Obama Cites Need 'To Work Harder' for Blue-Collar Votes

By Zachary A. Goldfarb
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) acknowledged today that he must work harder to win the support of working-class voters who backed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) in droves in last week's Pennsylvania primary.

"I am less familiar with some of these blue-collar voters than [Clinton]. ... They are less familiar with me than they are with her, and so we probably have to work a little bit harder," Obama said on "Fox News Sunday."

He added, "I've got to be more present. I've got to be knocking on more doors. I've got to be hitting more events. We've got to work harder."

Howard Wolfson, a top aide to Clinton, said now that Obama has lost working-class voters in Pennsylvania and Ohio, "I think Democrats do have questions about whether or not he is going to be able to reach out and successfully win over the kind of blue-collar voters that Democrats need to win in order to take the White House back in November."

He said on CBS's "Face the Nation" that Clinton is "somebody who can appeal to working people, people who have real concerns about this economy. She won overwhelmingly with those voters who were concerned about the economy."

According to exit polls, Clinton beat Obama nearly 3 to 1 among union households and among white Catholics, Fox host Chris Wallace told Obama.

But Obama expressed confidence that working-class voters would "vote for me" in a general election. He said his defeat among these voters "shouldn't come as a huge surprise."

Obama said that, despite his difficulty in attracting these voters in recent contests, by no means has he been incapable of impressing them.

"We have done well among every group because people are less interested in dividing the country along racial lines or regional lines," he said, adding: "It's not like I've been winning in states that only have either black voters or Chablis-drinking, you know, limousine liberals,"pointing to his wins in Idaho and Colorado.

Obama expressed confidence the "the Democratic Party will come together" after the primary concludes. Wolfson agreed, saying the Clinton campaign is "absolutely committed to coming together at the conclusion of this process, coming behind whoever the nominee is, and enthusiastically supporting that person."

Obama acknowledged that some voters were "legitimately offended by some of the comments" made by his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, about the country. "The fact he's my former pastor I think makes it a legitimate political issue," Obama said.

But Obama said he goes "to church not to worship the pastor, [but] to worship God. And that ministry, the church family that's been built there, does outstanding work, has been, I think, applauded for its outreach to the poor."

Obama was also asked about his association with William Ayers, a former member of the violent Weather Underground group. Obama has served with Ayers on the board of a charity and has been friendly with him, and Clinton and McCain both have raised questions about the connection.

"Mr. Ayers is a 60-plus-year-old individual who lives in my neighborhood, who did something that I deplore 40 years ago when I was 6 or 7 years old," Obama said. "By the time I met him, he is a professor of education at the University of Illinois. We served on a board together that had Republicans, bankers, lawyers, focused on education."

In the last Democratic debate, Obama responded to a question about Ayers by saying he is also friendly with Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), "who during his campaign once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who carried out abortions. Do I need to apologize for Mr. Coburn's statements?"

Asked if he sees a moral equivalency between Ayers's participation in a violent domestic group and what Coburn said, Obama said, "Of course not." He said he has called Coburn to make clear he was not doing that. "All I was saying was ... the fact that I know somebody, worked with them, have interactions with them, doesn't mean that I'm endorsing what they say," Obama said.

If elected president, Obama said, he would instruct Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq who was recently promoted to lead Central Command, to come up with suggestions for "how best" to create a timetable to leave Iraq. Petraeus has warned against a premature reduction in forces.

" 'I want you to tell me how best to execute this new assignment, and I am happy to listen to the tactical considerations and any ideas you have,' " Obama said he would tell Petraeus. " 'But what I will not do is to continue to let the Iraqi government off the hook and allow them to put our foreign policy on ice while they dither about making decisions about how they're going to cooperate with each other.' "

Obama praised Petraeus as having "done a good tactical job in Iraq" overseeing the reduction in violence.

Pressed to cite any issues where he has crossed party lines to support Republican proposals, Obama responded by saying he sees a lot of merit in Republican approaches to regulation and some issues of education.

"Back in the '60s and '70s a lot of the way we regulated industry was top-down command and control, we're going to tell businesses exactly how to do things," Obama said. "The Republican Party and people who thought about the markets came up with the notion that" the markets could come up with better solutions than "dictating every single rule that a company has to abide by."

He also said the country should experiment with charter schools and different ways of compensating teachers, including merit pay, though not solely based on standardized tests.

