Estimates indicate that between 80 to 20 Asian Americans across the country actually care about this initiative.
Here is some of the text from the original letter to Obama: This is an earnest, final attempt by 80-20 Educational Foundation to reach out to you and ask for your hand of friendship and support. I promise to dutifully relay your response to the leadership of our Asian American community by 12 noon Central Time on 1/15/08. Depending on your response, our community may be forced to choose sides in the Democratic primary. We had not planned on that. If we hear from you affirmatively, we will remain neutral. Are you suggesting that they made that pledge only to Obama and not Edwards? If so, then you lied here, when you claimed: 80-20 sure has agendas, like everybody else does, but it is not prejudiced against any one candidate so long he/she meets the requirements. If they are willing to stay neutral if Obama agrees to their nonsense demands but not for Edwards, they *are* prejudiced against certain candidates, in which case you have to ask yourself why this is an organization worth supporting.
Exactly. I don't care if someone doesn't want to support Obama, that is fine. But to pretend like an organization that is dishonest in their own agreement, is any better than what WNES is preaching against here, is just odd. It reeks of someone who has formed an opinion but now twists and contorts any event in order to mold the facts to fit their opinion.
Look, although it was a de facto two-person race officially there were still 3 names on the ballot before Edwards dropped out. A PAC is obligated to fulfill its mission statement by devoting most of the votes (in 80-20's case, 80%) to one leading candidate who shares its view. If the votes are spreading among those who signed the pledge, it defeats the whole purpose of bloc voting. Maintaining neutrality is only possible when every competing candidate signed pledge. You and FranchiseBlade are chasing your own tail by insisting otherwise. It couldn't have been clearer that Obama wasn't interested in settling the wording difference in a timely fashion -- 6 months were long enough. There was no reason for 80-20 to give him undeserved extra time to bullsh!t around. Edwards would have been the candidate actively endorsed by 80-20 if he did better than Hillary in earlier primaries. Candidates' positions on other issues are of no concern to 80-20. The only thing that matters is their positions in the race.
Any consortium of peoples unified in support of Hellwhory can only be construed as evil and wretched!!
You claim it was only a 3 person race. A brokered convention could lead to a John Edwards nomination. anything could still happen in the race. The don't call the race off after 4 primaries and kick people out. Until it's over it isn't over. Like in football Just because a team is down in the playoffs by 35 points in 2nd half doesn't mean they stop playing the game, because sometimes the team or candidate that seems out of it comes back and wins.(The Bills sadly did it to the Oilers) Anyway, because you arbitrarily decide it's no longer a 3 person race doesn't make it so. It seems incredibly arrogant that anyone or group can just decide to break their word, because they think they know better than the American electoral system. I don't understand why are trying to find reasons and excuses to pardon the lies of 80-20. They clearly lied. Whatever else they did right or wrong doesn't change the fact that they lied. As far as Obama's campaign not trying to settle the wording of the pledge in 6 months is a meaningless claim. Obama's response shows that they did try. The fact that they may have had other important jobs along the campaign to deal with rather than make this dishonest group their number one priority so they could hammer out a deal for a group that was already against them, then that only makes sense. The mere fact that Obama's campaign did stick with it long enough to iron out a deal with 80-20 and sign the pledge shows remarkable dedication from Obama's camp, and a willingness to put aside the issues of 80-20's dishonesty, and obvious dislike for Obama. That shows incredible character, and is actually very true to Obam's message of changing the old way of doing politics, and uniting. My real question is this. 80-20, and Obama came to an agreement on the pledge? Why are you still worried about it?
A brokered convention could lead to a Edwards nomination? What world are you living in? All polls leading to the South Carolina indicated Edwards was all but finished, and his dropping out of race were only a matter of formality and time. 80-20 would have to go against its own stated mission by splitting votes among all candidates, when you have a shoddy politician like Obama who deliberately drags its feet. 80-20 gives equal opportunity to every candidate to start with, and remains neutral if everybody signs the pledge in a reasonable time frame. That's the fairest position a PAC can ever take. You are out of your friggin' mind that 80-20 is obligated to give Obama a free pass with his non-measurable response after all that time. Obama felt it's not his top priority to negotiate with 80-20 on the wording of the pledge in good faith. He only reacted to 80-20's decisive action. But the perception of lying by 80-20 is a just a perception of a few Obama zealots. The facts are: 1) 80-20 was neutral and kept silent for more than 6 months, during which all but two Dem candidates signed their pledges; 2) as soon as Obama signed his, 80-20 acknowledged, responded graciously, and remains neutral. The whole controversy apparently revolves around one statement: "If we hear from you affirmatively, we will remain neutral." Given the chronological events, I don't think 80-20 faltered: was neutral in the beginner for a very long period and has gone back to neutrality at the end. If you think 80-20 was pretending to be neutral during that middle period you couldn't be more wrong. The purpose, the tone, and the theme of open letter were never intended to be neutral after more 6 months of stonewalling by Obama. Could it be possible that I am not a one-issue voter and that I tend to look deep into the character of a political con artist with fraudulent record? Wasn't it you who dragged in to the debate Hillary's alleged violation of her pledge to DNC? How was Obama doing? Shall I remind you to go over the facts in post # 113?
