An Obama/Clinton "dream" ticket would only pull her down when he loses. My own turn from him came after being strongarmed by his paid operatives on the web.  Being verbally abused thrown out of blogs by Obama thugs, because I supported hillary Clinton means that he will never get my vote. 

My feelings aside, Democrats who voted for Clinton will not necessarily vote for Barack Rezko Wright cheated caucuses Hussein Obama. I know from telephoning for Kerry in '04 that women are especially picky about the first lady.  And those women are definitely not going to go for a character as threatening as Michelle. The truth is, Obama has had so little experience that his negatives hugely overpower the positives. As Clinton's vice president, he would build nation creds. The country would have 8 years of seeing him in good light.  The Chicago demons would melt away. The only hope for this party, and this country is a Clinton/Obama ticket.

This post from another blog says almost everything - except how the media, as usual, is deciding our candidate, and as always, will decide the general election.

Comment by michelle | 2008-05-22 01:27:03

I don’t want to sound like too much of a conspiracy theorist or anything, but here goes.

Could it be possible that the DNC, from the beginning, was hellbent on forcing Clinton out and making Obama the nominee? Look at the way Dean handled the various states with early primaries:
New Hampshire– no penalty
Iowa– no penalty, Obama spends a lot of time/money here
South Carolina– no penalty, majority of primary voters are AA

Michigan–Clinton very popular, Obama a virtual unknown. Instead of stripping the supers and having the pledged delegates count for half, Dean and co. do something utterly unprecedented: none of the delgates count
Florida– Clinton extremely popular here, Obama a virtual unknown. Same unusual treatment suffered by Michigan.

Florida and Michigan had 313 pledged delegates up for grabs and would have given an early victory and lead in the delegates.
Iowa, NH, and SC? Whopping total of 141 pledged delegates.
Further, we all know that Obama wanted to delegitimize the results of Michigan by taking his name off the ballot and that he convinced Edwards to do the same. The rules did not require this in any shape of form. (did Axelrod plan this, so that Obama could later claim the uncommitted vote?). They all agreed not to campaign, but as we know, Obama violated that because of campaign commercials in Florida.

Iowa went according to plan, but NH did not. In order to win, Obama had to fraudulently claim that the Clintons were racists before the SC primary. The only way he is leading in the delegate count today was because of the points SC memo, convincing AA voters that the Clintons were racists. The DNC aided and abetted Obama and Axelrod (Clyburn, Donna Brazile “upset” with Bill Clinton, etc) since this was the ONLY way to prevent Clinton from getting the nomination.

I’m sorry for this rather inartful post, but reading this article got me thinking. And the thought just wouldn’t go away, and I think there’s a reason for this. Whatever the hell is true, I am THIS MUCH MORE dedicated to getting Michigan and Florida to count the way they voted (Obama gets NOTHING from the Michigan primary!!!!).
If clinton does not win, I hope someone will look into what I have said.

Way to go, NYT!  The paper to quote, if you want to look like a Fool. 

This primary cycle, their political reporting is no better than blog spam. 

Does the NYT know what it does to their credibility when their readers FIND OUT thatthey were deceived? 
They built up a sterling reputation, but for the past few years has been steadily soiling it. 
A couple of days ago, they ran a photo of an enormous crowd at Obama's rally in Oregon.  They proclaimed it the largest he has had so far. 
What's wrong with that? 
Our great progressive newspaper left out one small detail:  a FREE ROCK CONCERT preceded the rally.  The bands were hugely popular locally, and the concert was advertised heavily at Indie rock sites on the web. 
The NYT wanted to manipulate its readers into thinking all those thousands of people made the trip to the park just to bask in the golden aura of Barack Hussein Obama. 
Former Times readers say they are turning to the Washington Post for news.  They say Post coverage is slightly better.  Not good enough, but could be worse.

We all suspected there was bigtime pressure on Edwardto endorse Obama. Check out this link:  http://www.larouchepac.com/node/10687

As much as I criticize CNN, I have to say they are the ONLY news station concerned about the environment, including species other than our own wonderful selves.
(Olbermann thinks animals exist for our mirth)

Everyone should be a member of at least one environmental organization. Because we are killing off all life on this planet. 

Link below to depressing reality:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/05/ 16/wildlife.shortage/index.html

A newspaper that holds its readers in deep scorn has serious problems.  

I don't know what is going on within the NYT, but their recent political coverage is an indication that things are bad. 

 

Most New Yorkers like and support Hillary Clinton. 

There are plenty of Obama supporters.  But generally, this is a Clinton town.

And we are stunned by sadistic the way our paper has turned on our candidate - and us!  Our feelings be damned.  

The paper has reached the point of zealotry, that our feelings no longer matter.  

Obama makes the front page daily. 

Their Clinton "articles" are vacuous hit pieces.  Calculated to make Clinton look foolish. Even though she as the popular vote.

Their political team is made up of hacks like Patrick Healey, who eschew journalistic integrity to deceive and manipulate readers. 

And Julie Bosman, who writes at the ugliest propaganda level: 

"... a supporter gave her a three-foot-long balloon replica of herself, complete with blond hair, black pantsuit and wide pink smile, which Mrs. Clinton promptly took on her plane and laughingly showed off to reporters.

Little more than two weeks later, the doll lay on the sofa by her seat on the plane, shriveled and deflated."

“I don’t really get the point of her carrying on,” said Tim Ledford, 29, a store clerk who had wandered upstairs to catch a glimpse of Mrs. Clinton. “If it’s done, it’s done.” 

Today, the NYT war against its readers reached a pinnacle. With an article called "She Just Might Be President Someday." 

The illustration features a faceless woman.  Because the little dig at Clinton supporters is that that woman will not be Clinton.

Can newspaper that taunts its loyal readership, stay in business?