Hillery, Obama, Edwards and the Democrates

There have been widespread allegations of cheating and dirty tricks by Hillary's campaign in NV, ranging from:

- closing the caucus doors way early, at several sites, shutting out Obama and Edwards supporters

- refusing to register voters on the day of caucuses (they were legally allowed to do so)

- and now, this:

http://www.chrishayes.org/articles/viva-la-restauracion/

Quote:

Ultimately, much of the chaos and rancor resulted from Dorn's dual role as temporary caucus chair and precinct captain for Hillary Clinton. As temporary caucus chair she was the only official party presence there, charged with administering the sign-in in a nonbiased manner and making sure everything ran smoothly. As a precinct captain for Hillary, her job was to deliver votes for the candidate. Dorn conflated her two roles, telling attendees they could sign in only if they were supporting Hillary, while prechecking the preference cards she dispensed with a mark next to Clinton. This (understandably) sent Obama supporters into hysteria. After the caucus, Dorn admitted that "there was some confusion" on her part as to her role. Subsequent conversations with caucus-goers and campaign organizers convinced me that disorder was commonplace: the smooth functioning of the caucuses depend almost entirely on the competence and good faith of the volunteer temporary chair.

How many of the caucuses were ran by Dem party machine volunteers, i.e., Clinton supporters? It is well known that the local party in NV, headed by Sen. Reid's son, is heavily pro-Clinton; how many problems do there have to be in order to swing the thing?

Remember the line from the Clinton field manual? "It's not illegal unless they tell you so."

You Clinton supporters are perpetuating the problems we have in our country by looking the other way when this **** happens. Seriously. I'd be ashamed to be a part of a campaign that encourages cheating and slander the way the Clintons have been.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

From Bob Reich, ex Labor sec. to Bill Clinton:

Quote:

Bill Clinton's Old Politics

I write this more out of sadness than anger. Bill Clinton's ill-tempered and ill-founded attacks on Barack Obama are doing no credit to the former President, his legacy, or his wife's campaign. Nor are they helping the Democratic party. While it may be that all is fair in love, war, and politics, it's not fair - indeed, it's demeaning - for a former President to say things that are patently untrue (such as Obama's anti-war position is a "fairy tale") or to insinuate that Obama is injecting race into the race when the former President is himself doing it. Meanwhile, the attack ads being run in South Carolina by the Clinton camp which quote Obama as saying Republicans had all the ideas under Reagan, is disingenuous. For years, Bill Clinton and many other leading Democrats have made precisely the same point - that starting in the Reagan administration, Republicans put forth a range of new ideas while the Democrats sat on their hands. Many of these ideas were wrong-headed and dangerous, such as supply-side economics. But for too long Democrats failed counter with new ideas of their own; they wrongly assumed that the old Democratic positions and visions would be enough. Clinton's 1992 campaign - indeed, the entire "New Democratic" message of the 1990s - was premised on the importance of taking back the initiative from the Republicans and offering Americans a new set of ideas and principles. Now, sadly, we're witnessing a smear campaign against Obama that employs some of the worst aspects of the old politics.

Right on.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

**INTERNET EXCLUSIVE Photo surfaces of smiling Clintons with Tony Rezko... MORE... Clinton injected the indicted developer's name this week in debate with Obama: 'I was fighting against those ideas when you were practicing law and representing your contributor, Rezco, in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago'...

0 Replies

Watched the Republican debate last night. There was a hell of a lot of difference in style between the Republicans and Democrats. The Republicans came off as profession, mature and concerned about America's problems. The Democrats showed themselves as bickering children throwing barbs at one another.

I think Bill and Hillary's attack campaign will put a Republican president in office come November. It's not only creating divisions within the Democrat Party but it's going to turn away independent voters who see more leadership in a McCain or Romney than a whiney Obama or a Hillary trying to hold an attack dog on a leash.

0 Replies

Latest UK Betting Odds

Hillary Clinton 1/1

John Mc Cain 3/1

Barack Obama 4/1

Mitt Romney 8/1

Rudolph Giuliani 12/1

Mike Bloomberg 20/1

Mike Huckabee 33/1

Ron Paul 100/1

0 Replies

If those stories of those dirty tactics by Hillary Clinton are true; she deserves to lose. Given the level of hatred some feel for the Clintons in general; before just accepting the stories at face value; I think checking it out more thoughly is a smart thing to do.

In any event; the polorazing effect the Clintons have on the general public is one reason I wish she didn't even begin to run for President but stayed where she is in the senate--quietly.

0 Replies

Some "fact checks" on the debates.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/

http://factcheck.org/

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Latest UK Betting Odds

Hillary Clinton 1/1

John Mc Cain 3/1

Barack Obama 4/1

Mitt Romney 8/1

Rudolph Giuliani 12/1

Mike Bloomberg 20/1

Mike Huckabee 33/1

Ron Paul 100/1

Considering the odds I'd put money on Romney..

