As Obama Takes Lead in Superdels, Clinton Makes Unlikely Bid for Popular Vote

From Blacks4Barack:
Group pushing Clinton as VP choice secretly
tied to her campaign
By Margaret Talev McClatchy Newspapers
Posted on Sunday, May 11, 2008

WASHINGTON ? A group called VoteBoth has been leading the charge for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to team up on the Democratic ticket.
But the people behind it come from just one of those camps ? Clinton's ? and one of their goals may be keeping Clinton's White House prospects alive.
The group's founder, Adam Parkhomenko, until recently worked as an assistant to Patti Solis Doyle, who was Clinton's campaign manager until February. Parkhomenko in 2003 founded the Draft Hillary for President Committee.
VoteBoth's spokesman is Sam Arora. He's a law school student who in recent years worked for Clinton and for former Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe, Clinton's presidential campaign chairman.
VoteBoth's Facebook page lists three others as administrators, all with Clinton connections.
One is a Richmond-based Democratic technology consultant, who was quoted in a New York Times story about the Iowa Democratic Party's 2006 Jefferson-Jackson dinner, where he was passing out "Hillary for President" stickers. Another appears online in a photo with Hillary Clinton and others at a summer leadership program from 2006.
A third is a history professor and campaign contributor whom Clinton named earlier this year in a press release of prominent Virginians to endorse her. wrote When VoteBoth
On Friday, when word went out that Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., didn't see Clinton as Obama's pick for a running mate, VoteBoth released a statement offering respect for Kennedy. But it added, "We think that the millions of Democrats who have voted for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have something to say, too. Why stop at having a nominee who has the support of 51 percent of Democrats when we could have a 'Dream Team' ticket that has won 100 percent?"
VoteBoth first filed with the Federal Election Commission on April 8, two weeks before the Pennsylvania primary that Clinton won and that was considered a crucial window for her comeback. The group's original mission promoted the idea of Clinton as the nominee, with Obama as her running mate.
On May 1, days after the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's latest divisive remarks and Obama's renouncement of his former pastor, VoteBoth amended its mission. It now would support a joint ticket in either order, so long as Clinton's name was on the ballot.
Last week, as Obama's strong showing made him all but certain to clinch the nomination, VoteBoth leaders began putting themselves in the spotlight, sending regular press releases, posting blogs and appearing in interviews.
Parkhomenko wrote a widely circulated piece on The Huffington Post on Tuesday as voters went to the polls in North Carolina and Indiana primaries. "VoteBoth does not aim to pick who leads the ticket," he said. He wrote of friends who "believe in Barack as strongly as I believe in Hillary" and wanting to be inclusive "as a matter of fairness, practicality, experience and hope."
On Friday, when word went out that Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., didn't see Clinton as Obama's pick for a running mate, VoteBoth released a statement offering respect for Kennedy. But it added, "We think that the millions of Democrats who have voted for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have something to say, too. Why stop at having a nominee who has the support of 51 percent of Democrats when we could have a 'Dream Team' ticket that has won 100 percent?"
On Friday, Parkhomenko said through a spokesman that his decision to change the mission came after talking to an Obama supporter. He also said he gave neither the Clinton nor Obama campaigns a heads-up about his group.
In an interview Friday, Arora said VoteBoth is not coordinated with Clinton's campaign, and is "just a bunch of us volunteering our time because we think this is a good idea." Despite the lopsided Clinton connections, he said it isn't just about supporting Clinton but about bringing together the rivals' historic turnout and fund-raising machines and constituencies.
"There's been a lot of talk about a unity ticket and we think that's where the conversation should be," said Arora, choosing a word ? conversation ? that Clinton used to frame her campaign appearances. "If we've been able to help the discussion forward, that's what we're focused on."
"If Barack Obama is the nominee and he takes Senator Clinton as his vice president, you've got a ticket that's already won 100 percent of the Democratic vote, that's turned out a record number of Democratic voters and that has shattered fundraising records. A unity ticket is the way Democrats win in November."
Obama's campaign declined comment on VoteBoth. The Clinton campaign did not respond to a request for comment.
McClatchy Newspapers 2008

Visit: www.Blacks4Barack.org
A Multi-Racial, Grassroots Org...Dedicated To Truth !

