Oh, he's friends with the guy.  Rezko sold him land next to his mansion. I wish they had the phone tap on that conversation.  You don't get something for nothin.  Though Mr Shocked says he paid full price. 

Only in America, you can have an amazing circle of friends, felons, ministers, priest and alleged bombers and still hope to be President and have 17 million followers to boot.  This must be the twilight zone.  Or maybe,

There's no place like home

There's no place like home

Aggghhh, I'm still here.

Hillary is now going to be "a good little girl"

looking at the letter from her campaign this morning about her Saturday speech.

Excerpt--

"I have said throughout the campaign that I would strongly support Senator Obama if he were the Democratic Party's nominee, and I intend to deliver on that promise."

"I will be speaking on Saturday about how together we can rally the party behind Senator Obama."  

-----------------------------

Hey Rosemary--This is one of your Texas Hillary delegates!

(McCain will probably have a bird---But ya gotta fight fire with fire.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Angry Clinton Supporters Start Rallying for McCain Online

By Sarah Lai Stirland June 04, 2008 | 4:04:24 PMCategories: Election '08  

They're mad as hell, and Hillary Clinton's supporters aren't going to take it anymore.

Some Clintonites are so mad about Barack Obama's Tuesday victory that they've launched a web site to build support to launch a lobbying group to support Republican John McCain.

"We're going to run campaign ads to defeat Obama," says Ed Hale, a 63-year-old rancher and a Clinton supporter from Wellington, Texas. "We have doctors, lawyers, CPAs, the blue bloods, and then we have rednecks like me. It's a very diversified organization."

The split illustrates the difficult task the Democratic party now faces in rallying the troops behind Obama. Open dissent within party ranks provides Republicans with openings to exploit.

Hale launched the "Hillary Clinton Supporters for John McCain" group last Saturday. The campaign claims to have 5,000 supporters, and its website visitor counter says that it has already attracted 37,807 visitors.

"Last night, when they crowned Obama king, that's when I sent my e-mails out to people, and since then, we've gotten thousands of hits," he says.

Hale, a Vietnam veteran and a long-time Democrat, says that many of the group's supporters are Reagan Democrats, and their primary concern is foreign policy and defense. A call to the Texas Democratic Party confirmed that he was supposed to have been a delegate to the state convention this week. 

He says that he wouldn't vote for Obama even if Clinton were vice president.

In addition, he says that he will not sign an online petition that former Clinton White House special counsel Lanny Davis sent out on the web Tuesday night -- calling for Obama to choose Clinton as vice president.

Former Clinton White House Special Counsel Lanny Davis has launched an online petition calling on Obama to choose Clinton for VP.
Photo: Associated Press/Manuel Balce Ceneta

Rickie Banning, president of "Hillary Clinton Supporters Count Too," a website, says that she's received hundreds of e-mails from Clinton supporters who are angry at the Democratic National Committee, and who are registering as independent. Some of them say that they will vote for John McCain.

A sampling of the e-mails that she sent along show that many of the supporters feel cheated.

"If you ask me, I feel sad in my heart, and I think a lot of people do, but some people are really angry," Banning says. "People feel upset, and not listened to, and a lot of people feel like they're being thrown under the bus. "

Statistics compiled by Real Clear Politics show that in terms of the popular vote, Democratic voters split evenly between Clinton and Obama, though Obama reached the delegate count necessary to win the nomination on Tuesday.

For its part, the Republican National Committee is capitalizing on Democratic party leaders' criticisms of Obama in a new web video posted to its site Wednesday.

And Matt Burns, a spokesman for the Republican National Convention, says that he's received voice mail from Clinton supporters offering to help him.

He says he sent them to McCain's website.

OK, I know a lot of people don't like Ann Coulter but some of this article is really funny, especially the part about "Hillary is more of a man than Gore". But, also this article is really on the money!

OBAMA WAS SELECTED, NOT ELECTED

Thu Jun 5, 6:39 PM ET

Words mean nothing to liberals. They say whatever will help advance their cause at the moment, switch talking points in a heartbeat, and then act indignant if anyone uses the exact same argument they were using five minutes ago.

When Gore won the popular vote in the 2000 election by half a percentage point, but lost the Electoral College -- or, for short, "the constitutionally prescribed method for choosing presidents" -- anyone who denied the sacred importance of the popular vote was either an idiot or a dangerous partisan.

But now Hillary has won the popular vote in a Democratic primary, while Obambi has won under the rules. In a spectacular turnabout, media commentators are heaping sarcasm on our plucky Hillary for imagining the "popular vote" has any relevance whatsoever.

It's the exact same situation as in 2000, with Hillary in the position of Gore and Obama in the position of Bush. The only difference is: Hillary has a much stronger argument than Gore ever did (and Hillary's more of a man than Gore ever was).

