<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Another Inconvenient Finding for Barack Obama</title>
	<atom:link href="http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/03/10/another-inconvenient-finding-for-barack-obama/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/03/10/another-inconvenient-finding-for-barack-obama/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 22 Nov 2008 03:30:07 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Nellie</title>
		<link>http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/03/10/another-inconvenient-finding-for-barack-obama/#comment-156246</link>
		<dc:creator>Nellie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2008 00:06:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/03/10/another-inconvenient-finding-for-barack-obama/#comment-156246</guid>
		<description>WOW Chris.

You definitely speak for me also.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>WOW Chris.</p>
<p>You definitely speak for me also.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nellie</title>
		<link>http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/03/10/another-inconvenient-finding-for-barack-obama/#comment-156243</link>
		<dc:creator>Nellie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2008 23:55:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/03/10/another-inconvenient-finding-for-barack-obama/#comment-156243</guid>
		<description>Terrific Analysis.

Thank you for posting here, and giving us all a great round up of points.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Terrific Analysis.</p>
<p>Thank you for posting here, and giving us all a great round up of points.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: kenoshaMarge</title>
		<link>http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/03/10/another-inconvenient-finding-for-barack-obama/#comment-156022</link>
		<dc:creator>kenoshaMarge</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2008 18:55:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/03/10/another-inconvenient-finding-for-barack-obama/#comment-156022</guid>
		<description>Don't expect an apology from Hartman. Air America is so AirObama anymore that I quit listening to it a long time ago. And that includes MSNBC's new female shill, Rachel Maddow. I used to have so much respect for her intellegence and integrity. Guess she's still smart, not much integrity though. Just another Hillary Hater. So sad really. I really do miss Air America. But I'll never listen to them again.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Don&#8217;t expect an apology from Hartman. Air America is so AirObama anymore that I quit listening to it a long time ago. And that includes MSNBC&#8217;s new female shill, Rachel Maddow. I used to have so much respect for her intellegence and integrity. Guess she&#8217;s still smart, not much integrity though. Just another Hillary Hater. So sad really. I really do miss Air America. But I&#8217;ll never listen to them again.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bert</title>
		<link>http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/03/10/another-inconvenient-finding-for-barack-obama/#comment-155974</link>
		<dc:creator>bert</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2008 17:14:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/03/10/another-inconvenient-finding-for-barack-obama/#comment-155974</guid>
		<description>WOW !!!!!!!!! DOUBLE WOW!!!! times a billion.

I am fairly new to this site but you folks blow me away with your research. You are great. This is fantastic factual based information.

I am sending it to Thom Hartmann and asking him to publicly apologize to the Clinton campaign for repeating and giving air time to the Daily Kos smear.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

You give me hope for America. Can't wait till you post your full report.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>WOW !!!!!!!!! DOUBLE WOW!!!! times a billion.</p>
<p>I am fairly new to this site but you folks blow me away with your research. You are great. This is fantastic factual based information.</p>
<p>I am sending it to Thom Hartmann and asking him to publicly apologize to the Clinton campaign for repeating and giving air time to the Daily Kos smear.</p>
<p>Thank you, thank you, thank you.</p>
<p>You give me hope for America. Can&#8217;t wait till you post your full report.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rob Gard</title>
		<link>http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/03/10/another-inconvenient-finding-for-barack-obama/#comment-155931</link>
		<dc:creator>Rob Gard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:15:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/03/10/another-inconvenient-finding-for-barack-obama/#comment-155931</guid>
		<description>Why bother.  Anything short of a conviction upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court will be spun away with "explantions" by the Obamabots anyway.  I guess that this standard cannot be met to your satisfaction until a special prosecutor is named to look into the issues, and findings are issued after several years of investigations and expenditure of about $100 million, since the mainstream media does not want to take their blinders off.  Hillary has undergone this  vetting process, but Obamabots go apeshit if anyone even asks questions concerning the behavior, statements, or integrity of their messiah.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why bother.  Anything short of a conviction upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court will be spun away with &#8220;explantions&#8221; by the Obamabots anyway.  I guess that this standard cannot be met to your satisfaction until a special prosecutor is named to look into the issues, and findings are issued after several years of investigations and expenditure of about $100 million, since the mainstream media does not want to take their blinders off.  Hillary has undergone this  vetting process, but Obamabots go apeshit if anyone even asks questions concerning the behavior, statements, or integrity of their messiah.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ybnormal</title>
		<link>http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/03/10/another-inconvenient-finding-for-barack-obama/#comment-155929</link>
		<dc:creator>ybnormal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:09:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/03/10/another-inconvenient-finding-for-barack-obama/#comment-155929</guid>
		<description>And Yet More Inconvenience

We've previously heard the name Penny Pritzker as the Obama campaign's finance chair.  But wait, there's more.  Penny Pritzker was the board chair for Superior Bank of Chicago, which collapsed in 2001.  So what?

