Excerpt: When it comes to presidential primaries, Democrats
and Republicans play by different rules.
One party likes to share. The other, not so much.
Which goes a long way toward explaining why McCain
hopes to take control of his race
in Super Tuesday's primaries and caucuses. And
why the busiest primary day in history
may merely intensify the contest between Hillary
and Barack Obama.
No, don't say that.
"The delegate selection process is designed to
keep the campaign going for as long as possible"
among Democrats, said Howard Wolfson, communications
director for Clinton's campaign.
The Democratic rules provide for delegates to
be awarded proportionately on the basis
of the popular vote. It wasn't always that way,
but a change designed to weaken the control
of party bosses was ushered in after the riotous
Vietnam War-era 1968 convention.
This year, Wolfson added, the calendar "was designed
to pick a candidate as quickly as possible."
Instead, the result, he said, is "this unbelievable,
grueling sprint from the 26th of December
to the 5th of February that will not result
in a nominee being chosen."
Don't say that.
We can't survive as a party much longer.
"Has the world gone mad? When seeking to fill
a position in any career, experience doesn't just matter - experience is everything!
When the field is narrowed to just two candidates but one has much more experience
than the other, the more experienced candidate will get the position. Why should
this be different when choosing a president?" -- Jeff P, Link
Obama backers have been e-mailing that cute story about,
"Would you let the brain surgeon's wife operate on you?"
Well, if my choices were the brain surgeon's wife, who watched every
of brain surgeries for eight years OR
a smooth-talking guy who'd never been
in the operating room before, I'd go with the surgeon's wife - wouldn't
Excerpt: Let's imagine this book's concept - 30 well-known
women writers talk about how
they "feel" about Hillary - applied to 30 male
writers and a male presidential candidate.
Adjusting for gender, the essay titles would
now read: "Barack's Underpants,"
"Elect Brother Frigidaire," "Mephistopheles for
President," "The Road to Codpiece-Gate,"
and so on. Inside, we would find ruminations
on the male candidate's doggy looks and
flabby pectorals; and mocking remarks about his
lack of popularity with the cool boys.
We would hear a great deal of speculation about
whether the candidate was really manly
or just "faking it." We would hear a great deal
about how the candidate made them feel
about themselves as men and whether they could
see their manhood reflected in the
politician's testosterone displays. And we
would hear virtually nothing about the
candidate's stand on political issues.
They won't talk about the issues with Hillary
because she's right on all/most of them.
So they talk about her laugh, her thighs, her
They wouldn't take it if they did it to Obama,
but they'll eat it with a BIG spoon if you do
it to Hillary.
"So, Schwarzenegger endorsed McCain. He extolled
McCain for 'reaching across the political aisle to get things done'...To
which I say: When did it become the Republican Party's top priority
to 'get things done?' --
Michelle Malkin, competing with Coulter for Slut of the Decade, Link
Excerpt: Exxon Mobil Corp. on Friday posted the largest
annual profit by a U.S. company
- $40.6 billion - as the world's biggest gouger
benefited from our crooked president.
Exxon also set a U.S. record for the biggest
quarterly profit, posting net income of
$11.7 billion for the final three months of 2007.
The previous record for annual profit was $39.5
billion, which Exxon Mobil made in 2006.
The eye-popping results weren't a surprise given
two oil men in the White House.
In a statement, Exxon Mobil Chairman Rex Tillerson
said, "It's not that hard to do
when you have a president on your side who refuses
to investigate our windfall."
Excerpt: Residents in Illinois voiced outrage two years
ago when Exelon Corporation failed to
disclosed radioactive leaks at one of its nuclear
plants, Obama, took up their cause.
Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for
inaction and introduced a bill to require
all plant owners to notify state and local authorities
immediately of even small leaks.
He has boasted of it on the campaign trail.
"I just did that last year," he says on the stump.
But a close look at the path his legislation took
tells a very different story. While he initially
fought to advance his bill, even holding up a
presidential nomination to try to force a hearing
on it, Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect
changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon
and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed
language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom
it charged with addressing the issue.
Those revisions propelled the bill through a crucial
committee. But, contrary to Obama's
comments in Iowa, it ultimately died amid parliamentary
wrangling in the full Senate.
"Senator Obama's staff was sending us copies of
the bill to review, and we could see it
weakening with each successive draft," said Joe
Cosgrove, a park district director in
Will County, Ill., where low-level radioactive
runoff had turned up in groundwater.
