What makes you think 80-20 went out to screw Obama? The 6 questions were sent out last summer. 80-20 renegotiated the wording with both Edwards and Clinton when both campaign reached back to 80-20. Obama procrastinated, or waited and saw it was going to do no good to his campaign. The phone line of 80-20 remains open 24 x 7. Your conspiracy theory holds no water. You need to be more specific here.
We won!!! There is really no need to gloat. (I do have to admit, the urge is pretty strong...... Got to resist the urge....) The original question has the phrase "not meaning to imply quota", the one signed by Senator Obama doesn't. The original question has the phrase ".. , whenever such vacancies are available? " that have a lot of Obama supporters wince. Well, the one signed by Senator Obama keeps that statement. In some way, the one signed by Senator Obama is stronger. Given the timing and the closeness of the race, we all know what happens. But it is not the time to gloat. As far as I am concerned, Senator Obama is now on the right side of this issue. He shall be applauded.
I'm not sure they were out to screw Obama. However, they were dishonest in their approach. They said they would't take sides, and already had ads on their website to "STOP OBAMA". That was before the deadline they issued. So contrary to their statements they were not neutral, and thus dishonest. Obama had tried to work with them on rewording, but for some reason they refused to reword the pledge for Obama even though they had already done so for the other candidates. As far as Hillary's pledge she didn't remove her name from the ballot in MI. She made campaign stops in Florida, and did indeed campaign there, contrary to her pledge. So the fact that she signed something, doesn't really hold much water. I think it's great that both Obama and 80-20 were able to reach an agreement.
no no no, its great that 80-20 forced obama to back down and its suspicious that obama all of sudden agreed to sign the pledges even though they finally came to an agreement on language
Maybe that politicians start to pay some lip service to Asian Americans, not just other minority groups? Even just lip service, it's still one important step ahead, IMHO.
Untrue. Just like its cause, 80-20 holds equal opportunity for all when it comes to endorsing political candidates. Obama had 6 months to negotiate with 80-20 on the wording of the pledge but refused to do so. Given the intensity of the Dem primary, 80-20 did the right thing by putting pressure on Obama while still giving him the opportunity to correct himself. There is no indication Obama attempted to negotiate the wording on good faith. The President of 80-20 publicly stated he was not contacted by Obama campaign during that period. Did you skip my post in basso's Union Leader thread? There was no rule against keeping your name on the ballot. Otherwise, how do you explain Obama's name was also on Florida's ballot? If having closed, private fund raising is campaigning, what was Obama doing after signing his pledge to the DNC? http://www2.tbo.com/content/2007/sep/30/obama-vows-do-whats-right/?news-breaking You Obama supporters have no shame.
Bingo, we got a winner. All they got is to get the Asian American a place on the table. That's all. As shown by how 80-20 has to drag, pull, from the three main candidates (Clinton, Edwards, and Obama), even little things like that are hard to get.
Obama's campaign released the official letter in response to 80-29's demand. It mentioned specifically that they wished that 80-20 had been able to reword the pledge for the Obama campaign as they did for the other campaign. It is also true that contrary to what they claimed 80-20 did not remain neutral. They had a huge headline about stopping Obama. I don't know who you can act like that is keeping neutral. And you accuse Obama supporters of having no shame? Yes I read that, and I specifically mentioned keeping her name on the Michigan ballot. It was you who brought up the Fla. ballot. Obviously the people who the pledge was signed with, feel betrayed by her, thus the release of the statement. If you feel she somehow didn't break her pledge, convince the Union leader of that. The fact remains that while the other candidates did take their name off, Hillary did not.
And sadly wnes you are sounding more and more shrill in your attacks on Obama. I'm sorry that there isn't a candidate that you can enthusiastically get behind, but please don't be like TJ and Texxx and take your frustrations out on Obama simply because you have no one to back.
That's patently false. You may want to read this portion of the opening post again -- clear and unequivocal rebuttal to Obama campaign's claim: Either Obama's staff were stonewalling 80-20 -- with or without Obama's knowledge, or they were woefully incompetent. In any case, the ball had been in Obama's court for more than 6 months for them to suggest specific changes in the wording, but they did nothing. I support 80-20's decision for exposing Obama's non-measurable promises, given that many other Dem candidates had already signed the pledge. There was no way to maintain neutrality in that situation. Geebus, the central theme of that Union Leader's op-ed piece is that Hillary the unethical lying w**** broke her pledge not to *campaign* in MI and FL, while her Dem rival Obama aka Mr. High Ethical Standard, the new voice for America's hope, did anything but. If the pledge does not stipulate leaving your name on the ballot is a violation, then it's not. Insinuation by the supporters of political opponents does not make it so. Withdrawing names by primary rivals has no bearing on the merit of the argument, either. Let's not forget Obama didn't take his name off in FL. If the pledge does not stipulate closed private fund raising is a violation, then it's not. Let's not forget Obama had a fundraiser 1 day after the pledge took effect. Let's not forget Obama also held a news conference after he signed the pledge, a clear violation as noted by Tampa Tribune. Hillary did not do so until the poll was closed, which is not in violation of the pledge. Let's not forget Obama campaign ran TV ads in north FL in days leading up to the primary. For every conceivable infringement Hillary is accused of by Union Leader, which you wasted no time to harp on, your candidate did the same, and even worse in some case. Yes, you Obama supporters have no shame when it comes to hypocrisy and political mudslinging. Obama OOPs-ed again by claiming ignorantly he was unaware the pledge he signed prohibits news conferences before primary. Obama flip flopped by first saying he would seat a Florida delegation at the party's national convention and then siding with DNC by mocking Florida's primary is nothing more than a "beauty contest." Obama kissed DNC's ass and gave Florida voters the finger. Obama the ever ungracious smug didn't even bother to thank his supporters in Florida after they voted for him despite being disenfranchised by their candidate who was in complicity with the Democratic Party establishment to screw them in a royal fashion.
