Decide for yourself.
The tough tone of the Pennsylvania Democratic campaign tarnished both candidates — more so Hillary Clinton, with 68 percent of voters saying she attacked Barack Obama unfairly.
Clinton beat Obama by 58-42 percent among voters who decided in the last few days, countering his equally large edge among those who picked their candidate between a week and a month ago.
Women accounted for 59 percent of voters, a record for Pennsylvania primaries…, and she won them by 57-43 percent; she won white women even more broadly, by 66-34 percent.
Obama countered with broad support in Philadelphia (62-38 percent over Clinton) and its suburbs (57-43 percent) and a 5-point better showing among white men, a swing group in these primaries, than he managed in Ohio, which Clinton won March 4.
But Obama still lost white men, by 12 points. (He narrowly won men overall, 52-48 percent.)
Obama also won 89 percent of African-Americans. But at 14 percent, their turnout was lower than the Pennsylvania primary record, 17 percent in 1988 and 1984.
34% of white women and 48% of white men voted for Obama. Yet only 11% of blacks voted for Clinton. Which group is looking at race more? If you can’t tell, then get some glasses. It’s time to bury the old tired stereotype of whites are more racist than blacks. Get the shovel and start digging.
I do expect blacks to vote in larger numbers since they do have a ‘fairly decent’ black person to vote for. But looking at the huge differences it is clear race is more important than reason.
As a side note: Obama spent 4 to 1 over Clinton and 68% of the people in the exit polls said Clinton unfairly attacked Obama. And she still won!!! This is very telling. My guess is that the voters aren’t happy with Rev. Wright (aka: Rev. Blame Whitey), Tony Rezko (Wanna buy some cheap property), William Ayers (I wish I bombed more), and his wifes unexplained humongous pay raise after Obama votes to put money in her employers pocketbooks.
As much as Obama complains about Hillary’s tactics and yet he does the same?
Me thinks the masses are following blindly at this point.
Barack Obama’s presidential campaign has worked to assure uneasy gun owners that he believes the Constitution protects their rights and that he doesn’t want to take away their guns.
But before he became a national political figure, he sat on the board of a Chicago-based foundation that doled out at least nine grants totaling nearly $2.7 million to groups that advocated the opposite positions.
The foundation funded legal scholarship advancing the theory that the Second Amendment does not protect individual gun owners’ rights, as well as two groups that advocated handgun bans. And it paid to support a book called “Every Handgun Is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns.”
Obama’s eight years on the board of the Joyce Foundation, which paid him more than $70,000 in directors fees, do not in any way conflict with his campaign-trail support for the rights of gun owners, Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for Obama’s presidential campaign, asserted in a statement issued to Politico this week.
Hmmm, so you can work to ban guns and get paid for it, but you really believe people have gun rights? Is this not hypocrisy in the highest order? If you ask me, his actions speak louder than his words.
Again, you’ve been warned.
When Barack Obama met Hillary Clinton for another televised Democratic candidates’ debate last night, it was more than a step forward in the 2008 presidential election. It was another step downward for network news — in particular ABC News, which hosted the debate from Philadelphia and whose usually dependable anchors, Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, turned in shoddy, despicable performances.
For the first 52 minutes of the two-hour, commercial-crammed show, Gibson and Stephanopoulos dwelled entirely on specious and gossipy trivia that already has been hashed and rehashed, in the hope of getting the candidates to claw at one another over disputes that are no longer news. Some were barely news to begin with.
The fact is, cable networks CNN and MSNBC both did better jobs with earlier candidate debates. Also, neither of those cable networks, if memory serves, rushed to a commercial break just five minutes into the proceedings, after giving each candidate a tiny, token moment to make an opening statement. Cable news is indeed taking over from network news, and merely by being competent.
To this observer, ABC’s coverage seemed slanted against Obama. The director cut several times to reaction shots of such Clinton supporters as her daughter, Chelsea, who sat in the audience at the Kimmel Theater in Philly’s National Constitution Center. Obama supporters did not get equal screen time, giving the impression that there weren’t any in the hall. The director also clumsily chose to pan the audience at the very start of the debate, when the candidates made their opening statements, so Obama and Clinton were barely seen before the first commercial break.
