Rangel: NY delegation is unanimous
The New York Democratic congressional delegation is unanimously endorsing Barack Obama for president, Rep. Charles Rangel stated in a press release.
The Harlem Democrat said the endorsement is being made ahead of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s Saturday announcement that she is withdrawing from the race and endorsing Obama “in order to accommodate those members of Congress who will be unable to return to Washington on Saturday.’’
At a press conference held at outside the offices of the Democratic National Committee, Rangel acknowledged “me and some 200 others’’ have called Clinton since Tuesday, urging no further delay in withdrawing from the race and endorsing Obama.
| 
Email This
Advertisements
the democrats are not going to win with a one term
senator who has served for only two years..has no foreign
policy experienc whatsoever, was an illinois state
senator four years ago….sat in a church for 20 years
whose leader preached hate against america, whites and jews
and who wife apparently is on tape ranting against “whitey”
its just not going to happen…...but Hillary could have
won…fairly easily I might add
“the democrats are not going to win with a one term
senator who has served for only two years..has no foreign
policy experienc whatsoever, was an illinois state
senator four years ago”
Hey if the GOP could get a one-term Texas Governor elected President who had never been outside the US, let alone had any foreign policy experience, who had used cocaine in the White House, been arrested for DWI, and sat out the Vietnam War in Texas & Alabama, then I wouldn’t be so quick to write off Obama, Mike.
Here is the difference…
W was the son of a former president
W was the governor of Texas
W. was a center right not a far left candidate
W didn’t attend a church whose reverend cursed America
W didn’t call people of faith bitter
W had his daddy’s foreign policy team
W. wasn’t the first African American running…
In Response to WaltTrombone
George W. in 2000 had more experience than Obama does now. W. was not a one-term Texas Governor. He was in the middle of his second term as governor. Compared to Obama, who was mid-way through his first term as Senator when he started running. Moreover, being governor of the second largest state, is considerably more important that being the junior senator from Illinois. And despite George W. having more experience than Obama, W was still perceived by many to be too inexperienced for the job. The reason Cheney was picked as VP was to counterbalance Bush’s perceived lack of experience.
As to Walt’s other claims, Obama and not Bush is the one who has admitted cocaine use. And to go slightly further, Obama not only admitted to trying it but to using it on a periodic basis. I don’t think that should count against Obama, but Walt you obviously do. Unless your argument is somehow that Obama using it is okay but Republicans cannot. Serving in the national guard is perfectfully respectable. However, if you want to vote for a person based on military experience, you can’t do much better than McCain and you can’t do any worse than Obama, who did not serve at all. Although, I am guessing in this election that Democrats like Walt will revert to their standard line, which they conveniently diverged from when Kerry ran, that military experience does not matter.
That said, this is going to be a close election and Obama has at least a 50% chance of winning. Most current polling puts Obama ahead.
Some good news for Obama- Hamas has withdrawn their endorsement. I guess they didn’t like the stuff he said at AIPAC the other day.
In todays new york times their is an op ed by a statistician
purely objective..Using a formula which accurate predicted the results of the 2004 campaign by analyzing polling results it is clear THAT IF THE ELECTION WERE HELD TODAY
Clinton would get 290 electoral votes thus beating McCain
Obama would get 252 and thereby lose to McCain…Amazing
how the democrats could nominate the person who appears
to be losing to the republican