newsobserver.com projects - Everett Ward - Comments

Re: Turlington elected to DNC

BitterEXdemocrat — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 07:22:27 -0400

you call Ickes and Sweeney 'good company'? they are WHITE TRASH anti Americans...

Re: Turlington elected to DNC

GiggleBox — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 19:21:00 -0400

About time. Jerry Meek must be quaking in his new wife's heels.

Re: Turlington elected to DNC

BitterEXdemocrat — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 19:07:35 -0400

What about John Edwards? Surely, Ed must've required him to be highly affiliated, right? (of course behind the scenes)...

Mel Watt? Did he take any photos of the Obama birthplace on his recent trip to Kenya? I hear they are building a birthplace museum...Rush Limbaugh might pay for it!

Re: North Carolina's superdelegates

feliduca — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 11:18:07 -0400

Congressmen David Price of the 4th District and Mel Watt of the 12th District, both former John Edwards backers, declared their support for Obama.

Price said Obama is the man to turn North Carolina blue this year. The Tar Heel State typically votes Republican overall in Presidential elections.

“I believe he’s a leader with the kind of change I want to see,” Price said. “Obama is in the strongest position to bring a new day in diplomacy.”

Congressman Watt said there is only one candidate that has captured the spirit of change and inclusiveness that is "uniquely democratic."

The Democrats say the Presidential race will be closely contested in North Carolina, a central battleground according to Obama’s national campaign manager David Plouffe.

In a press release, Obama said he was pleased to have their support.

"Congressmen Price and Watt are both among the American people's finest representatives. Their leadership is proof that with clear and common purpose, there is no challenge too great for our nation to solve," Obama said. "I look forward to working with them both to ensure America's promise for all Americans and build a better future for North Carolina and our country."

List of NC Superdelegates
Joyce Brayboy. Communications consultant who works in Washington, D.C. Committed to Obama.
Susan Burgess. Charlotte city council member and chair of Democratic Municipal Officials organization. Committed to Clinton.
Jeannette Council. Member of Cumberland County board of commissioners in Fayetteville.
Jerry Meek. Chairman of North Carolina Democratic Party. Uncommitted.
Dannie Montgomery. Party activist in Lilesville, N.C. Committed to Obama.
Muriel K. Offerman. Former North Carolina revenue secretary and current state party treasurer. Uncommitted.
David Parker. Lawyer in Statesville.
Carol W. Peterson. Buncombe County Commissioner in Asheville. Uncommitted.
Everett Ward. Former executive director of North Carolina Democratic Party. Committed to Obama.
Michael F. Easley. Governor of North Carolina. Uncommitted.
Rep. G.K. Butterfield. Obama.
Rep. Bob Etheridge. Uncommitted.
Rep. Mike McIntyre.
Rep. Brad Miller. Uncommitted.
Rep. David Price. Obama.
Rep. Heath Shuler. Uncommitted.
Rep. Melvin Watt. Obama.

________________________
Submited by : Libros Gratis

Re: North Carolina's superdelegates

ryanteaguebeckwith — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 09:45:23 -0400

Comment deleted for profanity.

— RTB

Re: North Carolina's superdelegates

Proctor — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 04:25:30 -0400

The superdelegates are to be commended for carrying out their responsibilities conscientiously under occasionally stressful circumstances and often without clear logic governing their choices one way or the other.

The Democratic Party has evolved so many special rules and conditions that it often winds up having a party nominating contest which is not even of the same political or constitutional category or character as the general election. So in the fall, the Democratic Party is often proceeding "without a trial run" whereas the Republicans head into the general election with at least some indications of what can constitute a statewide electoral college victory.

In future nominating contests, constitution-minded Democrats ought to challenge the right of the Democratic National Committee to penalize states for seeking to determine the times, places and manners of choosing members of Congress, which is precisely what Article I, Section 4, of the U.S. Constitution empowers the states to do.

In the general election, for the most part, the Democratic Party cannot go chipping off a few electoral votes here and there by making a good showing in a state but instead will have to win a statewide majority in each state in order to receive that state's electoral votes.