Lots of complaints, and rightly so. I just have one question to ponder. What would the reaction have been like if this had been ‘Faux News’?
The lefties have complained a lot about Fox News, but is it really justified?
Here’s something you never hear from a Democrat: of all the cable networks, Fox News is doing the fairest job covering an issue.
Yet, that’s exactly what Gov. Ed Rendell (D-Penn.), an outspoken Hillary Clinton supporter, said on “Fox & Friends” Monday.
What say you?
A Maine college student has caused a firestorm after plastering the floor of a campus building with American flags to see if anyone would trample Old Glory.
Susan Crane, a student at the University of Maine, Farmington, placed hundreds of flags on the floor of the school’s student center Tuesday for an art class assignment. She set down the flags in a maze-like pattern to document whether students and staff would step on them.
How about we shove one up her arse and see if anyone kicks it?
But instead of fostering dialogue, the experiment drew demonstrators, among them Vietnam War veteran Charles Bennett.
“As far as I was concerned, that was desecration of the American flag,” Bennett told FOXNews.com. He went down to the student center to protest the display after a friend told him what was going on, he said.
Crane did not return a request for an interview, but she told the Franklin County Daily Bulldog that she chose to use the flag so passers-by could reflect on their patriotism.
Right. A flag on the floor makes us more patriotic?
“It sparked conversation and thought about how we feel about our flag, which I think is very important,” Crane told the paper. “It was a very hard thing for me to do, to put the flag on the floor.”
Ya know, a flag up your arse would spark conversation a lot more!
She said she filmed students from the knees down to see if they would walk on the flags. More than 95 percent did not.
At least most people had respect for the flag.
“We were supporting and would continue to support any student’s First Amendment right to free expression under the law,” she said.
Does your First Amendment ‘rights’ only apply to the flag? Me thinks so.
Isn’t it wonderful how our liberal public schools teach our kids?
You can get any law passed.
New Bill in Maine Makes “Visual Sexual Aggression” a Crime
It might be 2008 in the rest of the USA, but in Maine, it’s 1984.
A new bill in the Pine Tree State would make it a crime to peer at children in public. It’s been asserted that some legislators can justify making any action a crime–as long as they add the magic words “for the children” to the mix.
This Maine bill adds proof to that assertion.
State Rep. Dawn Hill, D-York, is the head cheerleader for a bill only a fan of police state actions could love.
Or a police chief.
Her involvement started when Ogunquit Police Lt. David Alexander was called to a local beach to deal with a man who appeared to be observing children entering the community bathrooms. Because the state statute prevents arrests for visual sexual aggression of a child in a public place, Alexander said he and his fellow officer could only ask the man to move along.
“There was no violation of law that we could enforce. There was nothing we could charge him with,” Alexander said.
So that’s the problem: police could only ask the man to “move along”. The man had not committed a crime–at least outside of Maine.
Under the bill, if someone is arrested for viewing children in a public place, it would be a Class D felony if the child is between 12 to 14 years old and a Class C felony if the child is under 12, according to Alexander.
Don’t you just love how the government is making it easier to put you in jail? Now, before you say ‘But don’t you care about the kids?’, think about it. You now have a ‘crime’ that is a felony and NO PROOF is needed to convict! All you have to do is tell some cop that you saw so-and-so watching kids and they’ll cart him, yes- HIM, off to jail. Do you even think for one moment that this will be applied to women? NOPE!
Jail time, fines, sex offender registering, life ruined, family destroyed and no proof needed! A perfect way to get back at your ex or asshat neighbor! Or will it be the boss that fired you or some minority group that you despise?
Protecting the kids is fine, but creating laws that will do nothing but capture a large quantity of innocents. I’ve seen a few articles about the Death Penalty recently from a few lefties. They all want to get rid of it because there are a few innocent victims caught in the system. But what about all the innocent victims that this law will create?
The last two inane laws I complained about were sponsored by Republicans, this gem is by a Democrat. Maybe I need to become an Independent or Libertarian?
I’m totally against child molesters and that type of ilk, but I’m even more against laws that have such power to destroy lives without having any proof to convict. He said/She said laws are not in the publics best interest.