Obama stars at Clooney fundraiser

Bgood41,

"In 2008 Obama favored traditional marriage, later on his view is evolving, and now he is for it. Where is the content of character?"

Yes, imagine that: An elected representative listening to the various arguments and reasons of his constituents over the course of three years, and coming to a conclusion different from what he started out with. How novel! How shocking! (Rolls eyes)

Where's Obama's so-called "content of character?" Well, for one thing, that phrase doesn't mean what you think it does. "Content of character" speaks to one's moral or ethical quality. Obama changing his mind about something has nothing to to with morality or ethics, but rather with how he comes about making a decision. I'm glad my President is able to evolve. It shows intelligence and maturity.

By your estimation though, if a candidate insists the world is flat, you'd admire him or her for having the gumption to stick to that position, even when pressure to come around to the "World is Round" argument was nigh-overpowering? That's just . . . I don't really know any nice way to say it . . . dumb.

I just couldn't trust someone who was as utterly immune to reason and rationale as you seem to think would make a good president. That kind of intractable devotion to an idea is not only childish, but also dangerous.

Tatanka: "America has more important issues at hand; we don't need to know or should we care about a president or presidential candidate's opinion on gay rights or if two people with the same genitals should be allowed to legally marry..."

Yes and no. I agree this issue isn't as pressing as, say, the economy in terms of how detrimental it could be to the nation, but it IS an important social issue, and for those who are gay and wish to marry, as well as their supporters, it may well be the most important issue in their lives. So who are we to say it can go on the back burner? This issue has been put there for far too long, and it's about time there's a president with the courage to back equality instead of either denying it outright or simply sitting on a fence for fear of commitment hurting them politically. It needn't be the ONLY issue dealt with, of course, but for now it's got the limelight, in part due to some backwards states recently banning gay marriage and trying to roll back other human rights for homosexuals.

Obama’s biggest advantages are among women and minorities. His biggest problem is with whites who lack college degrees.

More evidence to support the assertion that the less educated a white male is, the more likely they are to oppose progress on any front, and the more likely they are to want to "turn back the clock" to some mythical past when things were seemingly better.

The WaPo is reporting on a story in which Romney allegedly bullied a boy while attending an elite, all-boys prep school, purportedly due to perceptions regarding the boy's sexual orientation. I'm not sure which will hurt Romney more: these revelations, or greater focused on his privileged upbringing. Either leave an unpleasant impression.

It appears it's Obama who's out of touch with the will of the people.

We will see in September. Something tells me people will find him more in touch than Wilard

Hôjô SôunMay. 11, 2012 - 01:56PM JST Obama is done now. Americans want family values more than anything.

... but not families for gay people? Ahh, America, land of the hypocrits.

Romney IS backwards, and not just because of his stance on gay marriage. The republican lineup this year would've been absolutely hilarious, if there wasn't a chance that one of them could actually be elected...

samwattersMay. 11, 2012 - 01:01PM JST

No sarcasm intended; can someone help me? What is the benefit of the state recognizing homosexual marriage or, in this case, the President supporting it? As I understand it---and I could be wrong---homosexual couples are allowed to live together without fear of persecution or being ostracized like they were in the past, homosexual couples are allowed to pass on property/savings, etc. to their partners like married couples, homosexual couples are allowed to give their partners power of attorney like married couples and homosexual couples are allowed to adopt children like married couples. Honestly I really don't understand the issue and any information would be greatly appreciated.

Sam, I am sure there are many things but as I understand it there would be one big thing. In various companies and the U.S. government there are benefits given only to spouses, this would give the domestic partner the same benefits by being allowed to become a spouse. To me it appears that Obama must believe it will be easier to allow gays to marry than to change federal law to give those benefits to unmarried partners, although I am sure there are many variations on this theme.

It would also appear that Obama expects to get more votes than he will loose by saying this.

"Sam, I am sure there are many things but as I understand it there would be one big thing. In various companies and the U.S. government there are benefits given only to spouses, this would give the domestic partner the same benefits by being allowed to become a spouse. To me it appears that Obama must believe it will be easier to allow gays to marry than to change federal law to give those benefits to unmarried partners, although I am sure there are many variations on this theme."

@Frank Vaughn. Thank you for that information. That certainly is a legitiment reason for homosexual couples to want to pursue legal marriage.

kurumazaka: "This is a political gamble that the president will almost certainly sorely regret."

Not if he truly believes what he has stated. I'd rather go down defending what I believe in than be like Romney and try moving up through lies and constant reversals to pander to the audience of the moment. We are in agreement that it's a risky move, but regardless of how it affects voting -- and I really don't think it'll change much -- the man should be respected for being the first president to take such a step forward.

Denying gays the right to wed each other is simply against the constitution, and the spirit of what I believe the US stands for (or what they purport to stand for), and states like NC should hang their heads in shame.

The strange thing is even though blacks and hispanics support Obama, they were instrumental in defeating the gay marriage initiative in ultra-liberal California. America has more important issues at hand; we don't need to know or should we care about a president or presidential candidate's opinion on gay rights or if two people with the same genitals should be allowed to legally marry...

