Here is the general discussions for the artist Beatles, The, where you can share your thoughts and opinions about Beatles, The with others. If you would like to talk about an album or song in particular, then go to the album or song where you'll find a discussion.

Beatles, The - Discussion

2 reaction(s) | add reaction

Showing posts 1-2 of 2

Page 1 of 1

Discussion
0 @ 18-01-2008 01:15 maisy03
49 posts	not a big fan(at all)
0 @ 23-07-2008 03:13 LittleBrooks
41 posts	Are the Beatles as popular as God? Is Hillary Clinton as Popular as God or the Beatles? Hillary Clinton not only won more Votes than her rival Barack Obama, but after all the 2008 Presidential Primary Votes were Counted and Certified, she won more Votes than any other Presidential Primary candidate in American history. 17,822,145 Votes 48.1% - Hillary Clinton 17,535,458 Votes 47.4% - Barack Obama +286,687 Votes - Hillary Clinton from RealClearPolitics 1766.5 Pledged Delegates - Barack Obama 1639.5 Pledged Delegates - Hillary Clinton +127 Pledged Delegates - Barack Obama This is not the "real" Pledged Delegate count based on the Actual Certified Votes that were cast by the American People - this is the Pledged Delegate count after the democratic party changed the actual Votes ... based on research, exit polls, people who didn't Vote-but who may have wanted to Vote ... (This is a First in American History) 5 states Voted "early" in the 2008 Democratic Primary...only 2 States were penalized 1-8-2008 -New Hampshire, which Hillary Won, but Barack Obama was polling ahead of her.NO Penalty in this State. 1-15-2008 -Michagan. One Poll shows = 46% Hillary Clinton, 23% Barack Obama, 13% John Edwards (18% not choosing any of these three) The Poll also shows 56% Hillary Clinton, 30% "Uncommitted" with Obama capturing 42% of the Uncommitted Vote (16% chose niether Hillary or Uncommitted) THIS State Was Penalized. 1-19-2008 Nevada Caucus- this is the only Caucus State that Obama did not win the Vote, he did win three More Delegates than Hillary Clinton. NO Penalty in this State (Clinton: 51%, 11 Delegates and 5,355 Votes. Obama: 45%, 14 Delegates and 4,773 Votes) 1-26-2008 -South Carolina ... Obama Polled High, Obama won all of the Southern states. NO Penalty in this State 1-29-2008 -Florida ... Hillary Clinton Polled High. THIS State Was Penalized WHY Were the Two "Clinton States" Penalized and not the other three States?... Candidates were not allowed to run ads or campaign in the Penalized states ... "Uncommitted" (Obama) advertised in Michigan and Obama advertised in Florida. *Michigan is Voting on August 5th 2008 for Senator and Representative's In Congress, why not include a Presidential Primary re-vote? (and re-vote in Florida where Barack Obama "broke the rules" by advertising) MICHIGAN 1-15-2008 +90,141 Votes - Hillary Clinton 328,309 Votes - Hillary Clinton 55.2% - 34.5 Delegates awarded, 73 Delegates Earned by the Certified Vote 0 Votes - Barack Obama -29.5 Delegates awarded, Zero Delegates Earned by the Certified Vote 238,168 Votes - Michigan Uncommitted (40% and 55 Delegates Earned),which included Barck Obama,Bill Richardson,Joe Biden and John Edwards, all of these candidates chose to take their names off the ballot (Obama was polling at about 23%, Edwards at 13%) Obama chose not to do a re-vote. Instead of leaving the Vote's as Cast and awarding Delegates based on the Certified Vote, the Democratic Party gave delegates based on thier "Research" ... Hillary Clinton 46% Obama almost 46% * What If 2 Million people Voted in Michagan? (Instead of the 594,398 people who Voted, about 4 times as many as in the 2004 Bush/Kerry Primary) ... Hillary Clinton 1.1 million Votes (55.2%), Barack Obama 460,000 Votes (23%). Subtract the Estamated 460,000 Obama Votes and the 328,309 Certified Votes that Hillary did receive- add another 300,000 Votes to Hillary Clinton FLORIDA 1-29-2008 870,989 Votes - Hillary Clinton 49.8% - 52.5 Delegates awarded 576,214 Votes - Barack Obama 32.9% - 33.5 Delegates awarded +294,772 Votes - Hillary Clinton the other 17% went to the other 6 candidates - about 14% and 250,000 Votes went to John Edwards. **What if, instead of the Record 1.75 million that Voted in Florida, 4 million people Voted, using the same percentages that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama recieved, you could add another 400,000 to Hillary's Vote total ... Much Of the Media add in the 238,168 Uncommitted Votes to Barack Obama's Vote Total ... 138,000 is approxamately 23% of 594,398 Michagan Vote 100,000 is approxamately 42% of the 40% Uncommitted Vote REAL CLEAR POLITICS, and most of the Media, add the Estamated 110,224 Un-Counted and Un-Certified Votes to Barack Obama's Official Certified Vote Count ... Even though RCP report's that the number is really only about 60,000. (Iowa, Nevada, Washington & Maine Have Not Released Popular Vote Totals. RealClearPolitics has estimated the popular vote totals for Senator Obama and Clinton in these four states. RCP uses the WA Caucus results from February 9 in this estimate because the Caucuses on February 9 were the "official" contest recognized by the DNC to determine delegates to the Democratic convention. The estimate from these four Caucus states where there are not official popular vote numbers increases Senator Obama's popular vote margin by 110,224. This number would be about 50,000 less if the Washington primary results from February 19th were used instead of the Washington Caucus results.) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WASHINGTON STATE PRIMARY VOTE (2-19-2008) +38,368 Barack Obama +5.55 % 354,112 - Barack Obama - 51.22% - 52 Delegates 315,744 - Hillary Clinton - 45.67% - 26 Delegates 41.88% Voter Turnout WASHINGTON STATE CERTIFIED CAUCUS (2-9-2008) Delegates Given Based on This Vote +37% and 26 Delegates - Barack Obama 21,269 Votes - Barack Obama -68% - 52 Delegates 9,992 Votes - Hillary Clinton - 31% - 26 Delegates NEW HAMPSHIRE STATE PRIMARY (1-8-2008) +7,589 Votes 2.6% Hillary Clinton 112,404 Votes - Hillary Clinton 39.4% - 9 Delegates 104,815 Votes - Barack Obama 36.8% - 9 Delegates ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- New Hampshire poll roundup. Obama gaining; vote on who you think will win the primary.Posted by plain dealer CLEVELAND OHIO January 07, 2008 14:29PMReuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama grabbed a wide lead over rival Sen. Hillary Clinton in polls taken just ahead of Tuesday's New Hampshire primary, with Sen. John Just a day before the critical New Hampshire primary, according to Market Watch.com Obama was pulling in 39% of the vote in a new Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll, versus Sen. Hillary Clinton's 29%. Former Sen. John Edwards finished third with 19% of the vote. In a separate USA Today/Gallup poll, Obama took a 13 percentage-point advantage over Clinton. Meanwhile, the Reuters poll shows Arizona Sen. McCain with a five-point lead over ex-Massachusetts Gov. Romney, leading the former governor 34% to 29%. