Michael Moore Endorses Obama Calls Hillary "Disgusting"

The famous leftwing activist and documentarian is the latest celebrity who finds Clinton's lies and deceit tiresome:

So, if you live in Pennsylvania, can you do me a favor? Will you please cast my vote -- and yours -- on Tuesday for Senator Barack Obama?

I haven't spoken publicly 'til now as to who I would vote for, primarily for two reasons: 1) Who cares?; and 2) I (and most people I know) don't give a rat's ass whose name is on the ballot in November, as long as there's a picture of JFK and FDR riding a donkey at the top of the ballot, and the word "Democratic" next to the candidate's name.

Seriously, I know so many people who don't care if the name under the Big "D" is Dancer, Prancer, Clinton or Blitzen. It can be Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Barry Obama or the Dalai Lama.

Well, that sounded good last year, but over the past two months, the actions and words of Hillary Clinton have gone from being merely disappointing to downright disgusting. I guess the debate last week was the final straw. I've watched Senator Clinton and her husband play this game of appealing to the worst side of white people, but last Wednesday, when she hurled the name "Farrakhan" out of nowhere, well that's when the silly season came to an early end for me. She said the "F" word to scare white people, pure and simple. Of course, Obama has no connection to Farrakhan. But, according to Senator Clinton, Obama's pastor does -- AND the "church bulletin" once included a Los Angeles Times op-ed from some guy with Hamas! No, not the church bulletin!

This sleazy attempt to smear Obama was brilliantly explained the following night by Stephen Colbert. He pointed out that if Obama is supported by Ted Kennedy, who is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is led by a Pope who was in the Hitler Youth, that can mean only one thing: OBAMA LOVES HITLER!

Yes, Senator Clinton, that's how you sounded. Like you were nuts. Like you were a bigot stoking the fires of stupidity. How sad that I would ever have to write those words about you. You have devoted your life to good causes and good deeds. And now to throw it all away for an office you can't win unless you smear the black man so much that the superdelegates cry "Uncle (Tom)" and give it all to you.

But that can't happen. You cast your die when you voted to start this bloody war. When you did that you were like Moses who lost it for a moment and, because of that, was prohibited from entering the Promised Land.

How sad for a country that wanted to see the first woman elected to the White House. That day will come -- but it won't be you. We'll have to wait for the current Democratic governor of Kansas to run in 2016 (you read it here first!).

There are those who say Obama isn't ready, or he's voted wrong on this or that. But that's looking at the trees and not the forest. What we are witnessing is not just a candidate but a profound, massive public movement for change. My endorsement is more for Obama The Movement than it is for Obama the candidate.

That is not to take anything away from this exceptional man. But what's going on is bigger than him at this point, and that's a good thing for the country. Because, when he wins in November, that Obama Movement is going to have to stay alert and active. Corporate America is not going to give up their hold on our government just because we say so. President Obama is going to need a nation of millions to stand behind him.

- Read the entire statement by Moore

Donna Brazile Slams the Clinton Campaign

Donna Brazil was Al Gore's campaign manager in 2000. She is also a prominent activist in the Democratic Party. Someone like Brazile is dedicated to her party and is sick and tired of the Clinton antics:

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton unveiled new negative television ads and attacked each other personally from the stump this weekend ahead of Tuesday's Pennsylvania primary, stoking more worries among Democrats that the party's eventual nominee will head into the general election badly damaged.

The rising vitriol is prompting more Democrats to demand that party leaders do something to end the battle. But no single leader or clique exists within the fractious party to end the fight, and those with influence insist voters must have their say.

Nevertheless, some party leaders are quietly planning to try to end the clash, said people familiar with the matter. After the primaries end in June, these influential Democrats -- led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- plan to push the last uncommitted party leaders to endorse a candidate, in hopes of preventing a fight at the August presidential convention, party insiders say.

These "superdelegates" -- governors, members of Congress and others who can vote for any candidate at the convention -- would likely tip the balance to Sen. Obama, who holds a sizable and likely insurmountable delegate lead. Sen. Clinton is hoping that a win in Pennsylvania, where she is favored, would lift her campaign and give party officials pause about Sen. Obama as the nominee.