"Now anyone who doesn't support gay marriage is a "gay-hater".

No, that is your twisted version of what I said.

They gay-haters here know who they are.

Quite the discussion the last few postings. But this is about Obama favoring gay marriage. To me at least, he is obviously going for some niche votes, but hey that's what politicians do. And as I said a long way back he is also hoping to receive more votes than he looses from this. Yes he'll gain the votes that favor gay marriage and probably loose those who totally oppose it, but will most likely receive a net gain.

A Couple of people wrote that Obama plans on leaving it up to the states to take care of and approve. That may work, but for workers in the U.S. Government that is no good as current government law only recognizes heterosexual marriage and the marriage has to be recognized as valid in ALL 50 states (those of you in Japan married to a U.S. citizen know this). So even if, lets say, California approves gay marriage, the gay spouses of federal employees still get nothing because none of the other states recognizes the marriage. Sadly (yes I just wrote "sadly") the federal government will have to require this of all states for it to happen.

This issue has a large chance of going sour on him.

A little info to help clarify. Those of us who are retired from the U.S. Government and receive a pension, if we die we can arrange (through an insurance premium) to leave our pension to our surviving spouse, but it has to be a legal marriage as I wrote above (I believe there are similar things in large civilian companies). And I personally know two different homosexual couples, one has been together 20+ years and the other 15 years, why shouldn't they be able to receive 100% of the benefits of marriage that I enjoy with my wonderful wife?

. It appears it's Obama who's out of touch with the will of the people.

Well then, he'll lose the election won't he? Except he won't, given the lack of quality in the opposition. The Republicans are a joke party right now.

Except he won't, given the lack of quality in the opposition. The Republicans are a joke party right now.

@ lucabrasi: You do realize that in the West Virginia primary, an inmate in federal Prison in Texas got 40% of the Democratic Primary vote to 60% for Obama. That means that a man in prison who has spent no money save to file to be on the ballot receive 40% of the Dem vote, the supposed Dems who are all in step with Obama. Most people polled pretty much said "anyone but Obama."

Like it or not, Obama will need to get the "blue dog" Dems and independents in order to win again. People may dismiss the WV primary as a fluke, but it is more of those people who voted against him than there are minority voters, whom Obama has a lead with. Even with the 90% minority vote he received in 2008, it was still the non-minority vote that got him over the top against McCain. And he didn't beat McCain by a landslide in the popular vote either.

RomeoR: "It appears it's Obama who's out of touch with the will of the people."

So you don't consider homosexuals as people? And what were you saying about 'out of touch' again? :)

Bgood41: "In 2008 Obama favored traditional marriage, later on his view is evolving, and now he is for it."

Hey, I personally favour 'traditional' marriage (define 'traditional'!), as I love women and not men, but I also stand 100% behind those who choose to marry someone of their own gender. Supporting gay marriage doesn't mean he personally favours it, does it? it just means that he feels gays have just as much right to marry and be happy as heterosexual couples.

Frank Vaughn: "It would also appear that Obama expects to get more votes than he will loose by saying this."

What, is he going to 'loose' a bunch of arrows at people? Seriously, peeps... it's "LOSE", not "loose"! I really can't understand how this simple mistake came to such widespread usage. It's not a typo (of which I make more than ever!), it's not auto-correct, it is a legitimate mistake that is pervading the language.

Regardless, how do you figure he hopes to gain more votes than LOSE them? By all accounts it looks like this announcement will solidify votes with people who were going to vote for him anyway, but lose him other votes among people who are more conservative or were sitting on the fence. He has more to LOSE than he does to gain, except in terms of respect, and that is all the more proof that it is the admittance of an honest man. And then you have Romney, who denies bullying, then apologizes for it and says, "I didn't know they were gay" after saying "atta girl!" to them and what not. Talk about contrast!

I don't think it is insane. It's both a political pander and heartfelt.

There are a lot of gay Americans, and they will surely casting their vote for change we can believe in.

And as for all those conservative gay-haters getting hot under the collar (read latents), well no wonder they're in a tiz. It's going to take more than a wide stance in the bathroom to turn back the tide now Obama's dropped the bombshell.

The vast majority of those who support gay rights already support Obama, and those who do not don't (note I don't say they support Romney, though they'll probably hold their nose and vote for him anyway) - except for the minority bloc: The question is whether this will be enough to drive away the blacks and Hispanics who oppose gay rights, and, if so, whether they'll vote for Romney or simply abstain.

Note Obama qualified his support hugely by suggesting it was up to the states to determine; he is hardly suggesting that this issue will become centerpiece legislation in his second term. Politically, it is very lukewarm - it seems designed to allow him to have his cake and eat it too; i.e., to express support without actually having to do anything. With events of recent days, though, he really could no longer have stayed on the fence. Ultimately, kurumazaka, I don't think it will have much of an electoral effect unless Romney chooses to rally evangelicals by making a case of it, in which case it could well backfire on the Republicans.

