Obama to Claim Democratic Nomination

Like many others, I am awaiting news updates to confirm that Barack Obama has tied up the nomination for the Democratic Party. Yes, I have been very harsh on Hillary Clinton throughout the primary contest and, I believe rightfully so. Having once run for public office myself and lost by a slim margin after a very nasty campaign, I know all too well how much losing hurts. It is literally a personal rejection no matter how one views it. However, how one accepts that reality of losing and how they carry on going forward says it all about the losing candidate. In Hillary's case, she has failed the test and come up short, looking like a delusional nut case rather than losing with class and dignity.

*

I truly pray that Obama will NOT offer her the Vice President slot. She has proven herself to be a sleaze bag just like her husband, Slick Willie, and having her in the number 2 slot has the potential for disaster. I'll be right up front and state that if I were Obama I'd be worried that Bill and Hillary would have me assassinated, making it of course look like some white supremacy group was responsible. I do not like Hillary nor do I trust her as far as I can throw my Jeep. In addition, having her on the ticket could well alienate many cross over GOP voters who might otherwise support Obama. As for the disgruntled older women supporting Hillary who might support McCain over Obama, I predict that should McCain win the election and add reactionaries to the U.S. Supreme Court, Hillary will go down in history as having severely damaged the nation. I hope all these so-called feminists enjoy a return to back alley abortions and the re-passage of sodomy laws nation wide. Meanwhile, here are highlights from MSNBC on Obama's plan to claim victory:

*

Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois prepared to claim the Democratic presidential nomination Tuesday night after The Associated Press said he had won a majority of delegates to the party’s summer convention. By doing so, he shattered a barrier more than two centuries old to become the first black candidate ever nominated by a major political party for the nation’s highest office. “Tonight, I can stand before you and say that I will be the Democratic nominee for president of the United States,” Obama planned to say in a victory celebration in St. Paul, Minn., at the site of the convention that will nominate his Republican opponent in the fall, Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

*

Obama, 46, of Illinois, bested Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York in a historic campaign that sparked record turnouts in primary after primary, yet exposed deep racial and gender divisions within the party. Throughout the day, as superdelegates fell into Obama’s column, speculation increased that McCain could be facing an Obama-Clinton unity ticket.

*

Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., a prominent Clinton supporter, told NBC News that “certainly to the extent that she will do anything to win ... she’ll be available.” “She’ll do whatever is needed,” Rangel said. “If people think it would help, she’d do it.” Lisa Caputo, a longtime Clinton adviser, said Clinton “knows the math just isn’t there, so everybody needs to be a realist.”

Ohio Hospital Contests a Story Clinton Tells

In today's world of 24/7 news, news and political blogs, video replay capabilities, and many other ways to record and disseminate information - AND also to refute false information - one would think Hillary Clinton would know enough not to recite stories without first verifying they are true. What is wrong with her campaign staff that they do not confirm information before Hillary begins to parrot it? First, there was Hillary' version of her Bosnia trip which amounted to revisionist history. Now, Hillary is getting called out on a story she has been telling about a preganant woman she heard about who lacked health insurance. It turns out that the facts are not as Hillary has been stating. Is Hillary just plain stupid or is she so desperate to beat Obama that she feels that she needs to make up compelling stories? I do not get it. All she is doing is making herself look like a liar and anything but presidential. Here are some highlights from the New York Times ( http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/05/us/politics/05woman.html?_r=1&ei=5090&en=7824b4f8ea3b363d&ex=1365134400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin):

Over the last five weeks, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York has featured in her campaign stump speeches the story of a health care horror: an uninsured pregnant woman who lost her baby and died herself after being denied care by an Ohio hospital because she could not come up with a $100 fee. The woman, Trina Bachtel, did die last August, two weeks after her baby boy was stillborn at O’Bleness Memorial Hospital in Athens, Ohio.

But hospital administrators said Friday that Ms. Bachtel was under the care of an obstetrics practice affiliated with the hospital, that she was never refused treatment and that she was, in fact, insured. “We implore the Clinton campaign to immediately desist from repeating this story,” said Rick Castrop, chief executive officer of the O’Bleness Health System. Linda M. Weiss, a spokeswoman for the not-for-profit hospital, said the Clinton campaign had never contacted the hospital to check the accuracy of the story, which Mrs. Clinton had first heard from a Meigs County, Ohio, sheriff’s deputy in late February.

“We reviewed the medical and patient account records of this patient,” said Mr. Castrop, the health system’s chief executive. Any implication that the system was “involved in denying care is definitely not true.” Although Mrs. Clinton has told the story repeatedly, it first came to the attention of the hospital after The Washington Post cited it as a staple of her stump speeches on Thursday.

