Well, at my house during the Obama speech there were two TV's with 25 people watching. I don't know how many house parties there were for Obama,but I know there were a lot. I doubt there were very many last night. So, while this is a huge viewership for a vp speech, my guess is that a lot more people gathered to watch the Obama speech. Also, from the blogs I can see that there were a lot of curious Obama supporters watching Palin's speech. Let's see how many people tune into John McCain's speech tonight. Hopefully, he'll talk about the issues. It's their last chance.

Posted at September 4, 2008 4:25 PM in response to Palin's Speech Watched By Nearly As Many As Obama's Acceptance

Palin's husband left th e group in 2002. Why then? That is when Sarah first entered the national scene when running for lt. gov (which she lost).

Posted at September 3, 2008 1:44 PM in response to Why Isn't AIP Founder Sarah Palin's Reverend Wright?

Palin's husband left th e group in 2002. Why then? That is when Sarah first entered the national scene when running for lt. gov (which she lost).

Posted at September 3, 2008 1:44 PM in response to Why Isn't AIP Founder Sarah Palin's Reverend Wright?

The press was never going with Obama to meet with the troops. Dem BillC, you should get your facts straight instead of listening to the GOP lies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyXt2RsNShI

Posted at July 27, 2008 3:08 PM in response to McCain Ad: Obama Isn't There For The Troops Unless Cameras Are Around

Here's the video from Andrea Mitchell:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyXt2RsNShI

Posted at July 27, 2008 2:31 PM in response to McCain Ad: Obama Isn't There For The Troops Unless Cameras Are Around

McCain's ad says that Obama didn't want to visit the troops without the cameras, but there was never any intention of taking the press with him when he went to visit the troops. Andrea Mitchell reported this on Friday, before the ad ever came out. Obama complied with the Pentagon, as he should have. He was overseas and didn't want the troops used to politicize the disagreement with the DOD. Watch the video from Andrea Mitchell (hardly one who loves Obama) and you will see that the campaign was angry with the decision. You will also see that Obama planned to leave the press behind as he went with a military escort to visit the injured troops.

I have a feeling that the McCain campaign was given a bone by the WH and the DOD who came up with these rules after the stop was already planned. Look at Condi's actions earlier in the week. It wouldn't surprise me if this was set up by the WH and McCain had two ads prepared - one if he defied the Pentagon and one if he cancelled the visit. Obama couldn't win no matter what he did. But the real loser is McCain.

Posted at July 27, 2008 2:30 PM in response to McCain Ad: Obama Isn't There For The Troops Unless Cameras Are Around

Gotalife,
Check Real Clear Politics for more accurate information. Clinton has more votes IF they give Obama zero in MI or if they give him the uncommitted and don't count the caucuses. So, it looks like Hillary's number only work if she disqualifies voters. I thought she was against doing that. Also, her unfavorables are higher than Obama's by 8 pts. His are lower than hers and McCain's. Get your stories straight.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html

Posted at June 1, 2008 10:05 PM in response to New Hillary Ad Trumpets Her 17 Million Popular Vote Total

Dijamo,
All of you need to get over the idea that the early states were in violation. They moved their dates BECAUSE of FL and MI. NH has the distinction of being the first primary (Iowa is the first caucus). These are out of tradition. When MI moved their primary, NH moved theirs so that they could preserve their first primary status. SC held their primary on 1-26. I know you will argue that they were supposed to have their primary on 1-28 per the DNC calendar rules, but that was the day FL decided to have their primary. The bottom line is that IA, NH, SC, and NV were given early voting status for specific reasons (IA and NH out of tradition and SC to African Americans a voice in the primary and NV to give Latinos and unions a voice). When FL amd MI tried to get a part of the early state action they were sanctioned. So, don't start with the SC, IA and NH violated the rules because they moved their dates so it's not fair. The moves were a result of the rule breaking done by FL and MI.

Now, lets try to move on. I am happy to see this settled. I wish the DNC had done this in the beginning as the Republicans did. They didn't. Obama absolutely compromised to get this behind us. Hillary got more than she should have out of it since she signed off on the stripping of the delegates. I just wonder how we could trust her as a president. She signed the four state pledge and when it mattered (before Iowa and NH) she told the people of those states that the votes wouldn't count. When she needed the delegates she all of sudden became the voice of the voters (but only her voters).

Did any of you realize that on Thursday the Clinton campaign challenged the seating of the delegates from Collin county, TX where Obama received 75% of the delegates. It seems that they held their county convention a day later than the rest of the TX conventions. They did so because they couldn't find a venue large enough to hold their convention. So, the Clinton campaign argued that those delegates be disqualified because their convention wasn't held on the right day. At the same time she is arguing that FL and MI receive no sanction despite their primaries being held too early. That's a bit hypocrital, wouldn't you say?

Posted at May 31, 2008 10:36 PM in response to In Blow To Hillary, DNC Agrees To Seat Florida And Michigan Delegations At Half-Votes

I'm sure Oregon doesn't count but the polls say he ahead there by 15 to 20%. Hillary has had just one blowout and that was Arkansas. Obama has blown out Hillary by 25 to 50 pts about 10 times (SC, GA, MS, CO, WY, HA, ID, UT, LA, MD, VA, DC, Il,NB, MN). I know, they don't count because Hillary said they don't.

Posted at May 13, 2008 6:49 PM in response to Clinton Camp: Obama Shouldn't Get Away With Writing Off West Virginia Loss

WV is a key to democratic win in November?

Posted at May 13, 2008 3:12 PM in response to Clinton Camp: Obama Shouldn't Get Away With Writing Off West Virginia Loss