Unbeknownst to liberals, who seem to imagine the Constitution is a treatise on gay marriage, our Constitution sets forth rules for the election of a president. Under the Constitution that has led to the greatest individual liberty, prosperity and security ever known to mankind, Americans have no constitutional right to vote for president, at all. (Don't fret Democrats: According to five liberals on the Supreme Court, you do have a right to sodomy and abortion!)

Americans certainly have no right to demand that their vote prevail over the electors' vote.

The Constitution states that electors from each state are to choose the president, and it is up to state legislatures to determine how those electors are selected. It is only by happenstance that most states use a popular vote to choose their electors.

When you vote for president this fall, you will not be voting for Barack Obama or John McCain; you will be voting for an elector who pledges to cast his vote for Obama or McCain. (For those new Obama voters who may be reading, it's like voting for Paula, Randy or Simon to represent you, instead of texting your vote directly.)

Any state could abolish general elections for president tomorrow and have the legislature pick the electors. States could also abolish their winner-take-all method of choosing presidential electors -- as Nebraska and Maine have already done, allowing their electors to be allocated in proportion to the popular vote. And of course there's always the option of voting electors off the island one by one.

If presidential elections were popular vote contests, Bush might have spent more than five minutes campaigning in big liberal states like California and New York. But under a winner-take-all regime, close doesn't count. If a Republican doesn't have a chance to actually win a state, he may as well lose in a landslide. Using the same logic, Gore didn't spend a lot of time campaigning in Texas (and Walter Mondale campaigned exclusively in Minnesota).

Consequently, under both the law and common sense, the famed "popular vote" is utterly irrelevant to presidential elections. It would be like the winner of "Miss Congeniality" claiming that title also made her "Miss America." Obviously, Bush might well have won the popular vote, but he would have used a completely different campaign strategy.

By contrast, there are no constitutional rules to follow with party primaries. Primaries are specifically designed by the parties to choose their strongest candidate for the general election.

Hillary's argument that she won the popular vote is manifestly relevant to that determination. Our brave Hillary has every right to take her delegates to the Democratic National Convention and put her case to a vote. She is much closer to B. Hussein Obama than the sainted Teddy Kennedy was to Carter in 1980 when Teddy staged an obviously hopeless rules challenge at the convention. (I mean rules about choosing the candidate, not rules about crushed ice at after-parties.)

And yet every time Hillary breathes a word about her victory in the popular vote, TV hosts respond with sneering contempt at her gaucherie for even mentioning it. (Of course, if popularity mattered, networks like MSNBC wouldn't exist. That's a station that depends entirely on "superviewers.")

After nearly eight years of having to listen to liberals crow that Bush was "selected, not elected," this is a shocking about-face. Apparently unaware of the new party line that the popular vote amounts to nothing more than warm spit, just last week HBO ran its movie "Recount," about the 2000 Florida election, the premise of which is that sneaky Republicans stole the presidency from popular vote champion Al Gore. (Despite massive publicity, the movie bombed, with only about 1 million viewers, so now HBO is demanding a "recount.")

So where is Kevin Spacey from HBO's "Recount," to defend Hillary, shouting: "WHO WON THIS PRIMARY?"

In the Democrats' "1984" world, the popular vote is an unconcept, doubleplusungood verging on crimethink. We have always been at war with Eastasia.

Susie...if you crossed over to the dark side, I guess I'm there with you! LOL!

Hi everyone. I have been a Rep pretty much all of my life. I think the first time I voted was for Ronald Reagan for Gov...I must respecfully disagree with "Rocktobermom" - Ronald Reagan was a Republican Governor. (Not Dem, he changed his party long before running for Gov)

I would be happy with Mitt Romney, Condi Rice, Fred Thompson or the new man on the block - the "young" governor of Lousianna, Bobby Jinal.

Your right lady4law, he switched in 1962 ... I guess since my grands were dems, they knew him in their social circle, and he was a guest at our Ranch while he was govenor, I assumed he was still a dem then.

Is there any reason you have underlined my name and linked to my profile?  I'd appreciate it you unlinked your comment.

I've been so out of touch with the news.  Was in Charlotte since Friday and just got home today.  I've been having political withdrawals!

Rosemary, I didn't see what you were talking about...earmarks.  However, I did hear a reporter say to McCain (before I left town) that he voted against a bill for the vets.  McCain said he never did.  Then McCain said that he didn't know which bill the reporter was talking about, but McCain said that he did vote against a bill that had all kinds of things added to it....earmarks.

Paulette, got a laugh out of Coulter's article.  I know she's "extreme" but that's what makes her who she is.  I find her amusing.  I especially like the name of her book, "How to Talk to a Liberal, If You Must."  She'd be a good stand up comedian.

After arriving home today I immediately turned on FOX.  I saw some of the angry people who felt the DNC failed them and (almost) promised to vote for Hillary.  Wow, this should be an interesting few months...McCain against Obama, and Hillary "disenfranchised" voters against Obama.  I wished I could have seen her speech Saturday night.  Perhaps I can catch it on You Tube.  One of the guests on Fox said she didn't seem happy with telling her voters to support Obama.  Oh, I thing something's going to be said on Brit Hume's gang.