[...]Despite widespread expectations that he won't win in Pennsylvania, Sen. Obama has continued to draw a steady stream of endorsements. Friday, former Sens. Sam Nunn and David Boren, both national-security experts, signed on as advisers. They aren't superdelegates, but both men remain influential with fellow southern conservatives who are. Mr. Boren's son, Oklahoma Rep. Dan Boren, is an uncommitted superdelegate.
[Hillary Clinton]

Sen. Clinton's enlistment of two Ohio superdelegates late last week was an exception to a two-month trend of the local and state party leaders falling in behind Sen. Obama. Other party leaders will likely come off the fence before May primaries in Indiana, North Carolina, West Virginia, Kentucky and Oregon.

[...]The party leaders' aim: To thwart the Clinton campaign's vow to fight all summer long to a final, nationally televised round at the Denver convention, so the party can get on with the battle against the likely Republican candidate, Arizona Sen. John McCain. Convention fights in past decades -- notably in 1968, 1972 and 1980 -- left deep divisions that contributed to the nominees' losses and hurt lesser candidates on the ballots.

[...]With Democrats protective of the House and Senate majorities just won in 2006, "Do you think for one minute that Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid will allow this fight to go on and on and on?" says Donna Brazile, an uncommitted superdelegate as an official of the Democratic National Committee, and manager of the 2000 Gore campaign. "There's a group around [Sen. Clinton] that really wants to take the fight to the convention. They don't care about the party. It scares me, and that's what scares a lot of superdelegates."

Clinton supporters vehemently defend their right to fight to the convention if necessary, and deny it would hurt the party.

Ms. Brazile says that starting the morning of June 4, "we'll all talk to each other. I know I'll reach out to some key people, including my ex-boss" -- former Vice President Al Gore, another superdelegate who remains uncommitted.

What Ever Happened to the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy?

This time around the VRWC is supporting Hillary--at least until the general election. Ms.Clinton is the ideal candidate for the Republicans. This explains why there has been more attacks on Obama. They also want to prolong the Democratic nomination scuffle. She is nothing but a pawn:

Could it be the "vast right wing conspiracy" is having second thoughts? Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton was endorsed Sunday by the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, whose owner and publisher, billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, personally funded many of the investigations that led to President Clinton's impeachment in 1998.

It was one of a handful of endorsements the New York senator has received from Pennsylvania newspapers before the state's primary Tuesday. Most of the state's major papers have endorsed Barack Obama.

In its endorsement, Tribune-Review editors said Obama is too inexperienced to be president and that his recent comments about bitter voters living in small towns showed a lack of respect for middle-class values.

"In sharp contrast, Clinton is far more experienced in government - as an engaged first lady to a governor and a president, as a second-term senator in her own right," the paper said. "She has a real voting record on key issues. Agree with her or not, you at least know where she stands instead of being forced to wonder."

Clinton met with the Tribune-Review's editorial board, including Scaife, last month. Afterward, Scaife wrote an editorial titled "Hillary, Reassessed," declaring how impressed he had been by the former first lady.

"Her meeting and her remarks during it changed my mind about her," Scaife wrote.

In the 1990s, Scaife helped support conservative groups and publications investigating Bill Clinton's financial dealings and sex life.

Scaife spent $2.3 million to fund a series of articles by The American Spectator magazine that dug into Bill Clinton's behavior as governor of Arkansas.

Why isn't the press pointing out that Obama's ability to raise funds is another argument for his nomination. Instead they are allowing the Clinton mob to spin it into a virtue for Hillary:

Barack Obama began the month of April with a 5-1 cash advantage over a debt-saddled Hillary Rodham Clinton, setting the stage for his lopsided spending in the crucial primary state of Pennsylvania.

Financial reports filed Sunday by the Democratic presidential candidates with the Federal Election Commission show Clinton had $10.3 million in debts at the start of the month and only about $9 million cash on hand for the primaries. Obama reported having $42 million for the primary.

Clinton's red ink poses yet another obstacle to her campaign as she seeks to end the primary season with a string of victories. She trails Obama in delegates, states won and popular votes. And she can't dent Obama's superior fundraising.

The March money positioned Obama to undertake an expensive April campaign in Pennsylvania, where he has spent at least twice as much as Clinton and cut into her lead. Pennsylvania votes on Tuesday.

