My blog is worth $15,242.58.
How much is your blog worth?
Gore = Ambien. Hmmm…. This is the first time I have heard the comparison but now that I have heard it, it does make sense. Read more here:
-
http://www.newsweek.com/id/47829
Here is McCain’s latest global warming ad.
Sometimes I wonder if Gore endorsed the wrong person.
Hat tip New York Times.
He took his sweet time in deciding who to endorse but now Gore has finally paused to take a moment from his crusade to endorse Obama.
In a letter to be e-mailed to Obama supporters, the former vice president and Nobel Prize winner wrote, “From now through Election Day, I intend to do whatever I can to make sure he is elected president of the United States.”
(…)
“Over the past 18 months, Barack Obama has united a movement. He knows change does not come from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue or Capitol Hill. It begins when people stand up and take action,” Gore wrote. “With the help of millions of supporters like you, Barack Obama will bring the change we so desperately need in order to solve our country’s most pressing problems.”
The former vice president also asked for donations to help fund Obama’s effort - the first time he’s asked members of his Web site AlGore.com to contribute to a political campaign.
It really does make me cringe to think of all the mayhem Gore is going to be able to accomplish with a Democrat President and a Democrat controlled congress.
It seems that Jewish voters are switching their support from Barack Obama to McCain. With Obama’s unclear stance on Israel, some Jewish Democratic donors are pledging their much needed financial support to the GOP. PoliPundit has more on this here.
In a recent poll conducted by CNN, Nader received 6%!
Ralph Nader’s campaign is trying to capitalize on his showing in a new national poll to argue that he might be on the stage for presidential debates and to seek more money needed to get on ballots.
In the CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll conducted June 4-5, Democrat Barack Obama had 47 percent, Republican John McCain had 43 percent, and Nader had 6 percent — “with virtually no mainstream national press coverage,” the consumer activist’s campaign told supporters today. (Without Nader in the race, Obama leads 49 percent to 46 percent.)
The 6 percent is an important threshold, Nader’s camp notes, because most debate organizers require at least 5 percent to invite a candidate.
Why is this such great news? Well it means that Nader could possibly be invited to several presidential debates which would boost his popularity even more! More votes for Nader would most likely mean less votes for Obama!
Another added benefit would be that we get a Ron Paul-esque candidate in the debates to spout out crazy ideas while the other two candidates completely ignore him. I might actually watch the debates if he is in them.
Well, I had two polls going. One asking who would win in an Obama/McCain matchup and the other asking who will win in a Clinton/McCain matchup. This wasn’t meant to be a “Who would you vote for” thing but rather an honest answer on who you think the country would pick if they were matched up against eachother. Even though everyone didn’t vote in both polls, the results are still fairly interesting.
| Head to Head: Who would win? | ||
 |
||
| Selection | Votes | |
| Barack Obama |  48% |
24 |
| John McCain |  52% |
26 |
|
|
|
| 50 votes total | ||
| Head to Head: Who would win? | ||
|
||
| Selection | Votes | |
| Hillary Clinton | 56% |
20 |
| John McCain | 44% |
16 |
|
|
|
| 36 votes total | ||
Now you have to remember that this poll has been going on during the past couple of weeks. A lot has happened from Hillary pledging to stay in the race as long as it takes to her voicing her support for Obama yesterday.
In all honestly, this poll probably doesn’t mean anything because I kept it up too long. However, it is still interesting to see that according to this flawed poll, Hillary is more electable than Obama.
Barack Obama seems to be pissing off everyone in the world that he has pledged to meet with without “preconditions.” This morning, the Palestinians voiced their anger over Barack’s stance on Jerusalem being strictly an Israeli capital and now Iran believes that Obama’s ‘elimination’ threat is ‘unacceptable.’ (My emphasis)
Iran’s foreign ministry on Thursday slammed US Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s pledge to work to “eliminate” the threat posed by Tehran as “unacceptable” and biased.
“It is undeniable that the nature of the Iranian nuclear programme is peaceful,” foreign ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini said, quoted by the official IRNA news agency.
“These comments are certainly one-sided and unreal, and are completely contrary to the nature of the Iranian peaceful nuclear programme and thus unacceptable,” he added.
Obama vowed on Wednesday that he would work to “eliminate” the threat posed by Iran to world security.
“The danger from Iran is grave and real and my goal will be to eliminate this threat,” he told the influential pro-Israel lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Council (AIPAC).
Man, I sure hope Barack wasn’t expecting the election to get any easier now that he is the presumptive nominee.
Now the Palestinians are outraged at Barack Obama’s promise that Jerusalem must remain solely in Israeli hands. (My emphasis)
President Mahmoud Abbas rejected the U.S. presidential candidate’s pledge to American Jewish leaders and he repeated his demand for a Palestinian state with Arab East Jerusalem as its capital.
“This statement is totally rejected,” Abbas told reporters in the West Bank administrative centre of Ramallah.
“The whole world knows that East Jerusalem, holy Jerusalem, was occupied in 1967 and we will not accept a Palestinian state without having Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state.”
Abbas aide Saeb Erekat said Palestinian negotiators engaged in U.S.-sponsored peace talks would continue to insist on securing East Jerusalem, captured by Israel in 1967, as their capital. He said of Obama: “He has closed all doors to peace.”
Wow, “all doors of peace.” And people think Bush hasn’t done enough to end the violence between Israel and Palestine. At least he didn’t close “all doors to peace” before he was even elected president.
Well, this morning Obama spoke to AIPAC about his ‘unshakable commitment’ to Israel’s cause but the pro-Israel community must ask just how unshakable is it? Just yesterday, reports came out that as recently as 1999 Barack Obama was a very strong supporter of the Palestinian cause.
Reminds me of another presidential flip flopper.