Shirley

Shirley 

Rosemary, I missed that special.  I even had the recorder set BUT for the wrong freakin time.  I was so angry with myself.

Tonight at 7 pm EDT Fox will have McCain on at a townhall.  I'm gonna watch it.  And my dd and her dh are coming over.  HAHA.  They'll either have to watch it or leave.  I always give up stuff.  And, I think there gonna vote for Obama...at least that's what it sounds like.  Theys say McCain would be another X years of Bush.  They musta heard someone say that cuz I don't think they EVER watch any of this stuff.

how sad, tim russet died today of a massive heart attack...only 58.

If Americans were caught in Iraq by the Iraquis, they'd be dead by now.  I don't think all of them deserve the death penalty but I don't think we should call them citizen's and give them the same rights.  They didn't pay into our justice system, so they need to ask their countries and their families for money for a lawyer.

I thought the ruling was just about them being allowed to have a trial.  I always felt anyone should get a trial.  But not in our easy pass courts.  If they don't use military courts, we might as well open the gates right now.  If they get bail, we won't have to worry about a trial, just our backs because we don't know where they'll be a half hour after being released.

Dotti--I'm not understanding your post.

"I disagree with the ruling, too, but remember who put those conservative judges in place." 

The conservatives were the dissenting opinion.

"Of the five justices who created a majority in the case of the Guantanamo detainees, Justice John Paul Stevens is 88, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 75, and David Souter and Stephen Breyer are each 69. Kennedy is 71.

The generally younger dissenters were Chief Justice John Roberts, 53, and Justices Samuel Alito, 55, Clarence Thomas, 59 and Antonin Scalia, 72."

My young niece newly graduated from GWU is not only for Obama but is campaigning for him.  I'm cringing.  If you ask her who Zbigniew Brzezinski or Susan Rice is--she is clueless.

About Guantanamo here are two excellent articles from Commentary

The Guantanamo Bay Decision

The Supreme Court has ruled that detainees at Guantanamo Bay have the right to appeal their detention in federal court, effectively bringing to an end the nearly seven-year policy of keeping those seized on battlefields or in terror cells in other countries outside the conventional American legal system. The impetus for the Gitmo system, let us not forget, was that Congress declared the nation at war with terrorists, and that it was understood terrorists posed a particular problem because they were operating outside the bounds of the nation-state sytem. They declared their allegiance not to country, but to organization; they lived parasitically inside countries they intended either to attack or to use as a base of operations; and the history of modern terrorism suggested that it was too dangerous to detain them in ordinary prisons, particularly ones outside the U.S., because of the possibility that subsequent terrorist acts would be staged to lead a shell-shocked nation to bargain for their release. By this understanding, the entire world had to be viewed as a battlefield, and a terrorist seized on the battlefield was to be considered not a civil prisoner, but a prisoner of war.

The problem is that this has been, by 20th century standards, an extraordinarily long war — and there was always going to be an issue about how long it would be possible to maintain a detention system of this sort. It has, thankfully, been made more difficult to maintain it because it was so successful — by which I mean, since the Gitmo detentions may well have helped prevent a second major attack on the United States, the sense of imminent danger has lessened and has freed the liberal wing of the Supreme Court, together with Justice Finger-in-the-Air Anthony Kennedy, to elevate the rights of the detained over the safety of the American homeland.

------------------------------------------------

Re: The Guantanamo Bay Decision

John, I want to second your post and add some of my own thoughts. Today, in short, the Court held that the Great Writ, as the right of habeas corpus is known, can only be suspended explicitly by Congress in case of invasion or rebellion. Moreover, the alternative system set up by Congress was held to be insufficient. A useful summary is here. Vigorous dissents came from Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia.

Roberts focused on the alternative system devised by Congress:

"Declaring that petitioners have a right to habeas in no way excuses the Court from explaining why the DTA [Detainee Treatment Act] does not protect whatever due process or statutory rights petitioners may have. Because if the DTA provides a means for vindicating petitioners’ rights, it is necessarily an adequate substitute for habeas corpus."

Roberts contends that the majority misread the DTA which, in Roberts view, is adequate to address claims by the detainees.

Scalia in his dissent reminds us that such a ruling, namely that enemy detainees enjoy habeas corpus rights during a war, marks a stunning departure from practice in previous wars. He begins his dissent:

"Today, for the first time in our Nation’s history, the Court confers a constitutional right to habeas corpus on alien enemies detained abroad by our military forces in the course of an ongoing war."

Where does that leave us? The ruling does not close Guantanamo nor free prisoners. We will now presumably watch the spectacle of detainees marching into Article III courts with the full panoply of judicial rights enjoyed by U.S. citizens, including access to government evidence to contest their detention. The media will focus on “Bush loses.” But if in fact the government is faced with dozens and dozens of cases in which the choice is to share classified material or release terror suspects who may kill again, the “loss” will be to all Americans’ safety and security.