Like it or not, Obama will need to get the "blue dog" Dems and independents in order to win again.

Let's not forget, AlphaApe, that you were the one who kept predicting that, because President Obama was so unpopular with Democrats, they surely would be putting up a challenger to him in the primary season. You stuck to that prediction well into the primaries when it was plainly clear that the Democrats were going to do no such stupid thing -- the vast majority of Democrats approving of the president's performance after the debacle he succeeded and inherited.

Any "blue dog" -- especially the less educated white males -- who thinks voting Republican is going to better enable them and their kids to get ahead richly deserves more of the same national fiasco brought to them by years of inept and self-destructive Republican policies.

When is the Celebrity in Chief going to win Bruce Willis' endorsement?

Alphaape, Edward Klein is a hack. Google "Cooperation between Bill Clinton and Obama" to see many examples of how the two work together - as well as many references to Klein's book on sites such as Newsmax. What the right wishes were is far from what what is.

Obama's "evolution" on this issue is not going to win him any votes, though it may fire up his base - and shine a spotlight on his own personal honesty in comparison with mendacious Mitt. It takes a big man to admit, as Obama effectively did, that he was wrong. Mitt cannot afford personal morals; they are necessarily dictated by the Tea Party.

Obama is bit and briddled by politics, not religion. And his wife was on the Ellen show. but I think Obama may have muddied the spring or polluted the well with The Lord. Thank god, he's forgiving. But the Lord did send angels to destroy sodom and gomorrah.

BARACK OBAMA SO UNPOPULAR 42% of West Virginia Democrats Pick Federal Prison Inmate Over Him in Primary.

Because so many ignorant white West Virginians are actually Republicans who showed up at the wrong place or punched the wrong hole. Remember, as so many conservatives are fond of reminding us, that West Virginia is the state that kept electing and re-electing a former Klansman as their Senator.

Because so many ignorant white West Virginians are actually Republicans who showed up at the wrong place or punched the wrong hole.

West Virginia has a closed primary, meaning that voters can only vote the ballot of the party in which they are registered and Byrd was a democrat. Are not all liberal voters paragons of virtue and intellect? You lecture regarding content of character, yet always define people by their race. That is impolite.

Obama as being two-faced decided to come out in favor of gay marriage, as a way to resolve any perceived policy “division” within his own administration. Joe Biden is the gift that keeps on giving and after Biden’s apparent slip up, Obama wanted to show support for the Vice President so it wouldn’t make Biden appear as a lone wolf in the eyes of the press and media. Even if that meant he could very well lose a good percentage of the black vote come this fall. By the way Christianity disavows homosexuality and calls it sin. So what we have here is Obama throwing Christianity “under the bus” as well as the majority of the Black community who object to same sex marriage, and which Obama needs that very same black vote to help him get reelected in November.

The WaPo is reporting on a story in which Romney allegedly bullied a boy while attending an elite, all-boys prep school, purportedly due to perceptions regarding the boy's sexual orientation. I'm not sure which will hurt Romney more: these revelations, or greater focused on his privileged upbringing. Either leave an unpleasant impression.

And today the family of the supposed victim is saying that the story is false. The family of the late classmate whom Mitt Romney allegedly bullied in high school said Friday the portrayal of their brother in new media reports is "factually incorrect" and that they are "aggrieved that he would be used to further a political agenda."

But never let facts get in the way of making political hay. Since the guy is deceasedk we will hear from the media that the GOP/Romney of buying off the family since after all they must be GOPers since their member went to an exclusive prep school. We can expect more foolish reporting leading up to the election.

That is both rich and completely false. It was the Republicans in Congress who complained that Obama's platform was neglecting clean coal technology and so it was included.

@ yabits: So for the entire election campaign so far, Obama had decided to overlook what the Republicans in Congress wanted, but after a wake up call from WV it is put on? Now that is rich.

So a guy in prison is going to look out for them better than the current president? If they believe that, they should go back to voting Republican

As another pointed out, the WV primary is a closed primary. Only registered Dems could vote. So if they can't have the confidence in their own party to look out for them, then maybe they should vote for the GOP candidate in November.

.

Denying gays the right to wed each other is simply against the constitution (sp)

Not according to the liberals messiah, Obama. If he is such a champion for gays marriage rights, why didn't Obama become "historic" and sign into federal law altering the way America defines marriage when the democrats controlled both the House and the Senate? Oh, that's right. I forgot. That was when he was against gay marriages before he was for it. My bad.

RR

If he is such a champion for gays marriage rights, why didn't Obama become "historic" and sign into federal law altering the way America defines marriage when the democrats controlled both the House and the Senate? Oh, that's right. I forgot.

You didn't forget. You just can't think very clearly.

He first had to pave the way by working on the major federal institution that openly discriminated against gays and lesbians: the US Armed Forces. In other words, he had to first clean up the Executive Branch -- which includes the Department of Defense -- before taking the battle elsewhere.