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who won the Iowa Republican caucus, dropped back to third place in the poll, at 10%. He was one percentage point ahead of former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. McCain is also leading Romney by 4% in the USA Today poll CBS News poll A CBS News poll gave Sen. Barack Obama a 7-point lead over Sen. Hillary Clinton as they head into Tuesday's New Hampshire primary. A growing number of voters there say Obama has the best chance of winning the White House, according to the CBS poll, released Sunday. Thirty-five percent of likely Democratic primary voters are backing Obama, while 28 percent said they support Clinton and 19 percent said they'll vote for former Senator John Edwards, according to data released by CBS. Nine percent said they remain undecided. In a November CBS poll, Clinton led Obama 39 percent to 19 percent. The poll was conducted Saturday and Sunday, after Obama's victory over Clinton and Edwards in the Iowa caucuses. USA Today/Gallup poll The CBS results didn't include the Republican presidential candidates. A separate USA Today/Gallup poll published Monday gave Obama a 13 percentage-point lead over Clinton. Among Republicans, Arizona Senator John McCain led former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney 34 percent to 30 percent in the USA Today/Gallup poll. The CBS poll numbers suggest that Obama's win in Iowa has changed perceptions of whether he can be elected president. The number of voters who say Obama, a senator from Illinois, has the best chance of winning the general election has almost quadrupled since November to 42 percent. Clinton, of New York, who was named in November most likely to win by 72 percent, now comes in second with 41 percent, according to the survey. The share of voters who believe Obama is prepared to be president has also climbed, by 14 percentage points, to 51 percent, the poll says. Obama also leads Clinton 41 percent to 24 percent among independent voters who the survey said would make up more than one-third of tomorrow's Democratic primary voters. The CBS poll surveyed 323 likely Democratic primary voters and has a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points. CNN and WMUR poll by the University of New Hampshire: Three days before the New Hampshire primary , a telephone poll for CNN/WMUR-TV by the University of New Hampshire and a Research 2000 poll for the Concord Monitor had Obama and Clinton in a virtual dead heat, while McCain appeared to be edging ahead of Mitt Romney. The CNN/WMUR poll had Iowa caucus winner Obama and Clinton backed by 33 percent of Democratic primary voters. Concord Monitor poll by Research 2000 The Research 2000 poll had 34 percent of likely Democratic primary voters opting for Obama, and 33 percent favoring Clinton. Edwards netted 20 percent in the CNN/WMUR poll, while the Concord Monitor poll had Edwards garnering 23 percent of likely Democratic voters. On the GOP side, McCain was backed by 35 percent of likely Republican voters, while Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, was backed by 29 percent in the Concord Monitor survey, with Iowa caucus winner Mike Huckabee selected by 13 percent, and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani at 8 percent. The CNN/WMUR survey offered similar results, with 33 percent backing McCain, of Arizona, and 27 percent supporting Romney. Huckabee was backed by 11 percent, with the former Arkansas governor trailing Giuliani, who garnered 14 percent. The CNN/WMUR-TV poll was conducted Friday night and Saturday afternoon. Both surveys of 313 likely Republican primary voters and 359 likely Democratic voters had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 5 percentage points And you can vote, too The American Research Group Inc., is encouraging folks to pick who they think will win the New Hampshire primary by boting in the "Primary Ultimate Ballot Challenge." To cast your ballot before the 7 p.m. Tuesday deadline, go to: and pick who you think will be the winner of the NH primary. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- January 14, 2008 (USA TODAY) Romney, Clinton lead Michigan poll By Chris Christoff and Ben Schmitt, Detroit Free Press DETROIT - Voters planning to participate in Tuesday's Michigan presidential primary favor Mitt Romney and Hillary Rodham Clinton, according to a poll released Saturday night. Republican voters whose greatest concern is the economy could give Romney, the former Massachusetts governor and Bloomfield Hills, Mich. native, his first major state victory. MICHIGAN POLL: Clinton elicits strong feelings In the Detroit Free Press-Local 4 Michigan Poll, Romney leads Sen. John McCain 27%-22% with former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee in third place at 16%. Romney, whose father George was Michigan's governor in the 1960s, needs a win here after second-place finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire. "I think Republicans will pick a Republican nominee and that's me," Romney said Saturday in an interview with the Free Press. Romney also said while many Michiganders don't remember his father, "my dad's reputation has lasted longer than I can easily understand." Romney's lead could evaporate, depending on how shaky, undecided and uncommitted voters move over the next two days, the poll indicated. Some 38% who had a favorite said they might change their mind by Tuesday. Another 22% hadn't picked a candidate. Romney's core of support is in metro Detroit, where he has a 2-1 advantage. Of the 40% who named the economy as their top concern, Romney had a 42%-25% advantage over McCain. But McCain wins by about the same margin over Romney among the 24% of Republican voters whose top issue is the Iraq war. On the Democratic ballot, only New York senator Clinton's name appears among three major contenders. Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, took their names off because Michigan violated national party rules by moving its primary before Feb. 5. It's not known how many Democrats unhappy with their choice will choose the Republican ballot. Obama and Edwards supporters are urging a vote for "uncommitted." Clinton easily beats "uncommitted," 56% to 30%. If the other major contenders were on the ballot, Clinton would still win with 46% of the vote. Obama would receive 23% and Edwards would get 13%, the poll indicated. The poll also shows 42% of the current uncommitted vote going to Obama. The poll also shows that relatively few Democratic voters will vote in the Republican primary, a factor that may be difficult to gauge. Independents and Democrats who cross over to the GOP could tip the election to McCain if they show up in substantial numbers. Ann Selzer, who conducted the poll, said the Michigan primary, with Democrats not campaigning in the state and only one of three major candidates on the ballot, is "even quirkier than Iowa." Her poll two days before the Iowa caucus was the only one to successfully project Obama's big victory over Clinton. Independent voters in the Michigan Poll favored McCain over Romney by 5 percentage points. But Romney holds an 11-point edge among self-identified Republicans. The telephone survey of 600 people who said they will definitely vote has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points. It was conducted Wednesday through Friday. McCain, the Arizona senator who won last week's New Hampshire primary, defeated George W. Bush in Michigan's 2000 presidential primary on the strength of independent voters and some Democrats. GOP voters believe McCain is more electable, unifying and able to bring about change, the poll showed. But respondents like Romney more for his leadership style, understanding of voters and ability to convey hope for the future. Huckabee is a favorite among GOP voters motivated by faith. Thirty-eight percent said it matters if the next president is a devout Christian, the highest number among attributes. Among that 38%, Huckabee leads Romney by a small margin. Voters who identify themselves as evangelical comprise 29% of the Republican primary vote and they favor Huckabee almost 2-1 over Romney. For the Democrats, the question remains whether Clinton can claim a decisive victory if her margin in the poll holds up. The other question is whether the Democratic primary demonstrates much of anything, since none of the candidates, including Clinton, have campaigned here. Obama and Edwards, along with New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, who both have dropped out of the race, removed their names from Michigan's ballot in October after Michigan moved its primary to Jan. 15. Clinton, along with Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich, former congressman Mike Gravel of Alaska and Connecticut Sen. Christopher Dodd kept their names on the ballot, but only Kucinich is campaigning in Michigan. Dodd dropped out of the race after the Iowa caucuses. University of New Hampshire associate political science professor Dante Scala said any showing of less than 40% would be viewed as an embarrassment for Clinton. Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., echoed that assessment. "I'd like her to do as well or better than she did in New Hampshire," where Clinton received 39% of the vote, Stabenow said Saturday at a Clinton rally. Gov. Jennifer Granholm said Saturday that any suggestions that Clinton has to get 60% or risk looking like a loser are ridiculous. "She doesn't have that much in any other state," Granholm said. "And she's not uncommitted to Michigan as apparently the other candidates are." When asked to choose one or two issues that helped decide how to vote, the economy was the most pressing issue (48%) for Democratic voters naming a candidate. The war in Iraq received 39% and health care got 35%. Contributing: Kathleen Gray and Tina Lam, Detroit Free Press. The Detroit Free Press and USA TODAY are owned by Gannett. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michigan Voters Who Support Obama, Edwards Urged to Choose 'Uncommitted' in PrimaryDate: Monday, January 14, 2008 By: Michael H. Cottman, BlackAmericaWeb.com Only one high-profile presidential candidate will appear on the ballot in the Michigan primary on Tuesday: Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York. What's at stake? Not much. Zero delegates. "Clinton gets nothing out of this process," one Democratic strategist told BlackAmericaWeb.com. "The Michigan primary for Democrats is completely irrelevant." Five Democratic candidates withdrew from Michigan's presidential primary, leaving what amounts to an easy primary for Clinton. Barack Obama and John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich and former candidate Joe Biden filed paperwork to withdraw their names from the ballot. A newly formed group called Detroiters for Uncommitted Voters has started a phone and door-to-door campaign to get people backing the missing candidates to vote "uncommitted." The Obama campaign is also hoping its supporters will vote "uncommitted" in the Michigan primary, although an Obama campaign aide told BlackAmericaWeb.com they are not campaigning in Michigan and have nothing to do with the vote "uncommitted" movement. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ WASHINGTON POST January 9, 2008 Voters Face Confusion in Michigan Dem RaceUpdated 6:37 p.m. By Peter Slevin CHICAGO -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is the only top-tier Democrat on the Jan. 15 Michigan primary ballot, but followers of her chief rivals are hoping to wound her all the same. A fresh poll suggests that running nearly unopposed will not mean winning nearly 100 percent of the vote. The campaigns of Sen. Barack Obama and former senator John Edwards are urging their supporters to cast ballots for "uncommitted," according to state Democratic party chairman Mark Brewer. The Obama campaign says there may be "grass-roots efforts," but that the Chicago-based campaign is not involved. In an effort to signal that Clinton cannot stroll away with the state's delegates, even in a largely uncontested race, Michigan Rep. John Conyers and his wife, Detroit city council member Monica Conyers, taped a radio advertisement Wednesday afternoon. In it, they called on Obama backers not to surrender their vote. They say on the radio spot that they intend to vote "uncommitted" and give Obama a chance to compete for those delegates in Denver. An "uncommitted" vote would take the place of a write-in, which is not permitted. "People are already frustrated here in Detroit because they can't cast a ballot for Obama. Many on their absentee ballots many have tried to write in Obama, but they have spoiled the ballots," said Sam Riddle, Monica Conyers's chief of staff. "We know we've got to educate the voters in a hurry." Following Michigan law, local clerks are allowing voters a chance to redo their ballots. The reason for the confusion is a fight between Michigan's leading Democrats, including Sen. Carl Levin and Gov. Jennifer Granholm, and the Democratic National Committee. Frustrated that Iowa and New Hampshire were getting so much attention, Michigan's political elites in both parties changed their Feb. 9 caucus to a primary and bumped it to Jan. 15. The Republican National Committee did not object, meaning the GOP results will stand. But the DNC declared that no delegates chosen that day would be seated at this summer's convention -- the same sanction imposed on Florida. Neither side budged. During the stand-off, Clinton kept her name on the Michigan ballot. Obama and Edwards did not. Michigan voters will see Clinton on a list with three candidates who have been afterthoughts this season: Rep. Dennis Kucinich (OH), former Alaska Gov. Mike Gravel and Sen. Christopher Dodd (CT), who has dropped out. Mo Elleithee, a Clinton spokesman, said the New York senator will not be campaigning in Michigan. "We signed a pledge saying we wouldn't campaign there," Eleithee said, "and we're honoring that pledge." A Michigan poll of 300 likely Democratic voters taken Monday and Tuesday, before Clinton's narrow win over Obama in New Hampshire, suggested that 47 percent would support Clinton and 28 percent would vote "uncommitted." Another 10 percent volunteered "other" and 10 percent said they were undecided, according to the poll by Rossman Group/MIRS/Denno-Noor. Michigan Democrats are trying to spread the word that voters should vote, whether or not they choose a candidate on the ballot. Brewer said he and party spokesman Jason Moon have done nearly 100 media interviews, including one on YouTube and many on local radio. The party is also sending emails to registered voters. If "uncommitted" receives at least 15 percent in a congressional district or statewide, Brewer said, delegates will be sent to Denver where any candidate -- including Clinton -- can compete for them. Despite the brouhaha and the DNC's vow not to seat delegates chosen next week, Brewer feels confident. Historical precedent and the high stakes in the November election convince him that primary votes in Michigan and Florida will count. "I think we'll get seated. I'm not concerned about that penalty at all," Brewer said. "Politically, the Democratic nominee needs to win Michigan and Florida, and they are not going to start the general election campaign by antagonizing the parties in those two states." This is the script of the John and Monica Conyers radio ad, which will be broadcast on Detroit-area stations. Monica Conyers is president pro-tem of the Detroit City Council. MALE: THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IS CONFUSING. I WANT TO VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA BUT OBAMA'S NAME IS NOT ON THE BALLOT. FEMALE: THERE IS NO ONE ON THAT BALLOT I WANT TO BE PRESIDENT. MALE: WELL, THESE FOLKS CAN HELP US. EXCUSE ME, CONGRESSMAN CONYERS AND COUNCILWOMAN CONYERS, WE NEED YOUR HELP. FEMALE: HOW CAN WE VOTE FOR OBAMA ON TUESDAY? Rep. Conyers: YOU CAN'T. YOU CANNOT EVEN WRITE IN OBAMA'S NAME. IF YOU DO YOUR VOTE WILL NOT COUNT BECAUSE OBAMA'S CAMPAIGN CHOSE NOT TO PLACE HIS NAME ON THE MICHIGAN BALLOT SO AS NOT TO VIOLATE NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY RULES. BUT YOU CAN VOTE UNCOMMITTED Councilwoman Conyers: IF AT LEAST 15% OF THE PEOPLE VOTE UNCOMMITTED, THE STATE DEMOCRATIC PARTY MUST SEND THAT PERCENTAGE OF DELEGATES TO THE NATIONAL CONVENTION UNCOMMITTED. Rep. Conyers: MY WIFE AND I ARE VOTING UNCOMMITTED. WE WILL WORK WITH THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY TO MAKE SURE THAT UNCOMMITTED DELEGATES GO TO THAT CONVENTION TRULY UNCOMMITTED SO THAT OBAMA CAN COMPETE FOR THEIR VOTE. MALE: THANK YOU CONGRESSMAN CONYERS AND COUNCILWOMAN CONYERS. I WILL JOIN YOU AND VOTE UNCOMMITTED ON TUESDAY. FEMALE: ME TOO - AT LEAST MY VOTE WON'T BE WASTED Councilwoman Conyers: THIS TRUTH IN POLITICS MESSAGE WAS PAID FOR BY FRIENDS OF MONICA CONYERS Posted at 5:45 PM ET on Jan 9, 2008 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OBAMA LAYWER QUESTIONS WISDOM OF MICHIGAN REVOTE By Shailagh Murray WASHINGTON POST - 3-19-2008 FAYETTEVILLE, N.C. -- Sen. Barack Obama's campaign has raised questions about a possible June 3 revote in Michigan, although the Democratic National Committee seems fine with the idea. "We have recently been asked whether the legislation as proposed by Michigan would fit within the framework of the National Party's Delegate Selection Rules," DNC officials said in a statement. "Our review of this legislation indicates that it would, in fact, fit within the framework of the Rules." But Obama lawyer Robert F. Bauer raised several potential problems in a campaign memo released this morning, noting that the primary would be "unprecedented in conception and proposed structure," as no other states has ever "re-run an election in circumstances like these." Like Florida, Michigan violated Democratic Party rules by moving up its primary date to the early weeks of the nominating process. The candidates declined to campaign in both states, and in Michigan, Obama went even further by removing his name from the ballot. Searching for ways to close the delegate and popular-vote