From Blacks4Barack:
Group pushing Clinton as VP choice secretly
tied to her campaign
By Margaret Talev McClatchy Newspapers
Posted on Sunday, May 11, 2008

WASHINGTON ? A group called VoteBoth has been leading the charge for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to team up on the Democratic ticket.
But the people behind it come from just one of those camps ? Clinton's ? and one of their goals may be keeping Clinton's White House prospects alive.
The group's founder, Adam Parkhomenko, until recently worked as an assistant to Patti Solis Doyle, who was Clinton's campaign manager until February. Parkhomenko in 2003 founded the Draft Hillary for President Committee.
VoteBoth's spokesman is Sam Arora. He's a law school student who in recent years worked for Clinton and for former Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe, Clinton's presidential campaign chairman.
VoteBoth's Facebook page lists three others as administrators, all with Clinton connections.
One is a Richmond-based Democratic technology consultant, who was quoted in a New York Times story about the Iowa Democratic Party's 2006 Jefferson-Jackson dinner, where he was passing out "Hillary for President" stickers. Another appears online in a photo with Hillary Clinton and others at a summer leadership program from 2006.
A third is a history professor and campaign contributor whom Clinton named earlier this year in a press release of prominent Virginians to endorse her. wrote When VoteBoth
On Friday, when word went out that Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., didn't see Clinton as Obama's pick for a running mate, VoteBoth released a statement offering respect for Kennedy. But it added, "We think that the millions of Democrats who have voted for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have something to say, too. Why stop at having a nominee who has the support of 51 percent of Democrats when we could have a 'Dream Team' ticket that has won 100 percent?"
VoteBoth first filed with the Federal Election Commission on April 8, two weeks before the Pennsylvania primary that Clinton won and that was considered a crucial window for her comeback. The group's original mission promoted the idea of Clinton as the nominee, with Obama as her running mate.
On May 1, days after the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's latest divisive remarks and Obama's renouncement of his former pastor, VoteBoth amended its mission. It now would support a joint ticket in either order, so long as Clinton's name was on the ballot.
Last week, as Obama's strong showing made him all but certain to clinch the nomination, VoteBoth leaders began putting themselves in the spotlight, sending regular press releases, posting blogs and appearing in interviews.
Parkhomenko wrote a widely circulated piece on The Huffington Post on Tuesday as voters went to the polls in North Carolina and Indiana primaries. "VoteBoth does not aim to pick who leads the ticket," he said. He wrote of friends who "believe in Barack as strongly as I believe in Hillary" and wanting to be inclusive "as a matter of fairness, practicality, experience and hope."
On Friday, when word went out that Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., didn't see Clinton as Obama's pick for a running mate, VoteBoth released a statement offering respect for Kennedy. But it added, "We think that the millions of Democrats who have voted for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have something to say, too. Why stop at having a nominee who has the support of 51 percent of Democrats when we could have a 'Dream Team' ticket that has won 100 percent?"
On Friday, Parkhomenko said through a spokesman that his decision to change the mission came after talking to an Obama supporter. He also said he gave neither the Clinton nor Obama campaigns a heads-up about his group.
In an interview Friday, Arora said VoteBoth is not coordinated with Clinton's campaign, and is "just a bunch of us volunteering our time because we think this is a good idea." Despite the lopsided Clinton connections, he said it isn't just about supporting Clinton but about bringing together the rivals' historic turnout and fund-raising machines and constituencies.
"There's been a lot of talk about a unity ticket and we think that's where the conversation should be," said Arora, choosing a word ? conversation ? that Clinton used to frame her campaign appearances. "If we've been able to help the discussion forward, that's what we're focused on."
"If Barack Obama is the nominee and he takes Senator Clinton as his vice president, you've got a ticket that's already won 100 percent of the Democratic vote, that's turned out a record number of Democratic voters and that has shattered fundraising records. A unity ticket is the way Democrats win in November."
Obama's campaign declined comment on VoteBoth. The Clinton campaign did not respond to a request for comment.
McClatchy Newspapers 2008

Visit: www.Blacks4Barack.org
A Multi-Racial, Grassroots Org...Dedicated To Truth !

What on earth does "black racism" have to do with the delegate count? Pray tell, Crat3.

The democrats will need a miracle to win the fall election, with Obama as the nominee. He apparently has now changed his tune and said he is open to having Hillary as his VP. Obama is just another hypocrite and political operative. He knows he can't win with his base so he needs Hillary's.
If Hillary is as smart as I think she is, she will graciously reject the offer and re-run in 2012. She will be 64 then and still young enough to run and I predict a win by a landslide.

If you apply electricity to a pithed frog, its legs will move.

That's a pretty good analogy for the Clinton campaign. The legs are moving but there's nowhere to go.

-Wexler

Note the results of the recent La. Congressional special election where Don Cazayoux won a formally GOP-held seat despite GOP ads tying him firmly to Obama.