You like making a lot of personal comments like I'm out of my friggin' mind, and the like, but that doesn't change the fact that 80-20 lied, Obama didnt' hold a grudge and worked to find an agreement. Obama succeeded in coming to an agreement with 80-20 the exact kind of change in political mindset that he's basing his campaign around. As for the brokered convention it has happened in the past. So I guess I'm living in a world where it's happened. In 1923 there were 123 ballots cast for the nominee until finally it was a virtual unknown that ended up getting the nomination. So while you pretend like it's crazy and out of the world it has happened. It certainly isn't the most likely scenario, but improbable things happen. I can't believe you are excusing 80-20 going back on their word because the polls suggested something. The logic of that is ludicrous and was shown to be so when the polls showed Obama winning NH. The Polls were wrong in the 2000 election when many networks made the mistake you are making and called the race for Al Gore initially. The process doesn't work where they take polls and then nobody votes because the polls tell us what the result would be. Results are not official until the votes are cast. So to just excuse 80-20 because the polls said one thing, and people either ignore or don't know the history of brokered conventions doesn't make sense. By the way Abe Lincoln lost the first ballot at the convention that eventually sent him to the white house. For the millionth time, I don't care if 80-20 wants to campaign against Obama. They just shouldn't lie about remaining neutral. I'm not faulting 80-20 for campaigning against Obama, I'm faulting them for lying. So while you excuse one groups dishonesty, you go out of your way to try and denounce a candidate for dishonesty. Your position against dishonesty in politics doesn't seem to be evenly applied. You make up excuses for one group to excuse dishonesty while grasping at straws to make another candidate appear to be dishonest.
OF course it was me, and you can talk about the facts all you want. I've already addressed that. Obama's doing fine. As far as and uniting politics goes we can look at both candidates, and even if Obama's record isn't perfect, is leaps and bounds above Hillary's and any other candidate. It is something new. The fact that his opponents have had to hunt so hard to find irrelevant after irrelevant, and sometimes false, issues to try and get something to stick, just shows that.
It is you who is grasping at straws by making something out of nothing. In a true three-way race where every candidate agrees to a pledge, 80-20 would take no side. But that was not the case, because A was running behind in every poll by substantial margin, B was noncommittal with his non-measurable response. Naturally 80-20 threw its full support to C, who was the front runner and shared its view. This is not the world of 1923. Staying neutral in such situation amounts to lunatic fantasy, which has nothing to do with honesty. On the other hand, by acknowledging Obama's belated pledge and going back to neutral stance, 80-20 has shown both pragmatism and principle. Huh? How exactly was Obama doing fine when he committed the same "fouls" you accused his rival did, such as keeping his name on the ballot, and holding fundraising event in the state abandoned by DNC? How exactly was he was doing when he clearly violated the pledge by holding news conference and pleading ignorance one day after he agreed not to campaign in Florida? How exactly was he doing fine when he had his surrogates running TV ads in northern Florida days before its primary? How exactly was he doing fine when he disrespected the people he was supposed to represent by disenfranchising their voting rights? Obama is relatively inexperienced, but his fraudulent record is outstanding. Lying about his father's family background, under-reporting his income as a community organizer (same pattern: under-reporting illegal campaign contribution from his slumlord buddy as noted by major Chicago newspaper), making up story about cleaning up asbestos, ignoring paying more than a dozen of parking tickets for 17 years, exercising zero due diligence by leaving many African-American families -- the very constituents he was supposed to protect -- in his slumlord buddy's housing project buildings in squalid conditions ... the list goes on and on. His Rezko connection aside, whose investigation is pending, many of his white lies, seemingly harmless when looked alone, but when strung together, signify the pattern of a most hyped political con men. FranchiseBlade, your continued Swiftboating 80-20 exonerates nothing from this flim-flam artist.