gap with Obama, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has actively sought revotes in both Michigan and Florida, although Sunshine State Democrats already have concluded that a second primary is unworkable. The Obama campaign has long held the position that it would abide by whatever party leaders decide -- although it would prefer a solution that seats Michigan and Florida delegates at the Democratic National Convention without requiring voters to return to the polls. Michigan state leaders are now awaiting Obama's okay. Clinton is campaigning in Michigan today, seeking to pressure her rival to make a move. But Bauer raised a series of legal concerns, including: Voter Disqualification: Voters who participated in the Republican primary in January could not vote in the June election under the current proposal, including Democrats and independents. Voter Protections: The new primary would be subject to pre-clearance under the federal Voting Rights Act, and Bauer noted the Justice Department may not be able to conduct a timely review. He also questioned whether military ballots could be distributed and collected in time. Private Financing: Michigan's plan to raise private funding to pay for the new primary may or may not be legal under federal election law, Bauer argued, raising possible liability issues for both candidates. The Clinton campaign refuted each of Bauer's points in its own lengthy memo, asserting, "We must either honor the original vote or hold a state-run primary that doesn't leave the taxpayers footing the bill." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CLINTON CAMP: OBAMA'S FLORIDA ADS BUST PLEDGE By Jeremy Wallace - HERALD TRIBUNE POLITICAL WRITER Published Wednesday, Jan. 23, 2008 at 4:30 a.m. Hillary Clinton's campaign said Tuesday it will not break a pledge to campaign in Florida, even as Clinton is accusing Barack Obama of doing just that. "I intend to abide by the pledge and follow the pledge, and that's what we are, you know, planning to do," Clinton told reporters on Tuesday. Her comments come two days after Obama's campaign launched national television advertisements on CNN and MSNBC that are shown in Florida -- a "blatant" violation of a pledge signed by all of the top Democratic candidates to not campaign in the state, Clinton's campaign says. Clinton's supporters in Florida are putting new pressure on her to scrap the pledge, arguing Obama's ads make it almost irrelevant. "It's time to take the gloves off," said Ana Cruz, a Democratic activist from Tampa who is helping lead Clinton's Florida campaign unofficially. Cruz said it is important for Clinton to get back to Florida and rally support to assure she wins the state on Tuesday. But Obama's campaign spokesman Bill Burton disputes the pledge was broken. He said the campaign asked CNN and MSNBC to pull Florida from the ad buy, but the networks said they could not. In August, major Democratic candidates signed a pledge to not campaign in Florida as part of the state's punishment for moving up its primary election to Jan. 29 -- a week before national rules allowed. The Democratic National Committee stripped the state of its delegates. Then Democrats in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina followed by pushing the pledge that bans the candidates from campaigning in the state, including running television commercials or hosting rallies. The only exception in the ban is for fundraising. Experts are surprised the pledge has held this long. Because three of the early states have already voted, Daniel A. Smith, a University of Florida political scientist, said he expected the campaigns to be heading to Florida by now. "If they break the pledge now, who is it going to offend?" Smith said. "I don't see how it would offend anyone in South Carolina enough to tip the presidential election." Yet South Carolina has become the gatekeeper for the pledge. Burton said Obama's campaign consulted with Carol Fowler, chairwoman of the South Carolina Democratic Party, before the ad ran, and she "told us unequivocally she did not consider this to be in violation of pledge made to the early states," Burton said. At this point, said Smith, neither Obama nor Clinton have incentive to campaign in Florida. Because he continues to trail Clinton in the polls here, Obama should focus instead on Feb. 5, when 22 states hold primary elections, Smith said. Clinton would not benefit either, Smith said. Breaking the pledge would be seen as a sign that her campaign sees support waning in the state. The only candidate that would benefit at this point would be John Edwards, who "has nothing to lose" by breaking the pledge. If he set up a rally in Florida, he could give himself a shot at winning over the state's Democrats who are desperate to see a real candidate. "I don't see how it would hurt him in the slightest," Smith said. jeremy.wallace@ heraldtribune.com. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CLINTON CRIES FOUL ON OBAMA CABLE ADS By: Mike Allen - Politico January 21, 2008 06:39 PM EST The Clinton campaign complained Monday that a national ad buy by Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) violates the Democratic candidates' pledge not to campaign in Florida. "They made the strategic decision to affirmatively make a buy that includes Florida," Clinton spokesman Mo Elleithee said on a conference call the campaign held to denounce what the Clinton camp called "Senator Obama's Violation of the Early State Pledge." Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and the party's other candidates agreed not to campaign in Florida ahead of its primary next week because the Democratic National Committee is punishing the state party for holding its primary before Feb. 5. Having called out the Obama campaign over its advertising, the Clinton campaign says it may do the same thing. "We have honored the pledge in every way possible," Elleithee said. "Now ... we're going to review all the options that are available to us moving forward." Clinton will travel to raise Florida to raise money, which may be allowed due to a loophole in the agreement not to campaign there. Obama's ad began airing Monday on CNN and MSNBC. The positive ad, called "Inspiring," finishes with Obama saying: "There is not a liberal America and a conservative America - there is the United States of America." Former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack (D), a key Clinton backer, said on the call: "These are sophisticated buyers that they have. They know full well that they were going to saturate the Florida market." Clinton's campaign acknowledged that it's not possible to buy 49-state coverage - that the only alternative would be the much more complex process of buying state by state and market by market. Asking a question on the call, NBC News Political Director Chuck Todd pointed out the complexity of the matter by noting that buying advertising in Mobile, Ala., gives a campaign substantial reach into the Florida Panhandle. Elleithee responded that Clinton has not yet bought ads in Alabama, which has a Feb. 5 primary, but said the campaign reserves the right to do so. Bill Burton, the Obama for America press secretary, called the attack "misguided." "Both national cable networks told us it would be impossible for us to run advertising nationally that excluded only Florida," Burton said. "For that reason we consulted with the South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Carol Fowler who told us unequivocally she did not consider this to be in violation of [the] pledge made to the early states." The issue marked an escalation in the increasingly fierce and public wrangling between the campaigns. Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said on a later conference call that the Clinton campaign "has been looking" for an excuse to "evade" the pledge." "This has kind of been a pattern," Plouffe said. "They've been willing to play outside the lines." Plouffe also said: "We inquired about the ability, given our pledge in Florida, to not run spots down there. Both cable systems said that wasn't possible." Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) said on the call that the Clinton complaint was "both silly and a bit of an exaggeration" given that both candidates will appear on a two-hour debate on CNN, available to cable viewers in Florida. Plouffe accused the Clinton campaign of "a win-at-all-cost mentality." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SPECTER DEMANDS SANITY CHECK ON OBAMA'S HYPOCRISY Peter J. Wirs - Townhall.com Wednesday, May 28, 2008 The Democrats begrudge the 2000 Bush-Gore Florida recount. They blithely complain when Republicans seek valid measures preventing voter fraud. Why then, are the Democrats suddenly blind, deaf, and dumb when Senator Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee openly avow to disenfranchise voters 1,749,920 in Florida and 594,398 in Michigan? Not only are Obama and the DNC perpetrating a "hi-tech" lynching, but it is blatantly unconstitutional and may even be criminal. The Democrats allege Florida and Michigan violated the DNC Rule 11.A prohibiting a caucus or primary before Iowa, Nevada and New Hampshire. DNC Rule 20.C.1 specifies the punitive measures that both states lose 50% of their vote: Florida 210 delegates, Michigan 156 delegates. The DNC Rules Committee will be meeting this coming Saturday, May 31 to hear Obama's utterly bizarre plan allowing only the superdelegates (ironically the votes he desperately needs to capture the nomination) to be seated, while delegates elected by popular suffrage are repudiated by being half-counted, oddly reminiscent of a colonial enumeration of freed "Black Men and Indians." By why is there even a debate? Constitutional law is unequivocal. Every vote cast must be counted. This constitutional principle, pronounced by the United States Supreme Court since Ex parte Yarborough (1884) and reiterated as recently as Gray v. Sanders (1963), is simply beyond reproach. This rock-bottom constitutional demand applies to primaries as well as general elections. United States v. Classic (1941). Deliberately refusing to count votes cast may, under certain fact scenarios, constitute a Federal crime, United States v. Classic, citing now Section 241 of the Federal Crimes Code. Reiterating black letter law stated in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (1966), the high court reasserted in Bush v. Gore (2000) that "once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another." Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), now the Senate Judiciary's ranking minority member, asserted to us in an exclusive interview, that although as a learned attorney he remains obliged to see "how it plays out," that "it may well be worthwhile" to hold Congressional hearings on the Democrats' refusal to seat Florida and Michigan at the Democratic National Convention. "It's certainly something I want to consider," said Specter, ruefully hinting things might be different if he was still the Judiciary Chairman. "The essence of democracy is the right to vote," asserted Specter, the Democrat's contemplation of not seating Florida and Michigan may constitute a fundamental violation of democratic principles. He believes that the Congress must act "very promptly." Specter emphasized while Republicans are striking bold initiatives such as GOP onDemand(tm) to promote full voter inclusiveness, the Democrats' direction in the opposite direction is more than paradoxical, it is "hypocrisy." "They are preaching one thing and practicing another" angrily complained the former prosecutor, who long fought the legendary Philadelphia Democratic machine's ghost voting and other voter frauds. While observing there is "great frustration and anger" among his Senate colleagues, Specter's own disbelief over Obama's disingenuous media manipulations was self-evident as we heard him literally swearing as he was hanging up the phone. I have observed Specter for 33 years. His strenuous objections are not political positioning for TV cameras, but are at heart of his -- and any civic minded citizen's -- core beliefs of what is America. To anyone who has served his country, it is incongruous to even think such an alien idea. Specter reminds Obama that it is fully within the Congress' prerogative to investigate the Democrats' machinations; the presumption that political parties as private entities are immune from oversight or court intervention has long been judicially discredited. Specter also suggested that Florida's Governor Charlie Crist or Attorney General