Video when it comes, but just now on MSNBC, showing McCains speech at the NRA.

McCain attacked Obama for saying he would withdraw immediately no matter what, even if Military advisers were against it.

1 problem this was HILLARY's stance, that she would withdraw even if her Millitary advisers were against, it, she said its the President who sets the agenda.

now whether Hillary was right or wrong, (for the most part I think she is right, but I think she would listen more to her advisers then she lets on)

the point is, McCain in order to hit back at Obama, hits him for SOMEONE else's policy stance. how do you spin when you completely get wrong your opponents position? I can't wait to see McCain surrogates spin this when someone in the Media finally catches up and points it out.

anyone watch MSNBC or Bush's speech? I can't believe it Bush just compared wanting to engage countries like Iran, as being akin to the Nazi Appeasement of the 30's the comment

"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," he said, with aides telling reporters he meant Obama. "We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American Senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.'"

wow Bush wow.

seriously its that simple. if you are over the age of 13 then grow up and stop using terms like "Obamabot" or "Clintonista" and also can we drop the whole "well they started it argument"

seriously months into this primary and I am just done, I am 24 years old and the fact I have to actually tell a bunch of 30, 40 and even 50 year olds to grow up is just sad.

did no one here have parents that taught em the golden rule? does no one here have kids? do you people really accept the "well they started it" argument from your kids?

grow up, if you can't treat people with basic level respect then be prepared to be treated like a child.

but honestly its pathetic that I can't go anywhere on the internet anymore and find Adults talking. its just a bunch of juvenile infants everywhere

"you are an Obamabot"
"you're delusional!"
"you're a kool-aid drinker"
"well they started it"
"no they started it"
"shut up"
"no you shut up"

its embarrassing to watch people probably twice my age, act like they are half my age.

is basic common courtesy that hard?

I just saw this article on Huffington Post and it was interesting because at the same time I am reading Talk left and taylor Marsh and I saw EXACTLY what the supers here are talking about.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/09 /clinton-supporters-send-l_n_100979.html

As the Democratic primary nears its long-awaited conclusion, undecided superdelegates have been drowned under a sudden deluge of angry, sometimes vicious emails from Hillary Clinton supporters urging them to not fall in line behind Barack Obama.

The letter writing campaign picked up steam late Thursday evening when several superdelegates confirmed that a coordinated effort had been launched, apparently independent of Clinton's campaign, to raise last-minute concerns about Obama's candidacy and present the specter of voter defections should the Illinois Democrat become the nominee.

nothing new people from both sides have been trying to persuade the supers to support their candidate. I  thought about it once, but I am a terrible writer so figured against it. but it seems as the reality starts to set in some supporters can't let go

Such campaigns targeting superdelegates have mostly been avoided out of fear that the party officials would react negatively to outside pressure. And at least four superdelegates on the receiving end of yesterday's emails suggested that they did more harm to Clinton's cause than good.

and the best part of all? TaylorMarsh.com posters, can go post this to them and basically say great job guys

"It was a 'spur of the moment' idea brought about by a blog (Taylor Marsh)," explained Shirley Luther, a Texas Democrat who threatened to vote for McCain should Obama be the nominee. "Tonight several of our bloggers came up with the idea of writing the super delegates. Someone on the blog found a list of emails and posted it.... Everything I wrote is the truth about my political background. The exit polls show I am not alone in refusing to vote for Obama and opting to McCain. This probably would not be possible if there was any other Republican running. But there are a lot of moderate Democrats who do respect his service."

Luther's email, compared to the nearly dozen provided to The Huffington Post, was mild in tone. Beyond threatening defection from the party, authors attacked Obama for his relationship with Reverend Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers, the unrepentant Weather Underground member who is a Chicago acquaintance of the senator. One writer accused the Illinois Democrat of playing the "race card" against the Clintons -- a proposition most political observers argue is reversed -- while several others called him a misogynist.

and here is what a Redstate democrat had to say about this new letter writing camapign

"I spent my entire life in the two reddest states in the entire U.S. so please excuse me if I fail to discern the nuances of the arguments sent my way this evening in what appears to be an orchestrated campaign to intimidate the remaining unpledged delegates by threatening to leave the party and vote for a third Bush term if I and others like me don't vote for Sen. Clinton," wrote the exasperated superdelegate. "I have been uncommitted throughout this campaign because I wanted to see how the candidates performed in a variety of settings. I am proud of them both. But I am horrified by this effort to threaten votes for McCain if super delegates don't vote for Sen. Clinton. I have received hundreds of emails from both sides - but I can say without exception that I have not received a single email from an Obama supporter that threatened a vote for McCain if I didn't support Sen. Obama. You really ought to be ashamed."