Again I don't care if they stayed neutral or not. The only issue is that they lied about staying neutral. If it was lunatic fantasy for them to stay neutral, they should have never pledged to do so. By doing that they lied. They were dishonest, plain and simple. ARe the surrogates you talk about the 527 group? Or was it actually his campaign. He didn't disenfranchise anyone's voting rights at all. I can only guess you are talking about Nevada, and polling places at work. That actually allows more people to vote, not preventing others from voting. I'm not swiftboating 80-20. The claimed they would do one thing and did another. The fact that you excuse that by talking about what the polls said at the time, doesn't change it. He didn't lie about his father's background, that is your twist of what he wrote in his book, and based on GUESSES by some blogger. They literally said because his father later married another white woman, then his family couldn't have been racist. That was their guess, and they weren't involved at all. Obama was actually closer to the situation than you or the blogger you got that from. The asbestos story comes from a single account by an elderly woman, who is supporting Obama and showing that instead of cleaning up one hazardous material it may have been a different hazardous material. Big whoop. I have yet to see any legal action, not even an indictment on under reporting any income on anything. Again if all you have to throw at a candidate is unpaid parking tickets, and helping a community by cleaning up one hazardous material instead of another, he's the cleanest candidate we've had in decades. More power to him. The Rezko stuff is the only issue that would be of any concern, and that hasn't been really developed that well.
The only "pledge" they made is staying neutral if Obama answered affirmatively YES to all 6 questions. When Obama did, 80-20 responded as pledged. That's what matters. The phantom pledge you claimed never existed in reality. Don't you lie about it. What the hell you are talking about, Nevada? You accused Hillary leaving her name on ballot in MI, breaking her "pledge" to DNC, I countered Obama did the same thing in FL, and then more. Now you are running away from it by going off on a tangent? This is what you said: "Though as we have seen Hillary's signed pledges don't amount to much." And in that Union Leader thread, you said: "This is just more proof that she can't be trusted, and that ambition trumps ethics with her." By leaving his name on FL's ballot, did Obama's signed pledge amount to anything? Is this not the same proof that Obama can't be trusted, and that ambitions trumps ethics with him? Those are not guesses, dude. They are investigative works that have not been disputed. This is indeed a guesswork, but it makes a lot of sense. Why did he lie then? It's because most people don't realize fiberglass is potentially harmful, they only know asbestos is. A convenient white lie. Why didn't he fully disclose to the public he got nearly 100% increase in his annual salary in two years, working as community organizer? $25,000 annual salary is 36% above the national average wage index in 1987, and is night and day different from the menial low $10K he claimed to receive in 1985. Another convenient white lie to garner public sympathy. It is of course not illegal to not fully disclose to public about his true earning. But if your standard on a candidate only concerns legality, not ethics and morality, you are as pathetic as the candidate you support. We are talking about 15 unpaid parking tickets of 17 years. Did the obligation of a public citizen ever occur to him while he was a serving State Senator in IL? Did it occur to him while he ran US Senator in 2004? Did it ever cross his mind when he returned to Boston to deliver his national speech in Dem convention 3 years before he decided to run US President? Does he have any shame? If not, do you? So you are delighted that big media sure have mostly turned a blind eye and deaf ear on it? Legality aside, his lack of due diligence as a State Senator in regards to squalid housing condition in his slumlord buddy's government sponsored program rings no alarm whatsoever to his capability to serve his people?
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ip1zsUIosoA&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ip1zsUIosoA&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
mc mark this has to be one of the longest posts I've seen from you outside the "mc josh/kos" blog pieces, but I still commend you for making such an effort. Elimination is part of the process. Having no clear-cut candidate to back is not something to be embarrassed about. To many people it comes down to vote for the lesser of the two evils. Associating me with Trader_Jorge and bigtexxx gives you nothing to celebrate. They are entitled to their opinions just you and your liberal friends are. Just because they are on the other end of the political spectrum it does not necessarily mean they are wrong. In the case of Obama's candidacy, Trader_Jorge is right when he said you liberals didn't ask nearly enough tough questions about this media/Hollywood-hyped, inexperienced yet very flawed Chicago politician. bigtexxx is exactly right when he denounced Obama's stupid fear-based populist hysteria to ban all imported Chinese toys.