Bill McCollum and Michigan's Attorney General Michael Cox or Secretary of State Terri Land Lynn contemplate what would be required to be prepared on June 2 to go into Federal court paren patriae to see emergency injunctive relief under "Section 1983," the legal parlance for the Civil Rights "Anti-Ku Klux Klan" Act of 1871, if the DNC May 31 hearings fail to adhere to the fundamental one-man, one-vote constitutional rule. And while the GOP concedes Florida's early calendaring of the Presidential primary caused consternation, at least the "Republicans counted Florida, in stark contrast to the Democrats who didn't count Florida," according to RNC's Alex Conant. Highly reliable sources inform me that Senator John McCain is absolute in insisting on fully seating both Florida and Michigan delegations without any penalties, and as one source put it "what the nominee wants, he likely gets." Michigan State Republican Chairman Saul Anuzi, one of the most conscientious and public-spirited leaders in either party, reiterated the bipartisan efforts throughout Michigan to seat fellow Wolverines at the Democratic convention, as it is beyond reproach that "every vote deserves to be counted." Anuzi, remains as baffled as everyone as to the Obama's "apologists" spin-doctoring Michigan's ostracization, warning voter anger from Obama's boycott of Michigan is not "going away" by a "perfunctory photo-op." Florida' National Republican Committeeman Paul Senft pointed to the hypocrisy of Obama "using Florida as an ATM" while agreeing in writing, to refuse to "talk to voters." Senft's courtly manner couldn't disguise his own frustration of the irony of liberals resurrecting the "ghosts of 2000" in the recent HBO movie while openly disenfranchising the very same Floridian voters. Several prominent civil rights attorneys, obviously speaking off the record being mindful they're outsiders, nonetheless told us that the without question, Democrats must fully seat the Florida and Michigan delegations. (Their response was as if we were asking a "no-brainer" akin to whether kids be eating their vegetables). The universal consensus that the possibility of embroiling the Democratic presidential nominee in criminal proceedings in the midst of a campaign unquestionably should not be a risk worth entertaining. They also routinely disbelieve Obama's contention Florida and Michigan must be punished for violating party rules, which although viscerally appealing, is utterly fallacious as a matter of law. If Obama was purportedly "upset" at Florida and Michigan primary dates, he was required by law to act before the primary vote, not afterwards. It is fundamental law that Equity hears not the Sloth coming into court. Democratic response to Specter is deafening by their utterly stolid silence. DNC press secretary Stacy Paxton did not respond to our phone calls to her office and cell. Liberal entities such as the Center for American Progress failed to respond. MoveOn (which we, the Trustees of the Republican Leadership Trust are the newly established GOP counterpart) avoids direct press contact by hiding behind a digital wall that requires the Fourth Estate to be vetted through an Orwellian email screening process. Obama's response is his website promoting a "National Voter Protection Center" urging us that "in this year's election we have a historic opportunity to bring more people than ever back to the political process and an essential part of that is ensuring every vote counts." Obama reputes that he was a prominent civil rights attorney, litigating hundreds of voting rights cases. In his September 28, 2007 Howard University speech, Obama implores: "The [students] who left their homes to march in the streets of Birmingham and Montgomery; the mothers who walked instead of taking the bus after a long day of doing somebody else's laundry -- they didn't brave fire hoses and Billy clubs so that their grandchildren and their great-grandchildren would still wonder at the beginning of the 21st century whether their vote would be counted . . ." Come again? Even the ACLU, the "stalwart" Constitutional guardian, prolifically "promising" to get back, failed to produce a single person to justify Obama. And this is despite pleading, as I was once, an ACLU board member for several years, albeit a lone conservative Republican in a sea of liberal, Democratic activists. If this is so black and white, so basic Constitutional jurisprudence, why isn't the press demanding someone's head on a platter? Why are the liberal activists, who defend Mumia Adu-Jamal without blinking an eye, suddenly blind as two million Americans lose their right to vote? Is the Pelosi-Reid Political Correct Doublespeak so powerful as to usurp the very essence of our democracy? No matter where one hails on the political spectrum, as my fellow co-Trustee, Fred Hess, who also serves as an advisor to the son of the legendary Frank Rizzo, observed "there is never an excuse, under any circumstances, to defy the right to vote." Go to www.GOPonDemand.com right now to learn how you can help stop the Obama/ Democrat/ MoveOn doublespeak and require the Democrats obey the 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection under law. In America, absolutely no one deserves his ballot ripped up by the liberal Democrats. The students and mothers who marched in the streets of Birmingham deserve better, Mr. Obama, and it isn't you. -------------------------------- CONSERVATIVE/ACLU ARGUMENTS BEG THE QUESTION ON FLORIDA/MICHIGAN PRIMARIES By Peter J. Wirs June 2, 2008 - Townhall.com This past Saturday, the Democratic National Committee Rules Committee voted, as many anticipated, on seating the Florida and Michigan Democratic delegates with only half of vote. Moreover, 59 Michigan delegates were awarded to Barak Obama, notwithstanding he was not on the January 15 Michigan primary ballot. As Clinton adviser and Rules committee member Harold Ickes asserted, the outcome for Michigan was a hijacking of voters' intent because it assigned delegates to Mr. Obama even though he did not win them. As we reported last week, Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), the former chairman and now ranking minority member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, is seriously evaluating whether he should call for