So the Democratic Party seems to have evolved a constitutional outlook which says: we'll do whatever the heck we want in our nominating process and then in the general election, we'll agree to observe the U.S. and state constitutions. Thus you wind up with candidates who are able to receive majority popular votes in their campaigns who nonetheless are unable to bring home victories in primary or general elections (HIllary Clinton, 2008, Al Gore, 2000).

You start a general election with a campaign organization which is 0-1 in almost all of the major industrial states just so folks in Iowa and New Hampshire will not take offense at some other state holding an early primary election.

It's a heckuva way to run a political party. It keeps all the competing interest groups happy for most of the year, then in November it hands victory over to the Republicans except when the Democratic presidential nominee demonstrates exceptional popularity and adaptability.

It's like an auto race or a horse race when your team agrees to start the final race four or five lengths back. It's tough enough to win a competitive race when you start out even-steven. But as long as the Democratic Party wants to maintain a separate track for its own trial heats, then in presidential contests it will lose more often than it wins in general elections.

And if the Democrats in Congress, who won a majority in both houses in the 2006 elections, fail to act on their own initiative on an entire array of important issues facing the country, then the Republican presidential campaign may wind up running effectively against an obstructionist Democratic Congress for the rest of 2008 just as Democratic President Harry Truman successfully ran against the "Do-Nothing" Republican Congress in 1948.

David McKnight

Re: Superdelegate: Everett Ward

bill08 — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 20:52:23 -0400

get a life!

Re: Superdelegate: Everett Ward

bill08 — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 20:51:04 -0400

Yeah right! Why do Black people insist on drinking the Clinton cool aid? Are we so paralyzed by oppression and racism that we can't think objectively? Do we not see the historical significance of what's happening with this election? Sometimes I wonder if we will ever be able to achieve the greatness as a people into which we are destined, or we will forever believe that our accomplishments have to be inextricably linked to Caucasian caretakers in order to count as legitimate progress.

Re: North Carolina's superdelegates

rlferg1 — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 19:43:58 -0400

Who knows what goes into the decision of a superdelegate? My mind, as a lowly voter, is make up. Either Hillary Clinton or John McCain. After suffering through the Carter years, I'd rather have anyone (short of W that is) than a beginner. Obama might be ok after a few years of experience, rather than too few, but I won't take a chance on him now. And this thinking is overwhelming in the Clinton camp. Anyone that thinks buzz words like Party Unity will cut it is delusional. Maybe in ordinary election circumstances. These are extrordinary times requiring specific experienced action, not generalized calls for change. Should John McCain win election over Barak Obama, the Democrat Leadership has to take the credit.

Re: Superdelegate: Everett Ward

joflorida — Sat, 31 May 2008 20:17:39 -0400

It's true that Obama smokes and lies about it. He lies about almost everything anyway. He lies about his mother being on foodstamps, he lies about his father coming over because of Kennedy, he lies about his father being a goat herder, instead he worked in an office. He lied in his book.
The list is so long, and his whole career is beneath what we deserve as our President.

It is a sad day when the color of your skin makes you immune to truth, but that is what we are living today. Obama has made racism a part of his campaign and has used it to create a campaign that is a complete lie. I am sorry that other blacks have decided to back him just because of the color of his skin and not because of his character. I am not against him because he is black, but instead because I have checked his background and record in Chicago, and I do not like what is see and hear.

It angers me that we were led to believe that the DC Meeting to decide on seating our delegates, was a complete farce!! A pretense was made to discuss the pros and cons, and then a secret meeting was held after lunch to make the decision and then a fake vote followed. The voters are just fools and we can treat them any way we want and they will come around.

Well, I know how to spell HILLARY CLINTON. NO HALF VOTES FOR ME!! No phoney is getting my vote, even if I have to vote for McCain! You should be minding North Carolina votes where they got their votes to count.

You can email me at jferko777@aol.com, if you have the guts to eliminate my vote and ask for it in November.

Re: North Carolina's superdelegates

FFC1304 — Wed, 07 May 2008 18:23:13 -0400

where are the Republican Super Delegates...why do we never hear about them?
anyone know?