Clinton, who had kept pace with Obama financially throughout last year, had even less cash on hand than Republican John McCain. McCain raised $15.2 million in March and had $11.6 million in the bank at the start of April. It was his best fundraising performance of the campaign, coming after he had essentially secured his party's presidential nomination.

With the Democratic contest still in full boil, McCain has been on the sidelines, saving his money and completing payments on a loan.

Nearly half of Clinton's debt in March is money owed to the firm of her demoted former chief strategist, Mark Penn. The report shows that the campaign owes $4.6 million to Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates. The campaign has already paid the firm $14 million, including $3 million in March for polling and direct mail.

Clinton took away Penn's role as chief adviser earlier this month after he met with Colombian officials to discuss his private work on behalf of a Colombian free trade agreement, a trade deal Clinton opposes.

Obama's fundraising in March led all candidates, but was still lower than the mark he set in February, when he raised more than $55 million. The Illinois senator has raised $235 million in his campaign.

Economy in Crisis: Bank of America’s Profit Drops Sharply

This means less funds to lend to consumers and invest in the economy. It only makes things worse, lengthens the recession:

Bank of America said Monday that it saw a 77 percent drop in its profits for its first quarter this year from last year, as the banking giant announced nearly $2 billion in write-downs tied to its debt underwriting and trading activities.

Monday’s announcement represented the third consecutive drop in earnings for the firm, as its outsized ambitions to rival Wall Street’s traditional financial giants instead hurt the bank again. Bank of America said it lost $1.3 billion in its trading activities, a reversal from the $1.6 billion it earned at the same time last year.

The bank earned $1.21 billion, or 23 cents a share, atop revenues of $17 billion. Analysts surveyed by Bloomberg News had expected on average 41 cents a share.

[...]Though Bank of America’s most immediate pain stemmed from the collapsed mortgage market, its earnings report showed that the credit crisis had seeped into other areas as well. It reported $2.72 billion in net charge-offs, or loans that it thinks are uncollectable, a 90 percent jump from last year. It also raised its credit loss provisions to $6.01 billion from $1.24 billion.

The firm said that its nonperforming assets rose to $7.83 billion, or .9 percent of its total loans, leases and foreclosed properties. That is up from $2.06 billion, or .29 percent, at the same time last year.

In his statement, Mr. Lewis said that the firm still believes that its broad base of operations will allow it to “withstand the jolts” to the economy.

But the sustained shock provided by weak housing markets may not augur well for Bank of America’s acquisition of Countrywide Financial, the troubled mortgage lender that the firm is paying $4 billion for.

The global economies are desperately working to try and avert further drying up of credit worldwide:

The Bank of England announced a near-100-billion-dollar plan Monday to free up Britain's home loan market in one of the biggest moves by a major central bank to combat the global credit crunch.

The BoE said it would allow high street banks to swap mortgage-backed securities for government bonds in a bid to boost their liquidity at a time when banks are reluctant to lend to each other.

Britain's main home loan providers are rapidly tightening their lending criteria as fears persist over the sector's exposure to the collapsed subprime or high-risk housing market in the United States.

"The Bank of England is today launching a scheme to allow banks to swap temporarily their high quality mortgage-backed and other securities for UK Treasury Bills," the central bank said in a statement.

It added: "Discussions with banks suggest that use of the scheme is initially likely to be around 50 billion pounds (63 billion euros, 99 billion dollars)."

[...] A growing number of commercial lenders have recently increased the interest rates they charge to their customers for home loans, contributing to a sharp slowdown in house prices.

The Bank's move to inject such a considerable sum of money into the markets could be seen as a major u-turn as it is traditionally more conservative in its support for banks than the European Central Bank and the US Federal Reserve.

[...] "The credit crunch is of course a global problem and central banks are trying to address it locally, but this particular gesture is mainly aimed at giving the UK lending market, which has clearly started to seize up, a break."

Other analysts were more sceptical.

Martin Slaney, head of spread betting at GFT Global Markets, said: "This rescue plan has been touted as a jump-start to the lending markets but it is more likely to serve as a one-off bail-out which plugs a hole for now.

"We are a long way off from returning to a more liquid lending market where mortgages are freely available."