Congressional hearings. We know that the Senator's political brain trust was working around the clock to analyze a response to the DNC decision. Although having no direct confirmation, we would expect Florida Governor Charles Crist and Michigan Attorney General Michael Cox, among others, were waiting for the Democrats to cast their decision into stone before considering whether they should seek judicial intervention as per Specter's brainstorming. Specter, probably one of the most legally astute of GOP Senators, contends the DNC is violating one of the most fundamental of all constitutional rules, that once a vote is cast it must be counted. This constitutional principle, pronounced by the United States Supreme Court since Ex parte Yarborough (1884) and reiterated as recently as Gray v. Sanders (1963), is simply beyond reproach. This rock-bottom constitutional demand applies to primaries as well as general elections. United States v. Classic (1941). Reiterating black letter law stated in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (1966), the high court reasserted in Bush v. Gore (2000) that "once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another." Conservatives responded to our May 27 column that neither the Senate nor the courts have any business regarding the affairs of a political party on the First Amendment grounds of freedom of association. Their contention was viscerally shared by the ACLU, who graciously responded to us, but after our deadline. This Conservative/ACLU argument relies on major Supreme Court case, primarily Democratic Party of Wisconsin v. LaFollette (1981) which holds that First Amendment freedom to gather in association for purpose of advancing shared belief is protected by Fourteenth Amendment from infringement by any state, and moreover, that freedom to associate for common advancement of political beliefs necessarily presupposes freedom to identify people who comprise the association, and to limit the association to those people only. The High Court went on to hold that a political party's choice among various ways of determining makeup of a state's delegation to party's national convention is constitutionally protected, thus prohibiting the state or courts from substituting its own judgment for that of the party. But the joint conservative-ACLU logic falls under the petitio principii rule as their assertion is merely a strawman that begs the question, because obviously no one is disputing the Democrats have every right to set what its rules are and how its delegates are to be selected. But once the Democrats evoke the state's machinery in order to hold a public primary, a bright line is crossed. As the Supreme Court in Gray v. Saunders observed state regulated party primaries "show that the State . . . collaborates in the conduct of the primary, and puts its power behind the rules of the party. It adopts the primary as a part of the public election machinery. The exclusions of voters made by the party by the primary rules become exclusions enforced by the State." Grey v. Saunders went on to assert that "state regulation of this preliminary phase of the election process makes it state action." The issue isn't that the DNC is asserting some "for members only" admission to a clubhouse. The issue is that the Great States of Florida and Michigan held primaries, which although concerning one or another of our two major political parties, is part of the electoral process. These primaries weren't private affairs. They weren't even party affairs. They were official state actions. The DNC was acting by virtue of the power delegated to it by the legislatures of both Florida and Michigan. The taxpayers of both Florida and Michigan, not the DNC, paid for the primaries. If the DNC wants to exclude voters, or count only half of the votes cast, or award Obama delegates he did not win, then they should hold private affairs (like that San Francisco cocktail reception where Obama asserts most of us are bitter by virtue of believing in God). Let them sell tickets and pay for the events themselves. Keep in mind that our major political parties are not the same as a local cub scout troop. The rule initially expressed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Bentman v. Seventh Ward Democratic Executive Committee (1966) which Senator Specter properly observed, is now the law of the land in both Federal and state courts, is that "the relationship between political parties, the government and the public has become such that, in many areas, the public interest is not only directly affected by political parties but such parties actually perform public functions imposed upon them by law. Insofar as a political party performs statutorily-imposed public functions and to the extent that its actions constitute state action, the internal organization of such political party is a matter of such concern to the public as to make it subject to constitutional limitations and judicial restraint. When the internal organization of a political party directly affects its performance of such public function then not only may the judiciary intervene but it must intervene." I don't know about my fellow conservatives, but when I go to the polls to vote, I don't want someone to cancel or dilute my vote. I expect my vote to be count as one vote, nothing more, nothing less. Peter J. Wirs is currently the Chairman & Co-Trustee of the Republican Leadership Trust as well as the incoming President of the National Conference of Public Officials.

BROWSE:
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Other

TOP ARTISTS:
Rihanna, Taylor Swift, Coldplay, Jason Mraz, Jonas Brothers, Britney Spears, Lil Wayne, Katy Perry, Miley Cyrus, Leona Lewis, Avril Lavigne, Pussycat Dolls, The, Pink, T.I., Ne-Yo, Akon, Paramore, Demi Lovato, Christina Aguilera, Secondhand Serenade, Chris Brown, Kanye West, Nickelback, Linkin Park, Jordin Sparks, Metallica, Lady Gaga, Lifehouse, Eminem, Mariah Carey, Kings Of Leon, Slipknot, Oasis, Celine Dion, Jack's Mannequin, Evanescence, Kelly Clarkson, M.I.A., Avenged Sevenfold, Carrie Underwood, Simple Plan, Abba, Beatles, The, Camp Rock, Fall Out Boy, Colbie Caillat, Håkan Hellström, Alicia Keys, Danity Kane, Lars Winnerbäck

Artists / B / Beatles, The / Discussion

Beatles, The - Discussion