News Tips?
-- tips@phblend.com

PHB Mobile


About
-- The Blog
-- Pam | My home page
-- Autumn
-- Daimeon
-- Julien
-- "Radical" Russ
-- Terrance

Contact the Baristas

The Blend Blogrolls

Activism


Best of the Blend
Blog Posts

Special Events and Interviews

Blend-o-licious endorsements...



The Christian Civic League of Maine's Mike Hein calls Pam's House Blend:
"a leading source of radical homosexual propaganda, anti-Christian bigotry, and radical transgender advocacy."

He is "praying that Pam Spaulding will "turn away from her wicked and sinful promotion of homosexual behavior." (CCLM's web site, 10/15/07)


Ex-gay "Christian" activist James Hartline on Pam:
"I have been mocked over and over again by ungodly and unprincipled anti-christian lesbians."
(from "Six Years In Sodom: From The Journal Of James Hartline," 9/4/2006, written from the "homosexual stronghold" of Hillcrest in San Diego).

"Pam is a 'twisted lesbian sister' and an 'embittered lesbian' of the 'self-imposed gutteral experiences of the gay ghetto.'" -- 9/5/2008



Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality heartily endorses the Blend, calling Pam:

A "vicious anti-Christian lesbian activist."
(Concerned Women for America's radio show [9:15], 1/25/07)

"A nutty lesbian blogger."
(MassResistance radio show [16:25], 2/3/07)


Pam's House Blend always seems to find these sick f*cks. The area of the country she is in? The home state of her wife? I know, they are everywhere. Pam just does such a great job of bringing them out into the light.
--Impeach Bush


who monitors yours Bevis ?? Just thought I would drop you a line,so the rest of your life is not wasted.
--"Joe"

Content © 2004-2008
Pam Spaulding

House Blend logo © 2005
Melissa McEwan

Photo of Pam Spaulding
© Judy G. Rolfe
All Rights Reserved.


SITE TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Support the Blend




An Online Magazine in the Reality-Based Community.



A few headlines on Iowa

by: Pam Spaulding

Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 07:37:06 AM EST


What interesting columns, news articles, blog entries are you seeing this AM? Here's just sampling I came across.

Howie Carr in the Boston Herald: Romney ego trips and falls flat in Iowa.

Mitt not only got his teeth knocked out by Mike Huckabee, but the Huckster and his new plug, ugly Ed Rollins, mussed up his hair pretty good, too. Unless something happens this weekend - and debates have not been Mitt's strong suit this year - he could be going down in the record books as the John Connolly, the Phil Gramm, the Steve Forbes of the 2008 race.

The guy who blew millions on an ego trip off a political cliff.

* Peggy Noonan, WSJ: Out With the Old, In With the New: Obama and Huckabee rise; Mrs. Clinton falls.
Hillary Clinton, the inevitable, the avatar of the machine, lost.

It's huge. Even though people have been talking about this possibility for six weeks now, it's still huge. She had the money, she had the organization, the party's stars, she had Elvis behind her, and the Clinton name in a base that loved Bill. And she lost. There are always a lot of reasons for a loss, but the Ur reason in this case, the thing it all comes down to? There's something about her that makes you look, watch, think, look again, weigh and say: No.

She started out way ahead, met everyone, and lost.

* Thomas Burr, Salt Lake City Trib: Romney's big investment in Iowa turns bitter.
Romney's campaign pointed to initial results showing large crowds at caucuses in strong evangelical areas as part of their loss to Huckabee, an ordained Baptist minister. But they camp stayed away from blaming the loss on Romney's Mormon faith, which polls have shown may be a concern with evangelical voters, some of whom who view the LDS Church as heretical.

...Some 45 percent of Huckabee's vote came from those who described themselves as "born again," according to news media entrance polls, and Huckabee won 55 percent of those people who said religion mattered a "great deal." Romney only got 19 percent of the born-again votes and only 12 percent of those who said they cared a great deal about religion.