Alright I usually miss these things, I honestly thought that the whole Wright thing would never last more then 2 days, well I was wrong about that.

so yesterday when I heard the white comment, well 1) I didn't think it was true, Democrats never win the white working class vote, its the minority vote, latinos, Blacks, etc, the minority vote is what gets democrats to the white house and many many seats around the country. and as the gallup poll yesterday said, Obama isn't really that far behind then Kerry was among the white votes, so it seems more to me that DEMOCRATS have a white problem, not Obama, but whatever

but here it is 24 hrs later and whats on Morning Joe? the White comment, and what was everywhere yesterday the White comment, sure it was a bit tasteless, the question was What was Hillary's Path to the Nomination? and she basically says I got white people.

it was a dumb way to answer the question, but really was it that bad? Dan Abrams said last night had this happened a month ago this REALLY would have exploded, but only the fact that basically Hillary is done is really keeping this exploding in her face,

so I was wrong about Wright, I was wrong about Tulza (thought it would be more of a big deal) I was wrong about 'Bitter' so I am starting to think I am wrong about the "white" comment and this is not going to go away so then I have to ask was it really that bad? and if so why?

and HRC supporters obviously you are going to say no, so how about instead you can just tell us what she really meant, and why she choose that way to answer the question about what her path to the nomination was.

as we all know MI came up with their own proposal that they submitted to the DNC

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsm emo.com/2008/05/michigan_dems_suggest_co mpromi.php

and as Chris Bowers note just about EVERY High level official in Michigan approved of the plan,

the new deal proposed from the Michigan Democratic Party should be an end to it. Every high-level Michigan Democrat now appears to be behind a 69-59 pledged delegate split, plus seating the superdelegates

and as was diaried earlier the Obama campaign had all but accepted.

we now Hillary has said no
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsm emo.com/

"This proposal does not honor the 600,000 votes that were cast in Michigan's January primary. Those votes must be counted."

well I bet the State of Michigan will be happy that Hillary rejected THEIR plan because she is worried about THEIR voters. It seems Hillary is now telling the State of Michigan they aren't doing enough to help their own voters.

wonder if the State of Michigan will be happy with hillary,

as I said else where

the State of Michigan rejected her proposal of as is and rejected Obama's of 50/50 they came up with their own which was a compromise. Obama accepted.

she did not, the number stays at 2,025 and its not Obama's fault. The State of Michigan came up with this proposal on their own to get their delegates seated and now Hillary is the one who is blocking it.

she is now arguing with the State of Michigan itself over the plan and Obama can sit back and say "we supported the plan that the State of Michigan came up with themselves" not his fault Hillary doesn't like MI's idea, and I bet MI is not happy that once again their attempts to get their delegates seated have now been stopped.

well that right there explains why she lost.

Times went over the 5 mistakes that the Clintons made

http://www.time.com/time/politics/articl e/0,8599,1738331,00.html

I think the 2 that really did it for her

2. She didn't master the rules
Clinton picked people for her team primarily for their loyalty to her, instead of their mastery of the game. That became abundantly clear in a strategy session last year, according to two people who were there. As aides looked over the campaign calendar, chief strategist Mark Penn confidently predicted that an early win in California would put her over the top because she would pick up all the state's 370 delegates. It sounded smart, but as every high school civics student now knows, Penn was wrong: Democrats, unlike the Republicans, apportion their delegates according to vote totals, rather than allowing any state to award them winner-take-all. Sitting nearby, veteran Democratic insider Harold M. Ickes, who had helped write those rules, was horrified -- and let Penn know it. "How can it possibly be," Ickes asked, "that the much vaunted chief strategist doesn't understand proportional allocation?" And yet the strategy remained the same, with the campaign making its bet on big-state victories. Even now, it can seem as if they don't get it. Both Bill and Hillary have noted plaintively that if Democrats had the same winner-take-all rules as Republicans, she'd be the nominee. Meanwhile, the Clinton campaign now acknowledges privately:

3. She underestimated the caucus states
While Clinton based her strategy on the big contests, she seemed to virtually overlook states like Minnesota, Nebraska and Kansas, which choose their delegates through caucuses. She had a reason: the Clintons decided, says an adviser, that "caucus states were not really their thing." Her core supporters -- women, the elderly, those with blue-collar jobs -- were less likely to be able to commit an evening of the week, as the process requires. But it was a little like unilateral disarmament in states worth 12% of the pledged delegates. Indeed, it was in the caucus states that Obama piled up his lead among pledged delegates. "For all the talent and the money they had over there," says Axelrod, "they -- bewilderingly -- seemed to have little understanding for the caucuses and how important they would become."

By the time Clinton's lieutenants realized the grave nature of their error, they lacked the resources to do anything about it -- in part because:

make no mistake her Husband won TWICE under these rules, there is no excuse for her campaign NOT to be filled with people who 100% knew how to work this system. Bill should have been there explaining the importance of caucuses, at least he should have known.

to bad Penn was contracted so she has to pay that $4 million, because that man should not be allowed around Democratic politics again.

that was a NEW endorsment, I am the FIRST to diary it

so who ever just warned me for making a NEW diary about a NEW endorsment that NO one else has made a diary yet since its for today, and once again I was FIRST. so warning me for making diaries that have NOT been posted before?

are we kidding here?

5/2/2008
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/s tory?id=3105288&page=1

Paul Kirk, Ex-DNC Chair And Superdelegate, To Endorse Obama

Speaking of math -- the Obama campaign rolls out another former DNC chairman's endorsement on Friday: Paul Kirk, a superdelegate who led the party from 1985-1989, is coming out for Obama -- a day after Andrew's switch, an Obama campaign official tells The Note. (And don't count on that being it for the day, as the dribble continues.)

so lets read the diaries and not just start deleting them THINKING we know what the diary said? ok?