You can't be serious. West Virginia voting laws prohibit convicted felons from running for office. And yet a guy who is serving a 17-year sentence in a Texas prison was allowed to get on the ballot! Explain how "closed" that was!

@ yabits: I seem to remember awhile back that you blasted the GOP for wanting to enforce the law of showing a proper ID to vote so that you will not have voter fraud. And as the Attorney General said that was just a code word for racism. Well I guess this guy proved that false. The guy paid his $2500 registration fee, and the state took it and put it on the ballot. If anyone is to blame, it is the state worker who probably thought it would be a joke to take this guy's money and put his name on the ballot. Last time I checked, WV has a (D), Gov, and two Senators so it is not some "Red State" but solidily Blue.

Oh, and in West Virginia, voters can register and NOT declare a party. That means they can vote in whichever primary they want to.

@ yabits: You need to let this one go. WV held both Dem and GOP primaries on the same day. Maybe people can vote twice in Chicago style politicsbut they can't anywhere else. Your argument might have made sense if the elections were held on differnt days, but they weren't.

abounding in President Obama's toughest demographic: uneducated white men.

@ yabits: Based on sheet numbers of the US population, even with Obama receiving the majority of the minority vote in 2008, it was still this group of "uneducated white men" that gave him more votes than McCain. I am not whtie, but youi blasted anyone who voted against Obama as racist is just as bad as calling everyone who doesn't want gay marriage as homophobes.

So, after 17 years of flip flopping ... I mean evolving ...., Obama finally admits once and for all to having an opinion on gay marriage, and it’s the same one every liberal Democrat has.

Heh, on to the next Obama distraction.

RR

I think Obama will loose more than just the southern states, and will also loose some of the women and minority vote also.

Keep the predictions coming. Make enough of them and you're bound to hit on a few.

Meanwhile, Laurence Fink, head of BlackRock Capital -- managers of $3.7 trillion in assets -- came on CNN today to give his endorsement for a second term for President Obama. He called Obama, "the right man" to keep the economy improving.

That's right -- 3.7 trillion.

BlackRock isn't the kind of firm that put its money heavily into derivatives and credit default swaps related to the housing industry

@ yabits: It's named Blackstone, and the Chief Operating Officer is Hamilton E. James. When Romney's private equity past was scrutinized in the Republican primary, Blackstone's James warned that "it could be very damaging for the industry." One wonders if James will issue the same sort of warning to Obama when he sees him later today to deliver money to boost the president's reelection campaign.

President Obama is in a better position to unite and lead the entire country, and continue to move it forward.

@ yabits: And in my home state of Arkansas they are holding their primary today. Only Obama and John Wolfe, a Tennessee lawyer, are on the Democratic presidential primary ballot. (Wolfe took 12 percent — and nearly 18,000 votes — in a four-way fight in the Louisiana Democratic presidential primary in late March.) And a recent independent poll showed Obama running just seven points ahead of Wolfe in the southern Arkansas 4th district, which covers one-quarter of the state.

Before you go off on Arkansas as another "hick" state, remember this state produced the greates "hick" President that you Dems wish could run again, Bill Clinton, and his side kick Hillary. If I know my Arkansas politics, Bill still has a lot of pull down there, and if you probably dug really deep enough, you would probably find that this is making sure that Hillary's name is not forgotten.

No sarcasm intended; can someone help me? What is the benefit of the state recognizing homosexual marriage or, in this case, the President supporting it? As I understand it---and I could be wrong---homosexual couples are allowed to live together without fear of persecution or being ostracized like they were in the past, homosexual couples are allowed to pass on property/savings, etc. to their partners like married couples, homosexual couples are allowed to give their parnters power of attorney like married couples and homosexual couples are allowed to adopt children like married couples. Honestly I really don't understand the issue and any information would be greatly appreciated.

Around 150 well-heeled guests paid $40,000 a ticket to get into the exclusive soiree, the latest in a string of big money events as Obama builds an expensive campaign machine for his re-election and buys top dollar advertising slots.

Where's the OWS railing against the 1% on this?

Is it environmentally friendly to use that AirForce 1 jet to attend a fundraiser? Who cares? That doesn't apply to us... now let's eat our $40,000 dinner and rub elbows with the 1%. Once again he shows how he identifies with the common American . . . by hanging out only with liberal, wealthy elites.

$40,000 a plate could feed alot of hungry children Obama-san.

@yabits

BARACK OBAMA SO UNPOPULAR 42% of West Virginia Democrats Pick Federal Prison Inmate Over Him in Primary.

"Denying gays the right to wed each other is simply against the constitution,"

Except that Supreme Court Judges and constitutional lawyers for 200 years haven't thought so.

Let's not forget, AlphaApe, that you were the one who kept predicting that, because President Obama was so unpopular with Democrats, they surely would be putting up a challenger to him in the primary season.

@ yabits you are correct. That is probably why former President Bill Clinton is reported to have told Hiillary to resign her post and run. “The country needs you!” the former president told Hillary Clinton, urging her to run this year, according to accounts of the conversation included in Edward Klein’s new biography of Obama.