Re: North Carolina's superdelegates

FFC1304 — Wed, 07 May 2008 18:20:20 -0400

Delusion and Illusion you can believe in...he is an empty suit...not much there...pitiful

Re: Brayboy endorses Obama

MinkaMouse — Sat, 03 May 2008 12:53:03 -0400

THIS IS TRULY DISTURBING -
please see about this:

In the landmark civil fraud case against Bill Clinton in Los Angeles, where the former President is charged with defrauding a Hollywood dot com millionaire to help Hillary Clinton obtain more than $1.2 million from him for her 2000 Senate campaign, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Aurelio Munoz ruled on Friday, April 25 that Hillary Clinton would not be required to testify in a sworn deposition as a material witness in the case until AFTER the November election!

While Bill Clinton, Chelsea Clinton, Al Gore, Ed Rendell, Barabara Streisand, Cher, Stan Lee, Brad Pitt, Mike Wallace, Larry King et al may be called to testify and be deposed starting in May, Hillary alone has been protected from explaining her role in her husband’s fraud charges.

In an astonishing ruling by the Judge, Hillary Clinton may NOT be deposed about her role in the illegal solicitation and cover up of the largest contribution made to her Senate campaign until after the presidential election. This is the same contribution Hillary denied knowing about or receiving when Lloyd Grove of the Washington Post asked her specifically about it and her relationship with the donor, Peter Paul, in August 2000. Its the same contribution her finance director David Rosen was criminally tried in May, 2005, or hiding from her and her campaign. Its the same contribution the FEC fined her campaign for hiding from the voters in three false FEC reports by her treasurer between 2000-2006. (www.paulvclinton.com)

Equally surprising as the ruling was the judge’s request to Hillary defense lawyer David Kendall to “say hello to his ( Judge Munoz”) friend Bill, also a partner in Kendall’s law firm”
The decision to shield Hillary Clinton from civil discovery for an additional seven months, thereby delaying a long postponed trial, was made by the judge on his own, without any request by Hillary or her lawyer to make the ruling. No discussion was permitted by Paul’s lawyer before the decision was made. Judge Munoz’ unilateral decision effectively saved the floundering campaign and hopes of Hillary Clinton to win her party’s Presidential nomination!

Had Senator Clinton be forced to testify under oath, as a material witness and beneficiary of the fraud that her husband is being sued for before the Democratic Convention, her remote chances for being nominated the party candidate would have been unquestionably destroyed.

Hillary has never publicly commented on the case in which she was a defendant from 2003-2006. Nor has Hillary ever commented on the videotaped phone call she made to Peter Paul the day he began spending more than $1 million for her Senate campaign, the false statements she made through Howard Wolfson to the Washington Post denying working with Paul or receiving any contributions from him, the sworn Declaration she made under oath where she refused to deny any of Paul’s allegations, the role her White House aide Kelly Craighead played in coordinating Paul’s expenditures and befirending Paul’s Japanese business partner during a White House visit and many other unanswered questions of illegal conduct.

The illegalities detailed in Paul’s civil complaint and FEC complaint caused Hillary’s finance director to be criminally indicted and tried in 2005 by the Department of Justice Office of Public Integrity (the same group that prosecuted Scooter Libby) for hiding the cost of a fundraiser paid for by Paul. Paul’s FEC allegations forced Hillary’s campaign to admit to the FEC in October, 2005, that it violated FEC reporting requirements by hiding more than $700,000 received from Paul that Hillary personally said she never received.

Hillary’s sworn deposition is expected to reveal numerous illegalities directed by Hillary, with Bill’s help, to win and keep her Senate seat and avoid being accountable to the law. The judge’s sua sponte decision to delay Hillary’s deposition until after the presidential election denies the public’s right to know what a presidential candidate and a former president have done to undermine the Rule of Law and the Constitution by corrupting the Department of Justice Office of Public Integrity and its very Chief, Noel Hillman, federal judge A Howard Matz appointed by Bill Clinton (who deceived the jury in the criminal trial of Hillary’s finance director by telling the jury that Hillary was not involved in any way) and the FEC itself which aided and abetted Hillary filing a fourth false FEC report in January, 2006 that omitted any reference to the $1.2 million contribution the FBI and DOJ swore Paul made.