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

spendius wrote:
Latest UK Betting Odds

Hillary Clinton 1/1

John Mc Cain 3/1

Barack Obama 4/1

Mitt Romney 8/1

Rudolph Giuliani 12/1

Mike Bloomberg 20/1

Mike Huckabee 33/1

Ron Paul 100/1

Considering the odds I'd put money on Romney..

God help us then.

0 Replies

Better odds on most at Intrade. Currently:

Hillary Clinton 1/1

John Mc Cain 5/1

Barack Obama 6/1

Mitt Romney 8/1

Rudolph Giuliani 20/1

Mike Bloomberg 40/1

Mike Huckabee 80/1

Ron Paul 100/1

Unknown 500/1

Revel: Please use the Fact Check links provided instead of giving the Clinton's a free pass.

0 Replies

When you look at fact check sites you will find that all canidates give half-truths and falsehoods whether by mistake or intentional.

0 Replies

Butrflynet wrote:

Not buying it, Rama. Nearly every post of yours is full of broadly painted insults of Americans and your disdain for us because we dare to work within our system of government even with all its flaws.

I'm sorry so many of us have let you down and dared to support candidates not on your most favored list. I'm sorry you don't have a vote in our flawed election system. It must be frustrating for you to not have a vote in the outcome as flawed as it may be. All you can do is offer your voice.

I appreciate your input. What I don't appreciate are the insults.

Get used to it from him.
He was banned from another board because of his constant cut and paste jobs, as well as his constant insults of other members.
He will never give his own opinion, just cut and paste.

0 Replies

Bill wrote-

Quote:

Better odds on most at Intrade. Currently:

The Intrade book is about 102.6 over round. That means that for every $100 paid out, whoever wins, has $102.6 in the book. Assuming the book is "balanced" which it will be if the market is large and Intrade are not having a gamble themselves.

That is pretty generous and much better than the William Hill book I posted.

A tickle on the Unknown looks best value to me.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Better odds on most at Intrade. Currently:

Hillary Clinton 1/1

John Mc Cain 5/1

Barack Obama 6/1

Mitt Romney 8/1

Rudolph Giuliani 20/1

Mike Bloomberg 40/1

Mike Huckabee 80/1

Ron Paul 100/1

Unknown 500/1

Revel: Please use the Fact Check links provided instead of giving the Clinton's a free pass.

I have done that; thanks.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Bill wrote-

Quote:
Better odds on most at Intrade. Currently:

The Intrade book is about 102.6 over round. That means that for every $100 paid out, whoever wins, has $102.6 in the book. Assuming the book is "balanced" which it will be if the market is large and Intrade are not having a gamble themselves.

That is pretty generous and much better than the William Hill book I posted.

A tickle on the Unknown looks best value to me.

Intrade isn't that kind of book. It makes it's dough on transaction fees which are more like the traditional 10 point vig plus tons of extra from day-trading fools. They couldn't care less if the total is 50% or 150%. When the event takes place; it will be perfectly balanced as one position will be worth 100 and the rest will be worth zero. The fact that the total tends to be near 100 is an indication to me that the gamblers are pretty astute.

0 Replies

As a group the gamblers are minus 2.6 astute.

All betting works on the same principle. They have put in $102.6 to get 100 out. That is a margin I have only ever seen matched in a small field at Royal Ascot. Otherwise the bookies, stockbrokers, supermarkets etc wouldn't be there to enjoy. At 102.6 the punters are driving a hard bargain for their fun. 120 is not uncommon here.

At 102.6 astute gamblers can make a living but not at 120. It does depend on the size of the market as the bookies overheads are constant. It's pretty competitive Bill. It's not money for jam.

What about this French whizz-kid eh? Is any bank safe. Is the criminal mind always one jump ahead. £3.65 billion makes Brinks Matt (was it?) look very small potatoes. Where is science leading us?

Is this Subprime thing really incompetence and inefficiency?

Are any of these matters raised when the public is grilling the candidates?

0 Replies

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/064875.php

Bill Clinton is explicitly playing the race card nowadays.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Do you think we should get on at even money Cyclo? What about holding off a bit. Mrs C might go 2 or 3 to 1. Maybe more.

Is evens a good price. That's what we want to know. Should we snap it up?

0 Replies

("Get used to it from him.
He was banned from another board because of his constant cut and paste jobs, as well as his constant insults of other members.
He will never give his own opinion, just cut and paste."
mysteryman
As a moderator in Kevins forum and a brave GI in iraq you are expected to show some intellectual onslught.
Kevin was forced to throw me out because of the moderator like you.
I throw a challenge here.
As a patriotic GI in Iraq and an acclaimed moderator in Kevin's forum dare to expose the real cause of the decision of Kevin.
Minse not some wishy washy words.
Be presize to substantiate your above mentioned shiboleths)

Rama fuchs
Köln
Germany

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/064875.php

Bill Clinton is explicitly playing the race card nowadays.

Cycloptichorn

It's in his (and Hil's) best interest to maneuvre Obama into a "minority candidate" role from here on out.

0 Replies

Hillery, Obama, Edwards and the Democrates

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know