Bill Clinton insisted he had “no relationship” with Obama and had been consulted more frequently by his presidential successor, George W. Bush. Obama, Bill Clinton said, “doesn’t know how to be president” and is “incompetent.”

So I imagine that you will say that the book by Klein will just be a right wing hit piece, but do you really think that someone would right such comments coming from a very well connected former President and make a complete lie about them. I don't think so.

The fact that the Dems chose not to put any viable candidates against Obama is telling on their part. They will have to put up gimmicks and trickery like this in order to garner support. Also yabits, take a look at the 2010 mid-terms and all of those Dems who lost their elections who had support from Obama at their rallies, and the Dems who won by distancing themselves from Obama.

RNC chairman: "if we've learned anything from Hollywood, it's that the sequel is always worse"

Would that apply to Bush's sequel too?

Alphaape, Edward Klein is a hack.

@ Laguana: Though I am not a 100% Bush fan, it seems that many so called "hacks" wrote books about him that somehow were praised for being socialy relevant and hard facts. Now that someone writes about Obama in not too glowing terms, it is a hatchett job.

and shine a spotlight on his own personal honesty

I don't think so. He couldn't come out for it in 2008, since he needed to win and he knew that for an untried candidate, that may have been too much for the public to handle.

The fact that the Dems chose not to put any viable candidates against Obama is telling on their part.

Yeah, what it tells is that they understand history, while their hapless, pathetic opponents are oblivious to it.

as well as many references to Klein's book on sites such as Newsmax.

A few weeks ago, I was at a party and happened to sit near a man who was touting Newsmax and WorldNetDaily as the sites for the best information about Obama and everything else. This guy was a birther who said that Obama should be arrested and tried for treason.

(As a side note, that's where Mitt Romney recently showed himself to be utterly without character or backbone: when someone at one of his public outings repeated that same assertion about arresting the current president for treason and Romney completely gave it a pass. I lived in Michigan when his father was governor -- and George Romney was a man of integrity who never would have let an idiot like that get away with calling our president a traitor.)

Anyway, the Newsmax guy kept making claims like Obama's birth certificate being false because his father's place of birth was listed as Kenya and Kenya didn't become a country until 1963. I asked the ignorant fool what they called Kenya before that time and he tried to assert that it was something else, but he couldn't say what. I told him that I collected stamps since childhood and could show him several from the 1930s that are postmarked "Nairobi, (or Mombasa) Kenya." He pretended that, while not knowing anything himself, such a thing could not possibly be true. His sources at Newsmax couldn't be so stupidly and cravenly wrong.

Because so many ignorant white West Virginians are actually Republicans who showed up at the wrong place or punched the wrong hole. Remember, as so many conservatives are fond of reminding us, that West Virginia is the state that kept electing and re-electing a former Klansman as their Senator.

@ yabits: That former Klansman that kept getting reelected was from the Democratic party. For the record though, Obama lost in 2008 in WV to Hillary. She had 67% to his 26%. So your notion that they are just abunch of hicks oblivious to all that is going on around them is false. They will support a Dem, but one who looks out for them.

Funny thing, now on the Obama web page they have started to mention the push if reelected for clean coal. It was absent before, but since WV is a big coal state, they decided they had better ease back away from the far left.

And today the family of the supposed victim is saying that the story is false.

How would they know? A lot of bullying happens in schools that is kept hidden from family members.

Let's be clear that the source of the story comes from several of the perpetrators who, unlike the victim's family, were actually there and witnessed it directly by taking part in it. The alleged victim, who died 8 years ago, can't speak for himself. But in a scenario like this, his family members are not going to be able to speak credibly for him if he -- as was most likely -- kept the shame and trauma of the incident hidden from them.

Remember, at those prep schools, kids were not going home every day to be examined or questioned by family members. So the fact that their son and brother never mentioned it to them is hardly proof that the story is false. Romney himself admits that he did "stupid things" in high school and has tried to issue a "blanket apology" for them.

Since the guy is deceasedk we will hear from the media that the GOP/Romney of buying off the family since after all they must be GOPers since their member went to an exclusive prep school

Is that because you yourself suspect that paying off people is the Republicans' mode of operation?

As another pointed out, the WV primary is a closed primary. Only registered Dems could vote.

You can't be serious. West Virginia voting laws prohibit convicted felons from running for office. And yet a guy who is serving a 17-year sentence in a Texas prison was allowed to get on the ballot! Explain how "closed" that was!

Who put this guy on the ballot and paid the sizable fee that registration requires? It wasn't the state Democratic party.

Oh, and in West Virginia, voters can register and NOT declare a party. That means they can vote in whichever primary they want to.

I seem to remember awhile back that you blasted the GOP for wanting to enforce the law of showing a proper ID to vote so that you will not have voter fraud

First of all, voter fraud is a non-issue. There is no evidence whatsoever of voter fraud as anything more than a minuscule occurrence which has not affected the results of any election in over 200 years of US history. What the slimy Republicans backing it know is that it will make voting that much tougher for American citizens who are registered and legally qualified to vote, but who do not drive a car -- the most common form of state-issued ID -- and tend to be on the lower rungs of the economic ladder.