Two points.  One is the story of the collapse; two is where I'm currently reading about it.

Consortium News, headed by Robert Parry, has had editorials about the current election campaign which more often than not favor Obama.  In spite of that, we now find posted there a writing called "Obama's Sub-Prime Conflict" by Dennis Bernstein.  It's posted at
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/022708a.html
and to be sure, it is informative reading which in spite of where it's posted, seems to cast yet another shadow on Obama's judgement, by detailing the sub-prime mortgage involvement and other sleaze underlying the collapse of Superior, with the obvious fact that Superior's COB was Penny Pritzker, Obama's campaign finance chair.

Maybe one reason it's posted there is because it also mentions that Penny's brother J.B. is a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton.

Have at it folks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And Yet More Inconvenience</p>
<p>We&#8217;ve previously heard the name Penny Pritzker as the Obama campaign&#8217;s finance chair.  But wait, there&#8217;s more.  Penny Pritzker was the board chair for Superior Bank of Chicago, which collapsed in 2001.  So what?</p>
<p>Two points.  One is the story of the collapse; two is where I&#8217;m currently reading about it.</p>
<p>Consortium News, headed by Robert Parry, has had editorials about the current election campaign which more often than not favor Obama.  In spite of that, we now find posted there a writing called &#8220;Obama&#8217;s Sub-Prime Conflict&#8221; by Dennis Bernstein.  It&#8217;s posted at<br />
<a href="http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/022708a.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/022708a.html</a><br />
and to be sure, it is informative reading which in spite of where it&#8217;s posted, seems to cast yet another shadow on Obama&#8217;s judgement, by detailing the sub-prime mortgage involvement and other sleaze underlying the collapse of Superior, with the obvious fact that Superior&#8217;s COB was Penny Pritzker, Obama&#8217;s campaign finance chair.</p>
<p>Maybe one reason it&#8217;s posted there is because it also mentions that Penny&#8217;s brother J.B. is a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton.</p>
<p>Have at it folks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: apishapa</title>
		<link>http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/03/10/another-inconvenient-finding-for-barack-obama/#comment-155888</link>
		<dc:creator>apishapa</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2008 13:52:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/03/10/another-inconvenient-finding-for-barack-obama/#comment-155888</guid>
		<description>I don't know if anyone else saw this at Talkleft this morning, but BTD has a very informative post about the RULZ. I can't get the link to work, but you know where it is. This is long but incredibly important to mention to all those RULZ fans:

&lt;blockquote&gt;In a comment to this post, Hilzoy writes 

I think ex ante fairness is, as you say, crucial. That said, I really, really, really hope that someone in the party is working very very hard to avoid a situation in which I have to decide what to do if Clinton wins through illegitimate means.

I will vote for [Clinton] in November if she is nominated fairly. (Which means no Michigan and Florida, and also no raiding pledged delegates.) . . .

(Emphasis supplied.) This is where the "rules are rules" crowd really bothers me, they actually are not for the rules. The DNC delegate selection rules (PDF) called for a number of things (Rule 21 provided Florida a safe harbor for its delegates; Rule 20C.1.a. provided for a 50% penalty, not complete stripping of the delegates; Rule 20.C.7 called for the DNC to perform an investigation of the Florida situation, it did not; and Rule 20.C.5 provides the DNC the opportunity to approve a new process for Florida and Michigan to devise alternative means of selecting their delegates). None of these ex ante rules have been followed to date. One is being worked on, the revote primaries. But in Hilzoy's mind, seating the Florida and Michigan delegations, even after a revote, violates ex ante fairness. Please. Not to mention the fact that the ex ante rules allows for "raiding pledged delegates." Yes, rules are rules, except when they are not. More . . .


Now I am on record for strongly supporting a revote in Florida and Michigan. Not because I worry about some obscure rules that no one really cares about anyway. I am for them because we must have accepted Florida and Michigan delegations at the Democratic Convention to establish the legitimacy of our chosen nominee and strengthen our chances in the Presidential and Congressional races in those states come November.