I saw that. It isn't patently false, it is that you chose to believe the 80-20 word over Obama's It's a he said/he said deal. You choose to believe the side that claimed they would remain neutral while having a Stop Obama ad on their front page. Obviously you support their decision to campaign against Obama. They are free to campaign against him night and day. However they lied about remaining neutral in the race. They lied and the proof was on the front page of their website. Whether you are happy about their message or not doesn't change the fact they claimed one thing while doing another. They lied. Talk about hypocrisy you started claiming supporters had no shame, and reiterate it again here while decrying political mudslinging. You have shown yourself to be guilty of that mudslinging here.
Not only that, but they are flat-out liars. Edwards and Hillary signed their little pledge long ago. Yet, on January 18th, before South Carolina and while Edwards was still in the race, 80-20 endorsed Hillary in California, removing their neutrality and screwing Edwards over: http://80-20initiative.blogspot.com/2008/01/great-news-must-read.html 80-20's word is worthless. I think a bit less of Obama for caving to these crazies. I'd much rather him have simply said "there are a lot of inequities in government, and we're going to work to fix them. I will nominated the best judges, regardless of race, when openings arise. No preference will be given to any race."
When 80-20 published the open letter and sent the email out to inform the recipients that it was going to take Obama to task, the intention was abundantly clear -- that the 6-month waiting period in which the organization had remained neutral was over. There was never any doubt in most people's mind that 80-20 was choosing the side by picking one of the front runners who made the pledge. I don't know what lie you are talking about here. It's a strawman you are trying to set up by diverting the attention away from the candidates themselves. The Obama campaign took way too much time by adopting an opportunistic, wait-and-see approach. If there was damage done, too bad. They only have themselves to blame. Maintaining neutrality is not 80-20's goal, getting as many candidates to pledge and throwing support to those signed front runners are the goal. By giving Obama a second chance as well as extended time and graciously acknowledging his much belated commitment, 80-20 shows it is more than willing to put the minor differences and disagreement behind and to achieve win-win situation for all sides. I don't think you can find a PAC as non-partisan as 80-20 is. Hypocrisy is 1) claiming moral/ethical superiority over something that's utterly undeserved -- such as breaking campaign promises over and over again, and 2) accusing political rival of committing foul, which, if any, is far less than you own candidate have done. Of all the facts I laid out in my rebuttal to that Union Leader's opinion piece that you agree with, you failed to make even one counter-argument. Is it that you have conceded? Or do you want to have a second chance? Whenever you intend to reply, I shall remind you it is not Hillary, but Obama who is campaigning on hope, change, and high ethical standard. What has he done to convince you he practices what he preaches?
Excuse me. By January 18th, Edwards was pretty much in the last throe of his candidacy -- South Carolina primary held or not: January 18, 2008 Reuters/Zogby Nevada poll: Clinton 42%, Obama 37%, Edwards 12% January 18, 2008 Research 2000 Florida poll: Clinton 50%, Obama 28%, Edwards 13% January 18, 2008 Mason-Dixon Nevada poll: Clinton 41%, Obama 32%, Edwards 14% January 18, 2008 Rasmussen California poll: Clinton 38%, Obama 33%, Edwards 12% January 18, 2008 ARG South Carolina poll: Clinton 39%, Obama 45%, Edwards 10% January 18, 2008 InsiderAdvantage Florida poll: Clinton 42%, Obama 34%, Edwards 9% January 18, 2008 Mason-Dixon South Carolina poll: Clinton 31%, Obama 40%, Edwards 13% It would be nice to endorse all candidates who signed their pledges, but it is of little practical use, since it defeats the purpose of voting as a bloc.
Actually at the time they had the Stop Obama stuff initially on their website it was when they were supposedly claiming to still be neutral. It is crazy that you try to excuse your own personal mudslinging by claiming that it's Obama that is campaigning for change and higher ethics. Again the Union leader thing I did reply regarding the fact that Michigan was where all the other candidates did remove their name and Hillary did not. While Obama had a fund raiser and Hillary had a fund raiser, only one candidate somehow managed to time her fund raiser right around the Florida Primary while she was making the rounds and every other stop happened to be exactly one associated with her campaign. Hillary's stuff seems blatant thrashing of the pledge, and maybe Obama's was too. But the Union leader seemed to feel more betrayed by one than the other. He was after all a representative of those the pledge was made with.
Doesn't matter - he was still in the race. It's not 80-20's job to decide when someone is or isn't viable. They broke their pledge to John Edwards to stay neutral in regards to all candidates that signed the pledge. I wouldn't trust 80-20's word because it sounds like they'll be happy to break it whenever its no longer convenient.
Excuse me again. When did 80-20 ever make a pledge to John Edwards to stay neutral? Where in 80-20's mission statement that says it shall endorse in primaries all political candidates who signed pledge? And who are you to decide what 80-20's job is?