I could support the ID on one, very reasonable condition: That every voter registration office has the means to issue a free photo ID to everyone who registers to vote. The technology is cheap and readily available. My local pool can issue a photo ID for recreation center use in less than 2 minutes. Voting offices should be able to do the same.

Last time I checked, WV has a (D), Gov, and two Senators so it is not some "Red State" but solidily Blue.

West Virginia is solidly purple, not Blue. Your mistake is that you keep looking at party affiliation as though the Democrats were as monolithically ideological as the Republicans. West Virginia elects conservative Democrats, and usually votes for Republicans in national elections. It is very foolish to call them "solidly Blue."

WV held both Dem and GOP primaries on the same day. Maybe people can vote twice in Chicago style politicsbut they can't anywhere else.

Oh yeah? Well you've just admitted that VoterIDs are not needed -- except (doubtful) for "Chicago." You're not thinking very clearly. An independent voter can decide which primary to vote in. And, if they are anti-Obama and they already know the Republican race is locked up, they can decide to send a message by voting in the Democratic primary against the president. And that's just what was done in West Virginia this year.

The Republican/Independent turnout in the WV primary was thousands less than it was in 2008. Where did those thousands of votes go? Of course, the turnout on the Democratic/Independent side was FAR less than 2008 because President Obama is running as an incumbent. So a case can clearly be made that conservative-leaning independents (de facto Republicans as it regards Obama) wanted to send a message by voting for the guy who one of them helped get registered and on the ballot -- in violation of the state's voting laws. And since the Democratic primary turnout was so low relative to 2008, their votes against Obama would have a bigger impact from a spin-angle.

Too bad you fell for it.

So you expect us to believe that just 1000 votes

You aren't understanding or thinking clearly. The Independent/Republican turnout in the Republican primary in 2008 was far greater than just 1000 votes, compared to the turnout this year. I guess they weren't too enthused by Romney. Or they voted elsewhere.

Must be very low voter turnout in the primary election.

If the Democratic Party did not run a challenger to Obama nationally, how is it that a convict was illegally entered onto the ballot in West Virginia. Who paid the sizable registration fee? This was nothing but a ruse by anti-Obama Republicans and Independents -- thousands of whom crossed over to vote for the convict to give idiotic conservatives another non-issue to spin.

They do. If you remember in the past, states passed "Motor-Voter" laws that made it easy for people when they went to renew their DL's or get one

You are not understanding or thinking clearly. A voter who does not drive will not be issued a driver's license. The DMV does not issue "voterIDs" to non-drivers. Therefore the DL renewal process is irrelevant. There will be a new form of government-issued ID -- a VoterID -- for those who do not drive, issued by any government agency that also registers voters. For poor people who register to vote, and who do not drive, the voter registration office must have the ability to issue free VoterIDs as part of a new voter registration process.

Republicans will not be for that, as their main purpose to pass VoterID is to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of poor people who are legal voters but who don't drive and therefore don't have government-issued photo IDs. After the hard-fought battles to win the right to vote by many minorities, it must make you very proud to support a party that would effectively remove that right by placing a new obstacle in their way.

This was nothing but a ruse by anti-Obama Republicans and Independents

@ yabits: Why would an independent get involved in partisan political tricks, if this is what you think was the cause?

In Oklahoma, anti-abortion protester Randall Terry got 18 percent of the primary vote. A lawyer from Tennessee, John Wolfe, pulled nearly 18,000 votes in the Louisiana primary. In Alabama, 18 percent of Democratic voters chose "uncommitted" in the primary rather than vote for Obama. In Tuesday's North Carolina primary, 21 percent of Democratic voters marked "no preference."

Oklahoma, the state where two whites recently went on a rampage and killed a bunch of African-Americans. Louisiana, which elected David Duke to state office. Alabama, Tennessee, North Carolina -- the kinds of places abounding in President Obama's toughest demographic: uneducated white men.

Why would an independent get involved in partisan political tricks, if this is what you think was the cause?

The answer to the question is obvious, if just a little reasoning was applied. Registering as an independent doesn't make you one. What it does do is give you the option of voting in whatever primary you think will best support your candidate OR hurt his opponent. The effort to illegally register a convict and get anti-Obama independents to vote for him was an orchestrated one. The $2500 didn't come from the convict and it surely did not come from the Democratic Party.

Who supplied the money, and who submitted the application? Only a real dupe would go around touting the results without knowing the answers to those questions.

Based on sheet numbers of the US population, even with Obama receiving the majority of the minority vote in 2008, it was still this group of "uneducated white men" that gave him more votes than McCain.

Obama received the majority of the votes from women of all races, Hispanics, black and Asian Americans, the 20-30 age group (the "young"), and degree-holding professionals.

McCain received his most solid majority from white males who have a high school education or lower. Therefore, your statement is absurd.

