support hillary clinton all the way to the white house

Say "G'night," Hillary.

From "Head of State"

http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/05/clinton-calls-for-bad-weather-holiday.html

Monday, May 05, 2008

Clinton Calls for "Bad Weather Holiday"

"When asked this morning by ABC News' George Stephanopoulos if she could name a single economist who backs her call for a gas tax holiday this summer, HRC said "I'm not going to put my lot in with economists.”

The gas tax holiday is...so economically stupid (it would increase demand for gas and cause prices to rise, eliminating any benefit to consumers while costing the Treasury more than $9 billion, and generate more pollution) and silly (even if she won, HRC won’t be president this summer) as to be worrisome. That HRC now says she doesn’t care that what economists think is even more troubling."

-Robert Reich, May 4, 2008

I know we've got those "intellectual", high-falutin', elitist meteorologists, those "forecasters" with their complicated charts and their mumbo-jumbo, their high fronts and their low fronts, their Doppler radars. But I've come to say that we're going to put an end to all of that.

When my daddy and I went out in the morning in (Scranton, Indianapolis, Durham, Hagåtña, Charlotte Amalie, San Juan), and he said "It's going to be a sunny day today", well, that was good enough for me.

And that's why, if you vote for me on (May 6, May 13, June 3), I will put into effect a "Bad Weather Holiday" running from the years 2009-2012--and potentially extendable.

That's right. We shouldn't have to eat our (hot dogs, barbecue, tamales, Chicken Estufao, Stewed oxtail) under rainy skies. We've had enough of going off to work in the (streets, sands, seas) of this most beautiful (state, territory) only to face a cold, cloudy day. We know what it's like to rest our weary bones after a hard day of labor in the nearest (local watering hole, locale taberna, berlina) only to step out into a stiff, tiring wind.

The Weather issue is very real to me, as I've been meeting people across this nation who (walk, drive, sail, ride ox before stewing tail) to work, and would save precious sums if they did not have to spend their hard earned money on "umbrellas" and "rain coats" and other high priced, high class items of the upper crust.

But I say: Let the 'Umbrella Lobby' take the brunt--not our hard working citizens. Oh, sure. I know elite opinion and so called "academic experts" say that my plan would cause 12 straight years of hail, swarms of ravenous locusts, and a vortex of hurricanes ranging from the Mideast to the West Coast.

But I don't put stock in experts. And neither should you. And that's why you should vote for me on (May 6, May 13, June 3).

Cite:

Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/05/clinton-calls-for-bad-weather-holiday.html

I'm a bitter supporter of the 22nd Amendment.

No third term for the Clinton co-presidency!

A modest proposal: Randall Robinson, Cornel West, Charles Lawrence, and a bunch of other AA "intellectuals" argue on behaf of so-called "reparations" for AAs. I'd like to propose a similar concept: "repatriations." Let's assume that unlike other immigrant groups, nearly all AAs are net-net no gain at all to the economy. But let's further assume half of them are serious sources of costs i.e. prisons, crime, welfare, pointless "educational" expense. So that's maybe 20 million people. So the US government offers these 20 million people, let's say 100k each, in return for giving up US citizenship and being repatriated to, say, Ghana. For a family of five i.e. mommy and five kids, half a million dollars is enough to live like royalty in Ghana. And for single thug-life guys, a 100k should be enough for plenty of bitches, as they so colorfully say. But for the U.S. the benefits would be well worth the increased taxes necessary to pay for this scheme. Imagine, lower crime, urban neighborhoods opened up for revitalization, make-believe collegs and academic departments could be shuttered. It would be almost an American renaissance.

I guess Carville didn't get the 'be positive' memo.

James Carville: "If she gave him one of her cojones, they'd both have two."

As a feminist, I'm appalled by this comment. This should be the end of all whining about sexism from the Clinton camp. All gutter comments about Hillary's vagina are fair game, after this. Unfortunately.

Not a good day for feminists.

The entire Clinton campaign has zero class. Get them off the stage.

Indiana and North Carolina voters, end this now. Please.

Vote Obama. For civilization.

"In a sign that the negativity in the Democratic race might be ebbing a bit, Hillary Clinton has two new ads for Indiana that don't skewer Barack Obama."

That's the most amateur lead of any Eric story yet. In a sign that it might be ebbing...a couple ads do not an ebb make, Eric.

Indiana and North Carolina Democrats, your help is needed to avert an ugly controversy awaiting us in Puerto Rico. In the U.S. territory, citizens do not vote in presidential general elections, but they are given a voice in the Democratic primary.

Puerto Rico's Democratic party decided, on March 8 of this year, to hold a primary rather than a caucus to allocate it's 55 delegates. This decision was made after it became clear that in a close contest, the total popular vote -- no matter how skewed a figure, due to the mix of primary and caucus states -- would become an important number in discussions about the nomination. States that had already had their caucuses, in full accordance with the rules established before the primary season began, did not have the re-do option.

Colorado and Puerto Rico have been allocated the same number of pledged delegates, 55. With Puerto Rico holding a primary with an expected turnout of at least a million voters, its popular vote will likely equal the total caucus votes of Colorado PLUS the primary votes of South Carolina, New Hampshire, Delaware, and Utah, combined. Puerto Rico will thus have a popular vote equivalent vote strength of 160 pledged delegates, rather than their allocated 55.

If the perception is widespread that Obama won the delegate count but lost the popular vote, it will weaken our Democratic nominee and cause feelings of resentment among Clinton supporters. Our best hope of winning in the fall is with a strong nominee who was fairly chosen because he won the most pledged delegates and the most popular votes. The large popular vote expected for Clinton in Puerto Rico may make Obama fall short in the popular vote.

It is my expectation that Obama will end the primary season June 3 with a pledged delegate margin of about a hundred votes.

Shortly thereafter, I hope the DNC and Obama's campaign will announce they will recommend that the credentials committee seat the Florida and Michigan delegations selected at their state conventions, giving Clinton a 60 net delegate gain. Obama will continue to lead the total pledged delegate count by about 40 votes.

I think that a few hundred superdelegates will announce their committment to vote for Obama at the convention. Obama will be the presumptive nominee, AND Michigan and Florida will have been counted in the total.

If the situations were reversed, and Clinton was ahead by any number of pledged delegates, she would be the nominee. To do anything else would leave her supporters feeling severely alienated and cheated. The Democrats won't do that to either side. Since Obama will almost certainly be in the lead, he will be the nominee. I hope that the Democrats can then unite around Obama, our nominee, and win in November.

If you've concluded, as I have, that our likely nominee, Senator Barack Obama, is worthy of your vote in the fall, I urge you to consider voting for him May 6. I think it is a wise move for everyone who hopes for a Democratic victory in the fall.

Even if Obama is not your first choice now, your vote in his column of the popular vote would be a gesture of hope for a Democratic victory in November. Doing so will help unite the Democratic Party and give us our best chance for a win in the general election.

As a California voter in June of 1992, I cast my vote not for Jerry Brown, my governor and favorite candidate, but instead for an inexperienced, charismatic governor of a small state, Bill Clinton. It was clear that he would be the nominee, and I wanted to add my little boost to strengthen him going into the convention and the fall election.

oh, and I suggest you stick to pointless blather about "politics of hope blahblahblah" than constitutional interpretation.