Clinton Playing The Race Card Again? If So, She Is NOT Worthy to Be President

Both Daily Kos (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/3/14550/75567/858/467989) and America Blog (http://www.americablog.com/2008/03/why-is-obamas-skin-blacker-than-normal.html) are reporting what, if true, has to be the lowest and nastiest stunt used by Hillary's campaign yet: ads that suggest they were intentionally darkened so as to show Barack Obama's skin significantly darker than it has ever appeared in any debate and other video footage I have seen. Having seen Obama in person, I can attest that the skin tone in the new Clinton ad is MUCH darker than his skin in real life. The Clintons have shown that they have utterly NO SHAME other occasions, so it is unfortunately all too easy to assume that once again they are showing themselves to be utter dirt bags. If this stunt is true, obviously, Hillary thinks black voters are so stupid they will vote for her in November even after she has resorted to disgusting tactics like this to try to win the primary. I'm truly beginning to believe she has Karl Rove secretly on her payroll. This stunt has made her even more unelectable against McCain. Here are highlights from Kos:

Call me crazy, but it certainly appears to me that Sen. Obama's skin tone is significantly darker in the Clinton campaign commercial. Watch it again and see if you agree. Now, as most of us know, one of the ways in which to demonize a person of color is to make them appear darker than they are. By this twisted logic, somehow being more black makes you more threatening. One of the first times I distinctly recall this issue being brought to the forefront was the Time Magazine cover picture of O.J. Simpson after his arrest. Time was heavily criticized for darkening the shade of Simpson's skin in the cover photograph. Whether intentional or not, the message was that a darker skinned Mr. Simpson somehow was more threatening or frightening than a lighter skinned Juice. Notwithstanding the ridiculousness of this notion, it attempts to exploit stereotypes concerning race--specifically, to dredge up fear of black men. IF the Clinton campaign has deliberately doctored the footage of Sen. Obama to exploit racist fears, she should be banished from American political life--along with anyone else involved.

Here are John Aravosis' remarks:

I went and got the original footage from the Clinton ad, and then compared it to 3 different video clips of the same debate from 3 different sources. I did this so as to take into account any editing, or quality issues, that might have accounted for Obama having darker skin in any particular video. None of the 3 video sources I found showed Obama nearly as black as the Hillary ad does. Click the image above to see a larger version. Look at his lips. Look at his eyebrows. Look at how the red MSNBC background has turned more purple. Clearly the image was darkened. The question is "why."

It just keeps happening again and again and again. The Clintons keeps doing things, saying things, that sound awfully racist. And we're to believe that this, the - what? 8th, 10th time? - this has happened is again just a coincidence. The first half a dozen times you launch seemingly racist attacks on your black opponent, maybe - maybe - we can write it off as "boy you're really dumb not to get it." But having a seemingly-racist attack from the Clinton folks on Obama every single week, after a while, you don't get to play the "I had no idea!" card anymore. After that many times, you're race-baiting. You're using racism to win. And you're destroying your legacy and your husband's. Enough already.

Hillary Clinton's Lack of Truthfulness

It appears more and more people are catching on to the rampant use of lies and dishonesty being utilized by Hillary Clinton's campaign against Barack Obama. Personally, I am tired of a president who borders on being a pathological liar on many subjects, not just Iraq and, therefore, the last thing I want is to see someone who will lie to be elected put into office. Today's Washington Post has an editorial that looks at Clinton's lack of honesty and truthfulness. Here are some highlights ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/23/AR2008012303325.html):

The second matter is the Clinton campaign's repeated distortion of Mr. Obama's remarks. In the debate, Ms. Clinton accused Mr. Obama of saying "that he really liked the ideas of the Republicans over the last 10 to 15 years," adding, "Now, I personally think they had ideas, but they were bad ideas. . . . They were ideas like privatizing Social Security, like moving back from a balanced budget and a surplus to deficit and debt." In fact, there is nothing in the record that suggests that Mr. Obama supports any of those positions. As Mr. Obama explained, "What I said had nothing to do with their policies . . . what I did say is that we have to be thinking in the same transformative way about our Democratic agenda."

That didn't stop the Clinton campaign, which went up with a new radio ad yesterday quoting Mr. Obama out of context. "Aren't those the ideas that got us into the economic mess we're in today? Ideas like special tax breaks for Wall Street. Running up a $9 trillion debt. Refusing to raise the minimum wage or deal with the housing crisis. Are those the ideas Barack Obama's talking about?" Ms. Clinton knows they're not. In fact, on policy grounds, the two candidates are extremely close, which makes the nomination fight in part about character and judgment. This episode does not speak well for Ms. Clinton's.