The Department of Justice prosecutor in the May, 2005 criminal case stated that $1.2 million was personally contributed by Paul at the request of Bill Clinton as part of an employment deal for Clinton’s post White House rainmaking services and was confirmed by FBI Special Agent David Smith as explained by Dept of Justice Prosecutor Dan Schwaber (pages 55,57,72) during the criminal trial of Hillary’s finance director David Rosen in May 2005.
Hillary’s treasurer was later forced to admit filing the false FEC reports to hide more than $700,000 paid by Paul, and fined $35,000 (the only fine imposed on Hillary’s campaign) yet Hillary has never answered one question to the media or the courts about these charges!

In fact, Hillary’s sworn Declaration in response to Paul’s sworn allegations constituted a legal admission to Paul’s charges becauseHillary refused to deny any of the allegations!
Strangely, Hillary admitted to the Washington Post in August 2000 knowing that the fundraising event Paul produced and paid for in August, 2000 cost more than $1 million- yet Rosen was indicted on three counts of hiding this fact from Hillary’s campaign causing 3 false FEC reports to be filed!

The cover-up of the original felony violations of the federal election law committed by Hillary and Bill Clinton (they solicited and coordinated Paul’s $1 million plus contribution as a quid pro quo for Clinton’s post White House employment) have resulted in a corruption of every branch of the government by the Clinton’s- all in plain view of the public and with the collusion of the media and the government. Watergate seems insignificant in the breadth of its public corruption in comparison with what has become the mother of all coverups orchestrated by Hillary Clinton.

Sunday ~ April 04, 2008 by Intermeddler Posted in "Ed Rendell", "don imus", "hillary uncensored", Al Gore, Barack, Chelsea Clinton, DNC, Hillary, Rezko, bill clinton, current affairs, democrats, election, hollywood, jim levin, judge munoz, nbc, obama, peter paul, politics, scooter libby, tony rezko|

Re: North Carolina's superdelegates

michelle63 — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:01:38 -0400

Greetings, Fellow North Carolina!

My name is Michelle, a White forty year old woman who for the first time, EXCITED about a candidate, his name is "BARACK OBAMA".

Super Delegates, I hope you see that "Barack Obama" is the only viable Presidential Candidate.

Barack Obama has brought younger Americans and new Democrats who are voting for the first time. This new influx of enthusiasm is because of "BARACK OBAMA".

Change we can believe in.

BARACK OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT!

Re: North Carolina's superdelegates

UNChockeygirl — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 13:18:27 -0400

dahedgehog, that article is about earmarks (like the one Obama gave his wife's hospital after they gave her a huge raise), and it misrepresents the truth by saying that companies gave Clinton's campaign money. Companies can not give money directly, only individuals can give money,and they are limited to $2300 each per year. A company PAC which collects contributions from individuals can also give money, but is again limited to $5000 a year or campaign. What Obama has done is use bundlers who are not subject to the PAC limitations, and they have collected hundreds of thousands of dollars from individuals who head various industries.

I was talking about the HOPE PAC that Obama controls. He has taken corporate big wigs' money for this PAC and has been doling it out to those who endorse him and help him, which is far different from taking money from corporate sources via PACs (like Clinton) and using it in your own campaign or earmarks that create jobs for your district.

To my knowledge, no one has doled out cash to endorsers from a PAC the way Obama has, but I'd be happy to look at a website that says otherwise if you point me to it. And no one has used their own PAC to fund their campaign organization and train their workers because that would be illegal. Obama gets away with it because he said at the time that he had no intent to run for a national office, even though he was already beginning his campaign.

You are correct thatI had not read that opinion piece, and it apparently has not yet been published since it has a pub date of May 1, 2008.

For info on campaign finance I prefer a more neutral source, although it has not been updated to reflect all the additional money Obama and Clinton and McCain have taken in.

To read about how Obama is using his Hope PAC, including the way he lied to use it when he set up his campaign organization and trained his workers, go to

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Barack_Obama/Campaign_Financing

and click on the links to the HOPE PAC.