"The teeth were just taken out of it."oyal
Bart, I've got to agree with you about Ed Schultz,
or as I like to refer to it, "The Big Eddie Blowhard
His Rush Limbaugh wannabe past is just under
Liberal, progressive? Sort of in a Huey
Long populist kind of way.
I think he's more an example of how pissed off
the conservative/right wing
is that even a guy like Big Eddie has had his
fill with the Bush/Cheney regime.
I don't dislike Ed, but I was just surprised to hear him excuse Tweety's
for screaming, "I hate her" at
Hillary as tho that was legitimate political discourse.
Ordering CDs and DVDs?
Use this portal and they'll
bartcop.com four cents
from each dollar you spend.
"When confronted with any of his misdeeds,
McCain tends to fall back on his record as a war hero in Vietnam. Let's
talk sense. Benedict Arnold was a war hero but that did not exempt him from
condemnation for his later betrayal." -- Uncle Tom Sewell, working hard
for his white bosses, Link
Sewell on the left, then McCain in red,
and that's Der Monkey Fuhrer to the right.
> Why are we looking at Hillary's 80s, but
not Obama's? > Is the past a "legit" way to attack Hillary
but "off limits" for Obama?
So what are you trying to insinuate here, Bart?
Hillary was on WalMart's board and most
labor supporters, and maybe most progressives,
find WalMart and its practices abhorrent.
I'm talking about using and possible selling cocaine
and most progressives
find their candidate of the future doing or selling
hard drugs abhorrent.
Obama admitted doing coke in the eighties his
book, but if you mention
Obama's past they claim you're playing the race
card - but it's OK to go after her.
Are you trying to say that there's something
abhorrent in Obama's public record of the 80s
that the press refuses to mention?
Yes, his cocaine admissions that the GOP will
use against him this fall.
Or are you saying there must be because he doesn't
talk about the 80s on his website?
When you zoom over 15-20 years in a biography,
it raises suspicions.
Or are you trying to tickle the little islamic
theory a little?
If you want to attack Obama for something in the
80s tell us what it is.
Mike in Cheney
I'd rather stand on the ground than climb a tree
and attack Obama,
but if looking into Hillary's past is fair game,
can't we look at Obama's past?
Sometimes it's really hard to get an answer to a VERY simple question.
Excerpt: I wonder how all the Clintonistas who protested
that Bill and Hillary would never, ever dream
of stooping to racial politics must be feeling
now, after Bill was videotaped in the act.
ha ha Oh no! Not the tape!
When a reporter asked Bill about Obama's boast
that it took two Clintons to try to beat him,
Bill replied: "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina
in '84 and '88. Jackson ran a good campaign.
And Obama ran a good campaign here."
Now, the question had nothing to do with Jesse
Jackson. So why do you suppose Bill Clinton,
with no prompting, would bring up contests that
took place decades ago -- back when South
Carolina picked its convention delegates in caucuses,
Because he's an overt racist who doesn't have
to hide his overt racism when the cameras are
pointing at him?
Tell you what - let's let someone with a brain
Excerpt: Why did Clinton bring up those earlier contests?
Well, here's a painfully obvious answer:
Why, a certain Post pundit had even said it,
fairly often - and his name was Gene Robinson! Last July, for example, Robinson wondered:
Obama pointed out that
"black folks have known the Clintons for a long time. Still,
the Obama campaign recognizes the importance of South Carolina as
the first primary state with a substantial African American electorate.
"The Obama campaign sends out an ugly mailer.
Sorry, but this is just destructive - like the Obama plan, the Clinton plan offers
subsidies to lower-income families. And BO himself has conceded that he might
have to penalize people who don't buy insurance until they need care. So this is
just poisoning the well for health care reform. The politics of hope, indeed - this time a
Democrat is doing the smearing for the (GOP)" -- Paul Krugman,
Would Obama kill universal health care to get elected?
"Mr. Krugman, don't you understand that when
you attack Obama, no matter how much evidence you supply, something about
your attack is fishy? And don't you understand that when Obama's admirers
attack you, they are simply (and justly, and nobly) setting the record straight?...Don't
you understand yet that even the mildest reproach of Obama is gross slander,
the moral equivalent of treason?" -- Mezzanotte,
Not sure what this means, but it's a cool graphic...
you think all Barack people are Hillary Haters?
