

These are ESSENTIAL qualities for leading us out of the Bushite quagmire--not to mention for addressing the dire state of the environment and global warming, and its vast economic implications and grave threat of the planet DYING. The latter is going to require a COLLECTIVE effort by the kinds of creative thinkers we find in the technology field combined with the well-networked actions of millions.

Clinton didn't get it. That's what the article is saying. And Obama did and does. So which of these two is more qualified to run a country that is in desperate need of new ideas to face unusual crises? The one who operates on the old paradigm of top-down leadership, or the one who leads the insurgency and has the intelligence and flexibility to listen to many voices and pick out the best ideas?

A president doesn't really "run" a country anyway. He or she directs and leads OTHERS to "run" it. And that, it seems to me, is the point here. Who is the best LEADER? Neither candidate has "run' anything (on a large scale) except their campaigns--and their senate staffs. Neither has been a governor. Neither has been an administrator of any large enterprise. So we have to judge both of them mostly be their campaigns. And, frankly, Hillary Clinton lost me, as to her leadership, when it was revealed that her chief campaign advisor, Mark Penn, was the paid agent of a foreign government, Colombia, that rules by having rightwing death squads chainsaw union leaders and throw their body parts into mass graves. A leader so insensitive to the tortured screams of the opposition in Colombia is likely to be deaf here as well. And she has been deaf on so many issues. Do we want a deaf president? One who thinks that Mark Penn's putrid politics is the way to go? Is that how our country should be run--by corrupt, powermongering manipulators? Is that the "experience" we need? Or do we need a fresh new approach that includes the ideas and creative, empowered energies of all of the American people?

Yes, of course, there is a difference between running a campaign and leading the country. But the two things are--and must be--related, and, if they are not, then we get real dumbfucks imposed upon us by P.R. "geniuses" like Rove whose only talent is to pre-write the narratives for stolen elections. We get a big gaping hole in reality. If the campaigns do not reflect the leadership abilities of the candidate, something is very wrong. There are elements of "salesmanship" in both endeavors. You could even argue that the job of President is MOSTLY salesmanship. And he or she who can't "sell" policies to the people and to congress and to foreign governments is USELESS as President. The switch that must occur--in the candidate--is from the campaign mode of selling himself or herself as a leader, to actually leading the government and all of the people. Clinton has tended to make it all about her. Obama certainly has promoted himself, but has an additional quality of making it simultaneously about his supporters. That is an invaluable leadership quality, necessary in a president.

Next, however, is the November campaign--another "salesmanship" job. Obama has been very successful at it, and has some essential talents such as a great speaking voice and ability to project on TV, and personal confidence and ease. Clinton, however, seems to be backsliding under the strain of the campaign (has become less personable, less likeable--her better qualities have not shone, her flaws have become glaring). Who will do the better "sales job" in November?

The first job of a president is to BECOME president--to successfully "sell" yourself to the people (if you want to put it that way--I'm using your terms). Then his or her job is to live up to it. Clinton has not done a good job of "selling" herself. And whether or not she would be a better leader of the country than Obama will likely never be known, because she couldn't do the FIRST job, "selling" herself to the people of her own party. She had many advantages to begin with. She didn't use them well. She has lost the race to an insurgent campaign, driven by the grass roots. She didn't see it coming. She didn't listen, and/or surrounded herself with people who were as manipulative of her as they were trying to be of the voters. Obama was more open, and got good advice. Who is more qualified to "run" the country? Obama must now live up to the image he has "sold." And that is always something of a crap shoot in a democracy, but never moreso than in this one.

[Peace Patriot]

74. Hey, Mods! I donated! What's with the shaming box by name? nt

[susankh4]

49. No. A campaign is a sales job.

Running a country is a whole 'nother thing.

[roseBudd]

62. Hey Debbie Downer, Rachel Dratch called...

[cjsmom44]

50. RE: Agree

Yup this white middle aged backwoods Obama Mama from Maine agrees totally
Obama is the stuff...

[Perry Logan]

52. Not after you called your fellow Democrats racists. That was one brilliant strategy!

"There seems to be a movement afoot by many thousands of Hillary Clinton supporters to either vote for John McCain, another presidential candidate, write Hillary’s name in, not vote for president at all, or simply stay home on election night if Hillary Clinton is not the Democratic nominee for president.

There is ample proof of this movement throughout the Internet on pro-Hillary Clinton sites and other sites where comments can be made. These Clinton supporters usually give several reasons for their adamant refusal to fall in line behind Barack Obama as the presumptive Democratic nominee - and I haven’t seen one of those reasons being because Obama is black (actually he isn’t really African-American, but instead 50% white, 43.25% Arabic and 6.25% African Negro . 12.5% is the legal threshold one must prove to claim racial status under the law).

[Forkboy]

54. Oh wah. Grow up. You have no problem with the sexist charge being thrown around.

Hypocritical clown.

[SoonerPride]

56. Arabic?

Really?

plonk

[roseBudd]

63. Hillary Way or the Highway! The annointed one must be president or we hold our breath

[Jawja]

57. I agree with you, FrenchieCat!

:thumbsup:

[roseBudd]

60. Obama is Web 2.0, HRC is DOS

[quiet.american]

64. Perfect. nt

[Jim Sagle]

65. Seek help.

[onehandle]

68. Political experts expect the next President to only serve one term.

Due to the nearly impossible task of making any progress on fixing smirk's fuck ups.

I hope they're wrong, but Ford and especially Carter were both victims in this manner.

[BlooInBloo]

71. Obama's substantially brighter than the two of them combined...

So he's at least got a fighting chance.

[ekwhite]

69. It's amazing that someone used the same article

on another article as a means of accusing Obama supporters of being illogical. Interesting, eh?

[FrenchieCat]

79. Saw that, and it appears that 100% found that OP lame!

:)

[mahina]

82. Great post Frenchiecat.

Love it! Barack Obama is going to be one of the greatest presidents ever, God Bless him and his family for being willing to serve.