newsobserver.com projects - Ed Rendell - Comments

Re: Perdue's night at the White House

beachbum474 — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 22:05:51 -0500

now...now...don't be mean. Attack her on her positions and her questionable decisions, like the one to higher 2 people recently during a "hiring freeze".

Re: Perdue's night at the White House

j1c2kp — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 20:26:59 -0500

Bev's picture at the White House was really good. She is quite stunning to be so old.

Re: Perdue's night at the White House

FFC1304 — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 17:17:20 -0500

Bev MEANT that it was a 'really' special night, her grammar lacks on occasion. (government screwls)

Re: Perdue to attend Obama meeting

FFC1304 — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 08:08:44 -0500

Surely 'gov' sleazely will attend to present his successor, Status Quo Bev to the humble crowd? no? ...

Godzilla Backup or Azimov?

sparkybro — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 22:32:38 -0500

Maybe they can pool their resources and tell us how the country's financial system pancaked a la Enron.

Re: Perdue to attend Obama meeting

johniwaniszek — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 12:59:17 -0500

It's nice to have a competent president after 8 years in the wilderness.

Re: Easley to endorse Clinton

ecbmtrmpeter — Sun, 04 May 2008 13:10:31 -0400

In Obama first publication " Dreams from My Father", in 1995, there were two pictures on the cover,him and his sister. Obama republished " Dreams from My Father in 2004. On the cover of the second publication is three different picture. One with a military picture... In the second publication "Dreams from My Father" he deleted approximately 50 pages to build his case for presidency ,to MISSLEAD THE READER that he was a military veteran, and to reduce his exposure so no one would know about his background.....

In 2006 he published " The Audacity of Hope", building his candidacy for president even more, and building his case as a military veteran even more. His Presidential Candidacy is based around WRITTEN LIES, and his military background is to misslead the readers... In 2008 he, also ,indicated that in one of his debate , he first began to run for presidency 1.5 years back. His candidacy began long before 1.5 years back. From the second publication of "Dreams from My Father, you can see that his candidacy for president began as early as 2004, which is more than 3 years.

Certain things in Obama book " Dreams from My Father" were fabricated and some things were used to protect his African Father and White Mother , by his Mother. His mother didnot want some things published. Obama did it for the money. Nor had he tithe (10% ),of his books earning, to his Church( Trinity Church of Christ) . He made over 4.2 million dollars in 2007, and only gave 5.7%($240,000) to Charity. Only a percentage of that $240,000 was given to his Church.

I believe if he would have Tithe ($420,000) to his Church (Trinity Church of Christ), then Reverend Wright wouldnot have call him "Just a Politician".

Re: The Cli-Tanic hit an iceberg in Iowa - will it sink in NC?

lorraineadonis — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 09:54:49 -0400

OF DENOUNCING HIS (OBAMA) FAITH ON RELIGION, I HATE BEING BLACK. I WISH I WAS NEVER BEEN BORN BLACK AT ALL...

The Cli-Tanic hit an iceberg in Iowa - will it sink in NC?

b4justice — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 03:51:31 -0400

***SUPERDELEGATES' "WHINNERS" ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE CLINTONITES
I would have no problem if Obama gave back the Ted Kennedy endorsement if Hillary gave back all of the superdelegates from the states Obama won. Keep in mind, Obama has won more states, more pledged delegates, and more popular votes. If all superdelegates went with how their states voted - do you really believe Hillary would have more superdelegates? Therefore Obama and his supporters are not the ones "whinning".

***STRANGE AND RACIALLY CREATIVE WAYS OF DEFINING "ELECTABILITY"
Certain racist media pundits are attempting to make a big deal of Ohio and Pennsylvania's "blue collar workers (poorer, older white voters who are less educated and more likely to vote their race than their needs)" while attempting to belittle/ignore 12 consecutive landslide victories won by Obama from voters of all races including millions of excited white Americans and independents. According to the Clintons and these pundits, Obama is winning the wrong kinds of whites (isn't this pathetic?). The Clinton/McCain-controlled media are attempting to base Obama's "electability" on only those whites who refuse to vote for an African American, while ignoring the millions of whites, blacks, independents, and hispanics who have and will. This is the only way Hillary can be considered "most electable" while receiving less votes. By focusing on the whites who did not vote for Obama, this allows these racist political analysts to keep playing and playing the race card with hopes they will sway more white voters toward Clinton and/or John McCain. For months Obama led both McCain and Hillary in national polls. At no time did any one question the "electability" of Hillary or McCain. Even when polls indicated a high percentage of voters felt McCain was "too old", the pundits never questioned McCain's "electability". To continuously question Obama's "electability" while he is in the process of winning and is about to become "elected" is blatant racism - pure and simple!

***ARE WE TO IGNORE AFRICAN-AMERICANS, YOUNG WHITES, EDUCATED WHITES, INDEPENDENT VOTERS?
Since when have we elected a Democrat who receives less than 10% of the African-American vote, fewer young voters, fewer educated voters, and depends solely on the votes of "older blue collar whites" and older white women? The last time I checked, it was the African-American voters (not the "Reagan Democrats") who were the most likely to ensure the election of a democratic president. My point is, voters are equally important. Obama is winning the most votes (period). Only the racists are most concern with the color of Obama's voters. Since when did we stop counting votes unless they were poor older whites?