Bart:, you seem to believe that people who want
Obama as the Democratic nominee HATE Hillary.
Not at all.
The nuts who'd rather see the GOP win than Hillary
are the crazies..
Speaking for myself, that's not what I see.
I was an Edwards guy, but Hillary and Obama
"sucked all of the oxygen out of the room" (the
press had a lot to do with that.)
The GOP is fractured, and I think that either
Obama or Hillary can beat them.
You could be right, but I think her odds are better
- and this might be a good time to say
that NOBODY knows who's going to win in November.
All these polls that show McCain
beating one and losing to the other are snapshots
that change from Monday til Tuesday.
I think Obama has the better chance because the
GOP hates Hillary so much that she
energizes them and actually brings some of them
together in opposition. They just hate
everything about all things Clinton, whereas
Obama throws them a curve.
They hate the Clintons because the Clintons
I don't think we need to be doing them any favors.
Steve in South Louisiana
Did you hear that roar in the last debate when Wolf the Whore
asked about a Clinton-Obama ticket or an Obama-Clinton ticket?
As the new guy who's still learning the game, Obama should accept the
and bring all his wide-eyed, innocent young followers to the big "Change"
Excerpt: When I left the Bush administration in 2003,
it was clear to me that its strategy for
defeating terrorism was leaving our nation more
vulnerable and our people in a perilous place.
Not only did its policies misappropriate resources,
weaken the moral standing of America,
and threaten long-standing legal and constitutional
provisions, but the president also
employed misleading and reckless rhetoric to
perpetuate his agenda.
This week's State of the Union proved nothing
Besides overstating successes in Afghanistan,
painting a rosy future for Iraq, and touting
unfinished domestic objectives, he again used
his favorite tactic - fear - as a tool to scare
Congress and the American people. On one issue
in particular - FISA (Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act) - the president misconstrued
the truth and manipulated the facts.
Let me be clear: Our ability to track and monitor
terrorists overseas would not cease
should the Protect America Act expire. If this
were true, the president would not threaten
to terminate any temporary extension with his
veto pen. All surveillance currently occurring
would continue even after legislative provisions
lapsed because authorizations issued under
the act are in effect up to a full year.
Simply put, it was wrong for the president to
suggest that warrants issued in compliance
with FISA would suddenly evaporate with congressional
inaction. Instead - even though
Congress extended the Protect America Act by
two weeks - he is using the existence of
the sunset provision to cast his political opponents
in a negative light.
For this president, fear is an easier political
tactic than compromise.
Excerpt: Great decisions can reveal how future great decisions
might be made. No decision since
the so-called Gulf of Tonkin resolution in Vietnam
is more important than the vote on the
2002 war resolution on Iraq.
On issues such as this, it is not enough to say,
all make mistakes." Hillary cannot even
bring herself to say that. Why not, at least,
say, "The president misled me?"
She has, 100
times, didn't you watch the last debate?
Gary Hart, YOU are an idiot.
Given how tragically wrong that vote was, such
an admission would be at the
very least a signal of humility, responsibility,
wisdom, and character.
Horseshit. They want video of Hillary saying "I made a mistake" so they
can replay it
10,000 times like they did Bill's "I did not have sex with that
To hear these whiners tell the tale, if Hillary would just say, "It's
all my fault," then 4,000 dead soldiers would magically return alive to their families
Hillary is so stubborn that she just won't give that greatest gift
to those 4,000 families.
We all know that's crap, so why do they keep harping on it?
Could it be because --- that's all they have?
Why is it so important to hear Hillary say those four words? What would be gained from such a non-issue?
And do you want to know why I'm 100% certain that this is Horseshit?
And do you want to know why I'm 100% certain that Gary hart is an idiot?
Because he forgave John Kerry for that same vote in 2004, but
They want Hillary to go back in time and change her vote, which is kinda
It's OK for Kerry to have made that mistake - we all
gave him a pass in 2004,
but a Clinton? Never! They don't get the same pass that Kerry
got - why?
odd that nobody can answer that simple question? Gary Hart doesn't have the brains (or the courage) to answer that simple
Can a question get any simpler?
Why does the war hero get a pass, but not the woman?
If YOU can't answer that question, maybe that proves I'm right.
Sidebar: If you want to make some horseshit
accusation against Hillary,
just go to huffingtonpost.com - they'll print anything
that slurs Hillary,
no matter how stupid, no matter how easily refuted.