The Democratic Party needs "legitimacy." Not only in the selection of its nominee, but for the Party itself in Florida and Michigan. And believe you me, if Obama wins BECAUSE Michigan and Florida are excluded, as Hilzoy hopes, his nomination will NOT be viewed as legitimate by many many people, especially the people of Florida and Michigan. Nor will the Party look legitimate.

What we need to do is stop pretending that these "rules are rules" arguments are anything but political posturing and start dealing with the reality that we need revotes in Florida and Michigan. And we need them for Obama the nominee as well as Clinton the nominee. But mostly we need them for the Democratic Party.

Pretending that you are standing for "the rules," even though the rules have been left by the wayside by EVERY PLAYER involved in this (the DNC, Obama and Clinton) may allow you to feel high and mighty, but besides being nonsense, it hardly solves the problem of establishing the legitimacy of our nominee nor our political problem in November in Florida and Michigan.

Let's get real. Let's revote Florida and Michigan.&lt;/blockquote&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t know if anyone else saw this at Talkleft this morning, but BTD has a very informative post about the RULZ. I can&#8217;t get the link to work, but you know where it is. This is long but incredibly important to mention to all those RULZ fans:</p>
<blockquote><p>In a comment to this post, Hilzoy writes </p>
<p>I think ex ante fairness is, as you say, crucial. That said, I really, really, really hope that someone in the party is working very very hard to avoid a situation in which I have to decide what to do if Clinton wins through illegitimate means.</p>
<p>I will vote for [Clinton] in November if she is nominated fairly. (Which means no Michigan and Florida, and also no raiding pledged delegates.) . . .</p>
<p>(Emphasis supplied.) This is where the &#8220;rules are rules&#8221; crowd really bothers me, they actually are not for the rules. The DNC delegate selection rules (PDF) called for a number of things (Rule 21 provided Florida a safe harbor for its delegates; Rule 20C.1.a. provided for a 50% penalty, not complete stripping of the delegates; Rule 20.C.7 called for the DNC to perform an investigation of the Florida situation, it did not; and Rule 20.C.5 provides the DNC the opportunity to approve a new process for Florida and Michigan to devise alternative means of selecting their delegates). None of these ex ante rules have been followed to date. One is being worked on, the revote primaries. But in Hilzoy&#8217;s mind, seating the Florida and Michigan delegations, even after a revote, violates ex ante fairness. Please. Not to mention the fact that the ex ante rules allows for &#8220;raiding pledged delegates.&#8221; Yes, rules are rules, except when they are not. More . . .</p>
<p>Now I am on record for strongly supporting a revote in Florida and Michigan. Not because I worry about some obscure rules that no one really cares about anyway. I am for them because we must have accepted Florida and Michigan delegations at the Democratic Convention to establish the legitimacy of our chosen nominee and strengthen our chances in the Presidential and Congressional races in those states come November.</p>
<p>The Democratic Party needs &#8220;legitimacy.&#8221; Not only in the selection of its nominee, but for the Party itself in Florida and Michigan. And believe you me, if Obama wins BECAUSE Michigan and Florida are excluded, as Hilzoy hopes, his nomination will NOT be viewed as legitimate by many many people, especially the people of Florida and Michigan. Nor will the Party look legitimate.</p>
<p>What we need to do is stop pretending that these &#8220;rules are rules&#8221; arguments are anything but political posturing and start dealing with the reality that we need revotes in Florida and Michigan. And we need them for Obama the nominee as well as Clinton the nominee. But mostly we need them for the Democratic Party.</p>
<p>Pretending that you are standing for &#8220;the rules,&#8221; even though the rules have been left by the wayside by EVERY PLAYER involved in this (the DNC, Obama and Clinton) may allow you to feel high and mighty, but besides being nonsense, it hardly solves the problem of establishing the legitimacy of our nominee nor our political problem in November in Florida and Michigan.</p>
<p>Let&#8217;s get real. Let&#8217;s revote Florida and Michigan.</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: chris</title>
		<link>http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/03/10/another-inconvenient-finding-for-barack-obama/#comment-155886</link>
		<dc:creator>chris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2008 13:47:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/03/10/another-inconvenient-finding-for-barack-obama/#comment-155886</guid>
		<description>"At the end of this battle, it is critical that we rally around the nominee."