One can reasonably assert this result of "the worst case scenario": Obama at the top of the ticket doesn't hurt Democrats down ballot. You can be sure that undeclared Superdelegates are paying attention.

Puh-leez don't allow one more article on the popular vote to squeak by without exposing its vast inaccuracies, e.g.,
a) it completely ignores the votes of tens of thousands of us in caucus states (where HRC usually lost). Count my vote!
b) it gives states with open primaries a much larger voice than those with closed; I believe 4 times as many votes were cast in MN's open as in MO's closed. Should MN have 4X as much influence as MO? Should states that included Repubs have much more say than states where Dems-only voted?
Please, point out that the popular vote is not an accurate tally every time you mention it. Failing to do so legitimates Clinton's attempt to win by disenfranchising thousands of Democrats.

Crat 3,

You're such a sore racist loser.

Senator Clinton said: "I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

"There's a pattern emerging here," she said.

Clinton's blunt remarks about race came a day after primaries in Indiana and North Carolina.

Support the White sister.

White Pride Worldwide,

Being an African American, I can dig it. It's when you start to eradicate people because they're not like you, or don't have the same beliefs, (as whites have a history of doing)is when I become nervous.

May 3, 2008

Conspiracy theory
(Barack Obama vs. Vladimir Lenin)
By Leon A.Weinstein

An absolutely unproven theory of how a group of rich, educated & very left-wing comrades decided to take America over and beat it without firing of any single shot.

At the beginning of the XX century, a very bright, young and well-educated man who called himself Vladimir Lenin became a leader of the left wing of the social democratic party of Russia. His supporters, liberal & well-educated men (among them many wealthy including several "filthy" rich) were dead set against a not-popular war with Germany. The economy was in a bad shape, price of food rose, the government was at it's all times low popularity. They decided to try to take country over by either parliamentary or non-parliamentary way. The ideas they propagated were becoming very popular in Russia – the main idea being re-distribution of wealth, free education and free medicine for all; free transportation for students, senior citizens and sick; social security payments to old and sick disregarding their work history, no taxes from half of the population and IMMEDIATE withdrawal from the war! Most of the country's population loved it. Nobody explained to this population how Lenin would pay for all those great things, where he would get the funds. Since people were told that they would be given everything for free, they didn't bother to investigate further.

Lenin led his party to a spectacular win, employing first parliamentary, then revolutionary tactics. In November of 1917 Lenin's party was in charge. They immediately took over the ownership of all natural resources, all industrial complexes, all major real estate holdings, and signed a disgraceful peace accord with Germans, in effect giving foreign country a control over about one third of the Russian Empire. Little was known at this time that the Great Lenin's Revolution was financed by the German Army Intelligence (please view "Wikpedia" under Alexander Parvus, a German agent that was a go-between Lenin and the German High Command). The Lenin's revolution and subsequent annexation of huge territories of land by Germany were purchased with three million German marks, probably the cheapest real estate deal in the history of humankind.

Now let's play a game of suspicion – what if…. a group of very educated, rich and very left oriented people decided a century after the great Lenin's experiment to make America "more just, more human and more understanding of the needs of other peoples and nations"? What they would do, how they would plan their grand operation of taking over the greatest power on the planet Earth? How would they implement this simple idea of "If you can't fight it, destroy it from within"? But first, let's put our "what if" game into prospective and lay down several historical facts.

During the JFK era both major American political parties were patriotic and united in their will to defend the US and the American way of life from any possible enemy. Upon inauguration JFK said that the US would "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to ensure the survival and success of liberty." At that time JFK's policies toward Cuba, Soviet Union and Vietnam were shared by the entire congress, including the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. The New York Times wrote after the invasion of Vietnam that "Free World forces ... still have a chance in South Vietnam, and every effort should be made to save the situation." This was written at the beginning of the war, before a draft at the Universities began. But when it indeed began, the American students felt scared. They didn't want to be drafted and didn't want to go to fight in Vietnam. Massive student's protests erupted masquerading as political protests and civil disagreements. Intellectual elite joined the "young and scared" in accusations of gross mismanagement of the Vietnam War by LBJ, who inherited Vietnam problem from John & Robert Kennedy. The proof that fear was the chief reason for students' protests is in the pudding - when drafts stopped, so students' protests declined dramatically. But something significant happened. For the first time in the history of the US, the liberal Left (known in Europe under names "Socialists" and "Communists") began to resonate with the mood of the mainstream Americans. This was the start of the new coalition that almost destroyed America, as we know it, and still threatens to change it forever. Let's now remind ourselves that change is not always for the better, and as was once told by an old Chinese proverb "Save me God from being born at the time of major changes".