There you go, picking on us Catholics again.
When illegal immigration gets big enough and
we have control of this country.
The first thing we will do is arrest you for
being a racist asshole. Then as part of
your punishment we will undress you. When
you are completely naked we will
stand around and laff at what a little willie
I wrote back and said, "If you sent me something
halfway intelligent, I'd print it."
Oh Yeah! Picking on the pope is real inteligent.
Forgive me for calling you a racist asshole.
Please delete the word racist. I think your'e
mostly upset about us undressing you because then
we would find out that you really are a woman.
You argue like one. I suspect that is why Hilary
might be a good president. Who could argue with
her. Being married and having daughters I know.
The sad part is that her husband was the best
republican they ever had. The republicans want her to win.
Why do you think they are supporting a moron
like Micain. Here is something half way intelligent.
What would be a average donation to you? If I
agree I will send it to you.
So if you think the Pope is a flake, you're a
racist? Does that make sense?
Odd that after 2100 issues of testostrone-fueled
ravings you'd think I was a woman.
The Republicans want Hillary to win?
That's why they're going to spend $400M
to slime her this summer and fall?
They're supporting McCain (for now) because he's
all they got.
I'm not holding my breath, but I'll guess the
average donation is $11.
Excerpt: When Obama won the Iowa caucus, I watched to
see how he would behave.
Would he follow Churchill's great dictum: "In
defeat defiance, in victory magnanimity."
No he did not. In victory he showed vanity and
vindictiveness. Vanity in his clear belief
that what the flatterers and fans were assuring
him was the truth: he was a political messiah.
And vindictiveness in his dismissive and arrogant
treatment of Hillary in the New Hamster debate.
He showed the same vindictiveness and lack of
magnanimity after his victory in South Carolina.
The first part of his victory speech was a deeply
unpleasant attack on the Clintons.
No graciousness there.
And how did he handle defeat in New Hampshire
and Nevada? With a combination of denial,
petulance and the launching of a successful campaign
to persuade the American media that the
Clintons were engaged in a campaign of lies about
him and, even worse, a campaign of racism.
It was a mistake by Obama to claim the Clintons were racists.
With the whore media's help, he almost got away with it.
And I wasn't suprised when the media chimed in, but I'll never forgive
whores like Donna Brazile for echoing every horseshit, racist lie they
That's a shame,
I always liked her until that day.
Excerpt: Obama is not only popular among Democrats, he's
also appealing to many Republicans.
Joe Scarborough, now a whore for MSGOP, reports
that after every Obama speech,
he is inundated with e-mails praising the speech
-- with most of them coming from Republicans.
William Bennett, a drunken, naked gmabler who
lost $7M to the Bellagio in Las Vegas,
has said favorable things about Obama. So have
Rich Lowry and Peggy Noonan..
A number of prominent Republicans I know like
and would find it hard to generate much enthusiasm
in opposing him.
You're not really going to fall for that - are you?
After all these years, you're going to listen to those lying whores?
If you like Obama, vote for him, but don't vote for him because
the lying scumbags told you how impressed the GOP was with
"the black, Muslim Maddressa recruiter named
Bart, if Obama is nominated, one of the first
things the repugs will ask him
(because the corporate media never did) is this:
Why did he repeatedly
vote to fund this "dumb war" he has been against
since the beginning?
Any of you Obama backers have an answer for that?
Why is Obama funding a dumb war?
I can recall when I used to go to bartcop.com
for a decent cross-section of news.
These days it's mostly anti-Obama diatribes.
The Internet Democrats are 98% for Obama
and you're sad that I haven't jumped on that
If I had any brains, I'd go with the flow and
make big bucks
but this honesty chip keeps getting in the way.
I seriously doubt you'll be able to honor your
"truce" if Hillary ends up on the short end tomorrow.
Thanks for having faith in me.
It's unlikely that "Super Tuesday" will settle
anything (I believe it's mathematically impossible).
you'll continue to suggest that Obama should give up
and let Hillary win even if he has more delegates.
I hope I'm wrong.
Our motto for
this year is - "No Anti-Bush Site Left Behind".
So - if you have an anti-bush site and you are choking on hosting
fees or dealing with threats - let us know and we'll help keep you online.
have that strongest server side spam filtering on the planet.
Check out Marx
Mail for info on how you can have a Spam
Free Email Account.