***THE "UNSINKABLE" CLI-TANIC CAN AND WILL "SINK" UNLESS PATCHED UP WITH THE RACE CARD.
Also, do you think Ted Kennedy and Bill Richardson are the only ones who did not vote with their states. If this was the case there is no way Hillary would be leading in super delegates, while losing in all other categories. It is Hillary and the Clintonites who have been whinning about Ted Kennedy and Bill Richardson. If you recall, Richardson was called "Judas" and Bill Clinton whined as if he supported the "Judas" card that was played. The only reason Hillary has more superdelegates today is because her old "politics-as-usual" crowd thought Hillary was the "inevitable" shoe-in candidate. Consequently many jumped on board early while attempting to be the first in line for cabinet positions.
These overly ambitious politicians did not know they were jumping on the Cli-Tanic and would hit an iceberg upon leaving the station in Iowa. They arrogantly thought their 3 point victory in New Hampshire had repaired the damage. As the captain went full speed ahead while claiming she had "found her voice". They now hope to be saved by desperately beating the dead horse of Rev. Jeremiah Wright without actually dealing with the fact the Cli-Tanic is seriously flawed and punctured with the holes of dishonesty and distrust.

Clinton's campaign can best be described by what the designer of the Titanic said upon looking at documents which included the ship's geographic floor plan, once he realized the ship had been punctured by the iceberg. Rather than being deceptive or attempting to fudge the numbers, the ship's architect honestly stated, "The Titanic will sink - it is mathematically inevitable." North Carolina just might be the ocean where the Cli-Tanic will break apart and sink.

Re: Easley to endorse Clinton

rabid1 — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 10:24:13 -0400

When the Obama whiners tell Teddy Kennedy to shut-up, since Clinton carried Massacusetts, then their argument that Super D's like Easley should be required to vote the way their state dictates.

I think that Easley has shown great courage to buck the masses and endorse with his conscience, unlike his two successor wannabes, who have pandered themselves.

Finally, regarding the Iran misrepresentation. The only "Quid pro Quo" regarding Clinton and Iran is this... IF Hillary Clinton makes a statement on Iran, THEN Obama supporters will twist the meaning.

The question she was asked was what would she do "if Iran attacked Israel with Nuclear weapons. She answered, "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would BE ABLE to totally obliterate them."

This is the concept of deterrence, "being prepared to inflict unacceptable damage on an aggressor, and making sure the potential aggressor is aware of the risk SO THAT HE REFRAINS from aggression."

Just because Obama wants to drink tea with tyrannts, doesn't make it an effective strategy. Just ask Neville Chamberlain.

Re: Easley to endorse Clinton

uncgop — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:10:16 -0400

Obama does have a message, but that is all that he has is a message. He has no plan of attack for of his ideas. Just this morning, I saw an ad touting his education idea and at the end of the ad I sat there and realized that he had spent 30 seconds saying we need to change this and that, but offered no real solutions. I am personally tired of endless promises with no actions or resolve.

Re: Easley to endorse Clinton

ph3002 — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 08:07:08 -0400

Words do matter. Barack Obama sends a message of hope for a better future.
It's a future that belongs to our children and to our people. Old time politics does not resonate. Hillary breads despair and divisiveness. It's the last hurrah for a candidate who has carved out a downward path. Let's hope that she doesn't take the Democratic Party along with her. The charisma of Barack Obama will survive in North Carolina and the rest of the country.

Re: Easley to endorse Clinton

FFC1304 — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 06:48:25 -0400

"MORE CORRUPTION WITHOUT INTERRUPTION" ? ? ?

Re: Easley to endorse Clinton

FFC1304 — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 06:46:41 -0400

Sleazely SHOULD have had the GUTS to declare both Hitlery AND Obakarama as totally INCOMPETENT to 'lead' the nation, but then Sleazely has to watch out for who he calls INCOMPETENT!

Re: Easley to endorse Clinton

lorraineadonis — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 05:43:14 -0400

AND I AM HOPING THAT ONE DAY BLACKS WOULD WAKE UP THAT THEY WERE NOT BORN TO LEAD THE UNITED STATES.

I AM BLACK TOO. LET'S FACE THE TRUTH. IT'S NOT BAD TO DREAM, BUT WAS THERE EVER A TIME THAT A SLAVE HAS TAKEN OVER HIS MASTER? IN A FAIRY TALE, YES BUT IN REALITY, I DON'T THINK SO.

BARRACK OBAMA'S BEING THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNION IS JUST NOT SO OPEN TO WHITES. AND WE BLACKS COMPOSE ONLY OF A MERE 12% OF THE US VOTING POPULACE.

FACE THE REALITY. BARRACK OBAMA IS JUST FOR ILLINOIS. NOT FOR THE UNITED STATES. NOT FOR THE WORLD.