Below are quotes of what American leftists were saying about communism, Soviet Union, war in Vietnam and about the "terrible, imperialistic, fascistic, militaristic and anti-humanistic" United States of America.

Literary critic Edmund Wilson called USSR "The moral light at the top of the world". Writers Beatrice and Sidney Webb in their book entitled The Truth About Soviet Russia wrote that the Communist Party is "the most inclusive and equalized democracy on Earth". Journalist I.F.Stone reported that "communism is a progressive force, lined up on the correct side of the historical events". Princeton professor and TV commentator Stephen Cohen wrote about Lenin's economic plans "...toleration of social diversity…social harmony… rule of law". And on top of everything, in 1978 Secretary of State Cyrus Vance had told Time magazine that President Carter and General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev shared "similar dreams and aspirations." Wow! This is the very same president that single-handedly toppled Shah's regime in Iraq, put Ayatollah Khomeini (whom he viewed as great humanist and inspiration) into power and ignited worldwide radical Islamist revolution.

In 1972 George McGovern, the Democratic party nominee for the President of the United States said in his acceptance speech during Democratic National Convention: "There will be no more Asian children running ablaze from bombed-out schools. There will be no more talk of bombing the dikes or the cities of the North. And within 90 days of my inauguration, every American soldier and every American prisoner will be out of the jungle and out of their cells and then home in America where they belong. And then let us resolve that never again will we send the precious young blood of this country to die trying to prop up a corrupt military dictatorship abroad." Doesn't this sound familiar to those who follow 2008 Presidential election cycle? In his published in 1976 autobiography McGovern included his photos with Fidel Castro, and with the Vietnam's premier Pham Van Dog. In the same book he wrote nothing about the fact that after the United States were forced by the anti-war movement and the leaders of the Democratic Party to withdraw from Vietnam, the Free world lost ten countries to Communists. As a direct result of the American withdrawal, Vietnam gulags were executing and "re-educating" hundreds of thousands of its own citizens. Khmer Rouge killed about two million Cambodians of the nine million population of this small Asian country. Millions of people in the world shall know that suffering, death, starvation, humiliations of millions of their friends and relatives happened as a direct result of actions and lies spread by the American Left.

The tone of the New Left changes dramatically when socialists are talking about their own country. MIT professor Noam Chomsky wrote "America is a world leading terrorist state". Filmmaker Michel Moor in his book "Stupid White Man" wrote "Do you feel like you live in a nation of idiots? I used to console myself about the state of stupidity in this country by repeating this to myself: Even if there are two hundred million stone-cold idiots in this country, that leaves at least eighty million who will get what I'm saying . . . ". Reverend Wright pronounced "The United States government is capable of creating AIDS virus in order to genocide the African and African-American population". Billionaire George Soros repeatedly said in his speeches: "The main enemy of the open society, I believe, is no longer the communist but the capitalist threat. The (global capitalist) system is deeply flawed. As long as capitalism remains triumphant, the pursuit of money overrides all other social considerations. The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States."

What "open society" is he talking about? Last time I checked, the most open societies in the world were (among handful of democratic nations) The United States of America and Israel, sworn enemies of the New Left. (I can debate with Mr. Soros the Henri Bergson and Karl Popper's open society theory and absence of practical results based on this theory, but we will leave this discussion until the next time. Right now we need to understand that the Open Society is set off against the United States of America and that the US is on the way of achieving this desirable by the New Left way of life). But the most important point here is that the New Left doesn't feel any more a part of this "stupid, oppressive and materialistic" country. They feel, think and act as enemies of the society we live in, ready to CHANGE it. But change it with what?

If you can't defeat the strongest country in the world by military force, you can try to destroy it from within. What if George Soros and Michael Moore who hate American way of life and think that America is the main obstacle to building a paradise on earth, decided to put their money where their mouth is? (Hearing how stingy Moore is, I doubt he would put the money, but Soros in his many generous deeds proved that he might). After loosing an attempt in 2004 with the like-minded John Kerry, they may decide to act differently. What if … they would decide to put a Trojan Horse in the White House? How would they do it?