I'm sorry, this may simply not be acceptable in th end for me because I'll have to see how much further down the damn rabbit hole Obama is willing to go with his naive arrogance.  If he continues his fraud of hope and change and gets the nomination, I will definitely vote 3rd party.  He'd have to make a serious about face on his bullshit to get me at a "hold my nose" vote.

I held my nose and voted for that loser jackass John Kerry when his VP choice was fairly acceptable to me.  Edwards got canned again because of the groomed 2 candidates.

Clinton has earned my vote.  I've been very clear here at NQ that I used to dislike her quite a bit.  But I've done my homework on the issue and I can vote for her without qualm.  Even my most liberal 'she's a freakin war hawk' friends cannot sway me about her because they too only fall back on unfounded comments.

But Obama has a major credibility issue that comes along side his youthful arrogance and dismissive attitude towards his elders and the supporters of his opponent.

AND BE REAL CLEAR
If that sorry piece of shit cannot update his info about the Kenyan photo controversy while pointing and blaming Clinton, then he's definitely a fucking fraud.  I've sent materials to the campaigns to prove the article didn't originate from the Clinton campaign.  And yet, as you can see from the link above, he went from "take her word" on it in Ohio debate to blaming the Clinton campaign without a shred of evidence.

He denied NAFTA convo with the Canadians, called it a smear...then was busted with a memo completely blowing their credibility.

So, sorry if I'm not buying in November.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;At the end of this battle, it is critical that we rally around the nominee.&#8221;</p>
<p>I&#8217;m sorry, this may simply not be acceptable in th end for me because I&#8217;ll have to see how much further down the damn rabbit hole Obama is willing to go with his naive arrogance.  If he continues his fraud of hope and change and gets the nomination, I will definitely vote 3rd party.  He&#8217;d have to make a serious about face on his bullshit to get me at a &#8220;hold my nose&#8221; vote.</p>
<p>I held my nose and voted for that loser jackass John Kerry when his VP choice was fairly acceptable to me.  Edwards got canned again because of the groomed 2 candidates.</p>
<p>Clinton has earned my vote.  I&#8217;ve been very clear here at NQ that I used to dislike her quite a bit.  But I&#8217;ve done my homework on the issue and I can vote for her without qualm.  Even my most liberal &#8217;she&#8217;s a freakin war hawk&#8217; friends cannot sway me about her because they too only fall back on unfounded comments.</p>
<p>But Obama has a major credibility issue that comes along side his youthful arrogance and dismissive attitude towards his elders and the supporters of his opponent.</p>
<p>AND BE REAL CLEAR<br />
If that sorry piece of shit cannot update his info about the Kenyan photo controversy while pointing and blaming Clinton, then he&#8217;s definitely a fucking fraud.  I&#8217;ve sent materials to the campaigns to prove the article didn&#8217;t originate from the Clinton campaign.  And yet, as you can see from the link above, he went from &#8220;take her word&#8221; on it in Ohio debate to blaming the Clinton campaign without a shred of evidence.</p>
<p>He denied NAFTA convo with the Canadians, called it a smear&#8230;then was busted with a memo completely blowing their credibility.</p>
<p>So, sorry if I&#8217;m not buying in November.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JoeySky</title>
		<link>http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/03/10/another-inconvenient-finding-for-barack-obama/#comment-155877</link>
		<dc:creator>JoeySky</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2008 13:31:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/03/10/another-inconvenient-finding-for-barack-obama/#comment-155877</guid>
		<description>In my view, Obama has been focusing on winning the nomination assuming that Hillary voters will automatically support him in GE.   His campaign and his supporters alienate Hillary supporters.  The damage to his chance in GE has already been done.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In my view, Obama has been focusing on winning the nomination assuming that Hillary voters will automatically support him in GE.   His campaign and his supporters alienate Hillary supporters.  The damage to his chance in GE has already been done.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TeresaINPa</title>
		<link>http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/03/10/another-inconvenient-finding-for-barack-obama/#comment-155873</link>
		<dc:creator>TeresaINPa</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2008 13:12:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/03/10/another-inconvenient-finding-for-barack-obama/#comment-155873</guid>
		<description>Me too.  I can't even watch him in the debates. He gets the bush treatment on my TV, he comes on and the channel gets changed. 
The reason is that I can not stand to watch the masses be hypnotized by the  hostile garbage he spouts.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Me too.  I can&#8217;t even watch him in the debates. He gets the bush treatment on my TV, he comes on and the channel gets changed.<br />
The reason is that I can not stand to watch the masses be hypnotized by the  hostile garbage he spouts.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