I am not whtie, but youi blasted anyone who voted against Obama as racist

I did no such thing. But can there be any doubt that racism among whites still exists -- and that it will actively manifest itself in many ways against President Obama. (See: "southern strategy")

I did no such thing. But can there be any doubt that racism among whites still exists -- and that it will actively manifest itself in many ways against President Obama. (See: "southern strategy")

@ yabits: I think Obama will loose more than just the southern states, and will also loose some of the women and minority vote also.

That's right -- 3.7 trillion.

I thought Obama supported the OWS, and was putting the whole class warfare against the GOP. Funny how Dems can chide Romney for having inherited money, yet I am sure that Mr. Fink, will leave his decendents a nice amount of change. But it is ok, he endorsed Obama.

I thought Obama supported the OWS, and was putting the whole class warfare against the GOP.

Yes, that is because you were "thinking."

BlackRock isn't the kind of firm that put its money heavily into derivatives and credit default swaps related to the housing industry. Under Fink's guidance, it grew from a one-room operation just over 20 years ago to assets of nearly four trillion -- rivaling the U.S. Treasury. He's what you call "astute," and has never been known for making a dumb decision.

Funny how Dems can chide Romney for having inherited money, yet I am sure that Mr. Fink, will leave his decendents a nice amount of change. But it is ok, he endorsed Obama.

What's funny is how a ringing $3.7 trillion endorsement has left Obama's opponents grasping for straws. You'll be able to leave your descendants with the story of how you twice had the chance to vote for one of America's great presidents and you blew it both times.

What's funny is how a ringing $3.7 trillion endorsement has left Obama's opponents grasping for straws. You'll be able to leave your descendants with the story of how you twice had the chance to vote for one of America's great presidents and you blew it both times.

@ yabits: So you are saying that the one who gets the endorsements with the most money is the winner. I thought Obama and the Dems were for the people and not the corporate interests. Even Exxon doesn't jhave that much money, so I guess he has been doing some pretty honest deals, or as the OWS people say screwing someone else over.

Yes, that is because you were "thinking."

Typical liberal tactic of devolving into petty name calling and slinging insults. If you can't argue the points in a logical manner, don't comment. Speaking of voting twice for great American Presidents, are you saying that is how you wasted your votes in 1976 and 1980 voting on Carter?

It's named Blackstone, and the Chief Operating Officer is Hamilton E. James.

No it's not. It's BlackRock and the CEO is Laurence Fink. Easy enough to search and verify. It's ticker symbol on the NYSE is BLK.

Blackstone has nowhere near $3.7 trillion in managed assets.

One wonders if James will issue the same sort of warning to Obama when he sees him later today

LOL! Unlike Romney, Obama does not have a "private equity past."

So you are saying that the one who gets the endorsements with the most money is the winner.

No. I am saying that when anyone who heads an organization that has grown itself through astute management to control as much in assets as the US Treasury, they are not likely to be foolish with their decision-making. Especially when achieving success during a time when most other financial houses were posting serious losses.

If a person wants to equate that with "getting the most endorsements with the most money" they should follow the dumber money and vote Republican this time (and/or again).

I thought Obama and the Dems were for the people and not the corporate interests.

BlackRock manages tons of money in pensions funds and retirement accounts held by "the people." And manages it very, very well. See? Your continual issue is that you always try to bend the world to your line of thinking. And, when reality proves it is twisted, you attempt to twist it even further.

You did exactly the same thing when you tried to make an issue of BlackRock and OWS, as if OWS should disavow President Obama because Larry Fink thinks he's by far the best man for the job of leading the entire nation. Or, as if President Obama should disavow Fink's recommendation in order to remain "loyal" to OWS. Both premises are completely ludicrous and worthy of mockery. BlackRock wasn't playing with other peoples' money the way Lehman Bros., Goldman Sachs and Bear Stearns were doing. To suggest that OWS would hate honest, fundamentally sound money management is a gross misrepresentation, and just plain ignorant.

The fact that Obama is the preferred choice of a Larry Fink and by many who support OWS should give pause to anyone who accepts reality: President Obama is in a better position to unite and lead the entire country, and continue to move it forward. We know his haters won't accept that, but $3.7 trillion in assets as a measure of success and of astute decision-making carries more weight than any of President Obama's petty haters can dredge up.

a 40,000 dollar-a-plate fundraiser where you sit and listen to a complete cipher, a demagogue whose favorite target is wealthy white people. these people are bonkers.

In 2008 Obama favored traditional marriage, later on his view is evolving, and now he is for it. Where is the content of character? Well, it is all about himself and dirty Chicago style politics as usual. Obama is pulling out all tricks for ending justify the means; especially his favorite blame game. In doing so, Obama is avoiding the real issues such as deficit, biggest food stamp recipients on the record, unemployment, high gasoline prices, dictators around the world gone wild, and such a divisive America at the moment. Kicking the can down the road and quick fix will not solve the issues. Let's show the respect thus finding the common ground on all issues without damaging the future; especially same sex marriage issue. I do not count on Obama to practice this wisdom, however I believe America will do better than that.