First, who can be a candidate that millions overwhelmingly would vote for? Since it is obviously a year that Democrats are favorite to win (Bush is a very unpopular president, war is unpopular, economy in troubles and generally people want change), the candidate shall be a Democrat. Either female or an African-American would be a plus, giving additional votes to the contender. The person shall be manageable, meaning that he can't be an established figure with a circle of friends and support. He/she shall be relatively new on the political scene, but with enough experience that can be sold as "qualified for the job". Such politician shall be very dedicated to the extreme left socialist cause, but shall be masqueraded as a mainstream and centrist candidate. The revelation that he is not what he really is would come after the fact, when he is already in the White house. The contender shall be good looking, great speaker and a demagogue. He shall be a good actor and know how to hide his true intentions and thoughts. Is it possible to find such a candidate? When you look hard enough, sooner or later you probably will.

Next task is to very quietly train such candidate and his team. Even main Dems shall not be in on this secret plot… This is not a new task for George Soros. He already played a pivotal role in facilitating the Rose revolution in the republic of Georgia, then the Orange revolution in Ukraine. Those revolutions were aimed against Russian's dominance in the region. Now he can start the greatest deed of them all, the revolution that would put on its knees the Great Satan itself, the US of A.

Next step is to train this candidate to promise something that can't be checked, something intangible, like "bright future for the kids", "harmony for all", "peace forever", "jobs for everybody", "medicine for free". In Russia one politician repeatedly told his constituencies that "every single woman will get a men, and if needed we will import men in sufficient quantities, strong, young and very potent men from the Slavic countries". Don't scowl – this election promise worked as a charm and sky rocketed the politician into the Russian parliament.

Next task of the group is to outlaw arms and take them from the people. At least the automatic ones. Stalin, Mao, Hitler all did it immediately after seizing the power, to be able to dwarf any possible resistance to "change" and "reforms" that the good Intended Reformers would want to implement. The socialists want best for the people, but stupid people sometimes do not understand what is best for them and resist. They shall be taken to special outdoor camps and re-educated. Much like Vietnamese and Cambodians did. Then others will suddenly understand how good the regime is.

Next step in the campaign is to make people feel bad about themselves, then make people feel bad about their government, make people feel bad about their way of life, make sure they think that other ways of life are more human than theirs. Then make sure they loose (or think that they lost) a war, and that they will soon loose their houses, holdings, everything they have. If you ask how to do it – create several independent non-profit companies, channel huge sums of money into them and promote, promote, promote your agenda. Induce panic as much as you can. Lie and cheat, the bigger the lie, the faster people will believe it, as it was proved by the Nazi's during WWII. Bring in major talent, Hollywood, writers, ex-Presidents, ex-Vice Presidents, sportsmen and TV personalities, journalists and commentators. And lie, lie, lie again. And watch how the lies grow from within…

I do not know about any conspiracy to overthrow the US government. What I wrote is a speculation, a game called "what if…". But it is scary to think that this can really happen. Let's hope that the XXI century will not repeat mistakes of the XX century, at least not the most tragic ones.

Russians of the XX century learned the hard way that when you get something for free, something is taken from you. The old proverb about the mousetrap being the only place where you can find free cheese proves itself true time and time again. Russians (Soviets) were given free education, free medicine (bad but free), equal pay (small but equal), equal pensions… Several "unimportant" things however were taken from them such as a right to travel abroad, right to express their opinions, right to keep fruits of their labor, right to defend itself against the state, right to elect whom you want to elect, right to worship what you want to worship, and many other rights and privileges that we in the US take for granted. This was the consequence of getting things for free.

Every country that attempted to build this "wealth re-distribution social paradise" ended up with a totalitarian regime, gulags, killing fields and "starvation into submission" of its own population. Do we really want this to happen to the United States of America? I personally don't.

Jonathan, you really need to look at these upcoming races a little more closely.

1. Voter turnout in WV and KY is looking to be larger than your estimates, which would put her popular vote margin even higher.

2. She is likely to win WV and KY by more than a 60/40 margin, which will also put her popular vote margin even higher.

3. Take all of that, plus the fact that you **FORGOT AN ENTIRE PRIMARY**, and you give her a comfortable lead in the popular vote.

Now, let's also examine this contest you forgot altogether. In their last election, 2 million people voted in Puerto Rico. If you come anywhere near that and give it to Clinton 60/40, then Hillary wins the popular vote by a landslide.

Black racism my ass.

Billa and Hillbilly played the race card multiple times in this campaign and black people were paying attention. They saw what was going on and it added to the Obama movement.

For you to say blacks are voting solely based on race is RACIST. "Black" is a very diverse group that votes on a huge variety of factors.

Thanks for stereotyping them beyond belief and thanks for dividing our party.

WE MUST WIN AND OBAMA IS LEADING OUR MOVEMENT

Anna....i dont mean to offend but can you relate to the term "nut-case"