* Michael Goodwin, NY Daily News: After Iowa, Barack Obama is on a roll and Hillary Clinton is on the ropes.
Obama's smashing victory Thursday night in the Iowa caucuses was more than just history - it was an exclamation point on an improbable quest. The decisive margin anoints him as the clear Democratic front-runner and suddenly, the nomination is within his grasp. If he can capitalize on the moment and sweep New Hampshire next week, he will be in a position to go all the way. Clinton is in trouble, and she knows it. Her flat concession speech, gracious under the circumstances, reflected the devastating facts. Her third-place finish, 9 points behind Obama and a single point behind John Edwards, is irrefutable proof that the aura of invincibility is gone. She is now in a fight she never expected and didn't want. New Hampshire, which she always counted on, suddenly looms as crucial.

What's surprising is that the results weren't surprising. The trend was clear to the naked eye. Ever since the Oct. 30 debate in Philadelphia, where Clinton dodged every tough question, including on driver's licenses for illegal immigrants, the vaunted Clinton machine - Bill and Hil and those veteran war-roomers - was running on empty. The tricks that always worked before didn't work anymore. It was all vapors.

And did anyone catch these stats? I haven't seen this Huck reality check mentioned in the MSM.

Total Iowa Turnout (approximate)
356,000

Percentage of total vote
24.5% Obama
20.5% Edwards
19.8% Clinton
11.4% Huckabee (R)

Pam Spaulding :: A few headlines on Iowa
Tags: , , (All Tags)
Bookmark and Share
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Noonan has the political insight of...
...a small lizard that sleeps under a rock and only comes out in the dark.

And even she understands how weak a candidate Clinton is.

I'm only a click away.


exactly
People should have been paying attention when the likes of Pat Buchanan kept hawking for months about how "intimidating" and "impressive" Clinton is as a Dem opponent. They've been playing along with the whole inevitability thing because they want to face her.

[ Parent ]
Most definitely
The thing is, I think she could still probably beat most of them though it wouldn't be nearly as comfortable a margin as Edwards would be.  They think they could win against Clinton by running against the last Clinton presidency, which I think is a mistake on their part.

Her against McCain though?  She'd get creamed.  Edwards or Obama would be a close call against him, though.

In the meantime, I have no idea where things are going from here.  Clinton's wounded, but far from out of it, and Edwards defeating Clinton is a major victory.  We'll see how all this translates into New Hampshire, and then we'll finally get to hear from people who aren't almost all white.

I'm only a click away.


[ Parent ]
Clinton loses? Is this more a spin by news people?

I don't know that I would count Clinton out just yet. If you look over at CNN where they have results charted, she is only one delegate behind Obama in Iowa and believe it or not, way ahead of Obama and Edwards in delegates overall. That's because she has already been quietly awarded quite a few of what is called "super delegates". This is CNN's definition of superdelegates: "Superdelegates in the Democratic Party are typically members of the Democratic National Committee, elected officials like senators or governors, or party leaders. They do not have to indicate a candidate preference and do not have to compete for their position. If a superdelegate dies or is unable to participate at the convention, alternates do not replace that delegate, which would reduce the total delegates number and the "magic number" needed to clinch the nomination."  They are not held to voters wishes.

Add in the superdelegates who have expressed who they will vote for in Iowa and Clinton gets 15 delegates to Obama's 16 and Edwards 14. This effectively puts her in second place by delegate count. If you add in the superdelegates across the 50 states that have already said who they will vote for, Clinton has 169 to Obama's 66 and Edwards 47. She is leading in delegates by 52%.

So my question is, how much of the the news reports today about big losses is just that...hype?



[ Parent ]
Fiona,
It's all about momentum. However, I would LOVE to be at an brokered convention!

[ Parent ]
lol
That's what struck me too.

Electricity's for light bulbs!