Kurumazaka, there just aren't that many evangelicals. And there are many black evangelicals who will still vote for Obama.

The dyed in the wool conservative evangelicals always knew that Obama was eventually going to go for gay marriage.

But you're missing the whole point. By making this statement, he can spend all the time up until the next election bashing the Republicans for being anti-women, anti-gay bigots. Watch for a huge media campaign in support of gay marriage from now on. Hollywood, the music world, backed by the media.

Do you really think that Obama would come out with this if he didn't think it was to his advantage? You think he's dumb? No. He knows what he's doing, and he knows the time is right. It's a great way to get the youth all excited again. Last time it was daring the country to elect the first black man. This time it's to elect the first pro-gay President. And, I suspect people will fall for it.

I predict Obama will win and it won't be based on a great economy. Who knows..we might even have to put up with another "Yes we can". Or maybe this time it'll be "We are the champions".

Obama knows what he'd doing.

the gay spouses of federal employees still get nothing because none of the other states recognizes the marriage

NOt true. I just got the HRO letter the other day that states that you can name anyone as your beneficary or partner regardless of sex.

The Republican/Independent turnout in the WV primary was thousands less than it was in 2008

@ yabits: So you expect us to believe that just 1000 votes gave an inmate 40% of the vote to Obama's 60%. Must be very low voter turnout in the primary election. I guess they are really not too enthused about the Dem choice this year.

I could support the ID on one, very reasonable condition: That every voter registration office has the means to issue a free photo ID to everyone who registers to vote.

They do. If you remember in the past, states passed "Motor-Voter" laws that made it easy for people when they went to renew their DL's or get one, that they could also register to vote. I seem to recall back then that many of the Dems were against that since illegals couldn't get DL's.

Obama made his decision to back gay marriage as a political one. I don't agree, and will not vote for him. But my decision to not vote for him has nothing to do with his coming out so to speak on this issue. It has to do with the job he has done so far, and I don't think that has been very good.

Obama’s Internet video also seeks to portray Romney as out of touch with the majority of Americans

32 out of 50 states -- including one of the bluest state, California -- voted against the issue of same-sex marriage. That equals a majority of Americans. It appears it's Obama who's out of touch with the will of the people.

RR

Note Madverts *conservative gay-haters".

Now anyone who doesn't support gay marriage is a "gay-hater".

We'll be hearing incendiary language like this from now until the election.

That former Klansman that kept getting reelected was from the Democratic party.

Party affiliation meant nothing, as racist southern Democrats were ultimately rejected by the national party. They either had to recant their racist pasts or join another major party -- which many did. (That's why Duke chose the GOP. Areas of Louisiana are very similar to areas of West Virginia.)

More telling is that the former Klansman that kept getting reelected was doing so in a state that most often voted for David Duke's chosen party in national elections.

They will support a Dem, but one who looks out for them.

So a guy in prison is going to look out for them better than the current president? If they believe that, they should go back to voting Republican.

Funny thing, now on the Obama web page they have started to mention the push if reelected for clean coal. It was absent before, but since WV is a big coal state, they decided they had better ease back away from the far left.

That is both rich and completely false. It was the Republicans in Congress who complained that Obama's platform was neglecting clean coal technology and so it was included. It is Republicans like yourself trying to make political hay out of an issue that arose from your party's own complaints. Rich indeed.

This was nothing but a ruse by anti-Obama Republicans and Independents -- thousands of whom crossed over to vote for the convict to give idiotic conservatives another non-issue to spin.

@ yabits: Voters in other conservative states showed their displeasure with Obama in Democratic primaries last March. In Oklahoma, anti-abortion protester Randall Terry got 18 percent of the primary vote. A lawyer from Tennessee, John Wolfe, pulled nearly 18,000 votes in the Louisiana primary. In Alabama, 18 percent of Democratic voters chose "uncommitted" in the primary rather than vote for Obama. In Tuesday's North Carolina primary, 21 percent of Democratic voters marked "no preference."

Also, this was not his first time. Judd received 734 votes for president in 2008 in Idaho. So I don't think he was the pawn of some grand GOP scheme. While only Maine and Vermont allow inmates to vote, every state allows them to run for president. West Virginia law bans felons from running for statewide office.

The bottom line is, Obama is fund raising at $40K a plate, and not all of the Dem party is in favor of him. The WV authorities dropped the ball on this one, leting someone file the paperwork without fact checking. But hey, he brought in $2500 to the state so that was a good thing, and they figured he wouldn't get any votes so that would have taught him a lesson. I guess they were wrong on that one.

Note Obama qualified his support hugely by suggesting it was up to the states to determine; he is hardly suggesting that this issue will become centerpiece legislation in his second term.

The Leadership by the President and his conviction on this issue is just awesome, good to see it evolve from what he thought before to get votes.

32 - 0.

If Romney is backward on equality, Obama is backward on reality.

RR

Obama is done now. Americans want family values more than anything.