[ Parent ]
turnout stats
I couldn't find a news link to the exact turnout stats above, but I dug around to find these exciting stats:
Democrats reported turnout at 239,000, and nearly 115,000 Republicans took part.
Doing the math, that's a total of 354,000, and Huck's 39,814 votes (From CNN) make for 11.2% of the total. It's a bit mushy (but fun) to lump together separate parties' primary numbers, but the turnout numbers sure are encouraging.

Electricity's for light bulbs!

n8nyc, it's more interesting to note that the big Democratic loser,

HR Clinton, STILL had almost TWICE AS MANY VOTES  for her than the Republican WINNER. The Democrats are out for Republican hide this year!



[ Parent ]
Let's hope so
I sure hope so. I'm also hoping for someone who won't subject us to more DOMA- and DADT-like policies. Which one candidate that is, I can't tell. But, I'll take DK and his UFO's anyday over someone who hasn't evolved into seeing me as a person worthy of the same rights they have.

Electricity's for light bulbs!

[ Parent ]
I Want a Little of Bella In My Hillary

She needs to dump the Big Dog.



Statistics
I think the statistics are a bit misleading because of the difference between the Democratic and Republican caucuses.  The Iowa Democratic party has the now-famous 15% viability rule, whereby caucuses for any candidate receiving fewer than 15% of the votes must switch their allegience to a different, viable candidate.  The Obama, Edwards and Clinton numbers are inflated by this runoff process.  There are also more registered Democrats than Republicans in Iowa.

It was a significant loss for Hillary

And the comment above about dumping the Big Dog is an interesting insight into her loss in Iowa. Bill has been a hinderance more than a help with his ego-centric tics. He doesn't know how to be a step-off-center of the limelight. Aside from that, his administration was financially good and bad for this country, mostly bad for gays and lesbians, good for students, good for business, bad for low-wage earners, really bad for no-wage earners (mostly a transient class, despite the Republican's and MSM depiction.) So, Bill is baggage and Hillary could probably do better without him. Dear gawd, Bill doing anything in or for the White House? Reason enough to not vote for Hillary, in my opinion. Anyway, sorry for that rant. Iowa was a significant loss for Hillary, one I don't see her recovering from; she is the stand-in for the backlash against the DLC and, even if she could distance herself from Bill, she is a willing appendage to them and their weirding ways.

As for Huckabee, it is going to be just great to see how many votes the RR can really muster. It is paper tiger time and about time the Republicans (and Democrats) got a good dose of that news. I hope every evangelical christian shows up and votes, the miserable my-way-or-eternal-damnation pukes.

Lastly, I'm not happy with Kucinich throwing his support to Obama. Or to anyone.

 



Barack Obama
This morning, CNN had right winger Bill Bennett as one of their commentators on the results of the Iowa caucuses. He used Obama's middle name Hussein. I felt that he was attempting to conjure a mental association with Saddam Hussein in his viewers minds. I believe that this tactic will be used more and more by the right wing spin machine if Obama continues to be on a roll.

right wing spin machine,
  sure they will use the middle name, but I expect to see the same from clinton's camp too, the same as the drug BS started.

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

[ Parent ]
Re: A few headlines on Iowa
Over 3,500 Iowa Democrats paid $100 each to attend the Saturday evening fundraising banquet that kicked off with Clinton's speech. About 50 people paid $10,000 per couple to attend a private reception with Clinton beforehand. Clinton did not take questions from reporters nor did Clinton comment directly about his wife's potential bid for the job he used to have.
----------------
Angelinjones
iowa drug rehab  

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?




Join the Blend Chat Room



Report TOS Violations

Premium Sponsors



BlogAds






Search the Blend
Current site


PHB 2.0 Web
Search Blend 1.0 Archives
Ad Networks


BlogSheroes BlogAds


Miscellany

RSS Feeds

Subscribe with Bloglines

Visit NCBlogs


frontpage hit counter

Stats

Powered by: SoapBlox