He noted that he voted for a tort reform measure opposed by trial lawyers and was "attacked pretty hard from the left" when he supported his Democratic colleagues who voted to confirm John Roberts for the Supreme Court, although he voted against Roberts himself.

Dean: Losing Democrat Must Bring the Party Together

Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean put the onus of reuniting the party on the loser in the nomination process, and in the process lashed out sharply at the Republicans for being a divisive party.

The GOP has "scapegoated different minority groups for a long time" - first African Americans, then gay Americans, and now immigrants, Dean said.

"We don't do that in this party," he said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "We happen to have an African American candidate and a woman candidate. And clearly those groups of folks who have historically been disenfranchised in our political process have their favorites because there is an emotional pull towards those candidacies. At the end of the day we have to bring that together."

He added, "The most important [person] to bring those folks together is the person who doesn't win."

Dean said he hopes the Democratic nomination is settled by the end of June, urging so-called superdelegates to continue to make up their minds and publicly align themselves over the next few weeks.

He said he thinks superdelegates will rally around the candidate who they believe is most likely to beat McCain. But he rejected the notion that superdelegates - party office holders and others-- voting their conscience is in some way undemocratic, even if they go against the delegates selected by the voting in caucuses and primaries.

The superdelegates are "elected by the same people who go to the conventions and vote in primaries," Dean said.

By Post Editor |  April 27, 2008; 2:01 PM ET
Previous: McCain Vows to Slash Pentagon, Federal Spending | Next: Obama, Clinton Debate Gas Tax Holiday

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



The issue for Obama isn't "blue collar white voters".

It's Appalachia -- which from the mid-Atlantic down has a long history of hating blacks, immigrants, Jews, Catholics, minorities, educated, and on and on. It's a region that is mired in tough times and deals with tough times by looking for scape-goats. It gets played habitually by huckster politicians and the like.

Hopefully the voters come around, but if they don't -- unlike Clinton; Obama has another electoral map open to him throughout the rest of the U.S.

Posted by: JP2 | April 27, 2008 2:49 PM

One additional similarity between Obama and Bush...working "hard"...it would be interesting to know how similar his daily schedule with Bush's

Obama and Bush similarities:

Bush won two election and ran great campaign.... He must be a great president :-)

Similarity between Bush and Obama, and their rhetoric is scary.

1. Both are Uniter
2. Both born again Christian
3. Both incompetent through out their life (Obama has better degree's)
4. Both take money through the back door
5. Both scares the hell out of media if they say anything negative about them
6. Both had to achievement record until mid forties. Some People become very "DECEPTIVE" by that age
7. Both enriched themselves through "VAPOR" action like writing a book selling a polygamist, deadbeat father as great human being or selling the idea of baseball stadium through backhanded deal with Arlington, TX city council

Obama and his nuts :-) are scary

Posted by: Seed | April 27, 2008 3:00 PM

re: Seed's entry

interesting tactic of conflating Bush and Obama. Pity your syntax is bad, and your general thesis is very disingenuous.

Posted by: hah | April 27, 2008 3:09 PM

JP2 - You may be right. Appalachia is the region of Virginia that went strongest for Hillary. I do think Barack does have a problem in covering his bases, though. We've seen it in the delay before his speech on race after the Rev. Wright fiasco blew up and the way he, like so much of the country (mea culpa) was caught off guard by Clinton's "valedictory" debate closing - right before she came at him, daggers drawn.

Obama's a good man. But he needs to start being a stickler at details, which he admits aren't his strong suit. He also needs to take Murphy's Law a bit more seriously.

Posted by: treetopflyer | April 27, 2008 3:15 PM

Hillary Clinton's statements about obliterating Iran are some of the most irresponsible ever made by a political candidate in a US election and despite the low media coverage they received here, they were a big deal in the rest of the world.

People forget that the Republicans have a trump card against Clinton that they have not unleashed that will completely change the dynamic of this election. Quite simply, the Republicans want Clinton on the Democratic ticket because they will completely kill her campaign using the controversial FALN pardons.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfCkQ-p2beo

It's no big deal that Clinton marched and organized with other extreme left-wing radicals in 1968, defended Black Panthers and Communists as a lawyer in the 1960s and lied in 2008 about not knowing about the Weathermen pardons that her husband gave. Many left-leaning people were against the war anyway and that's a minor issue, deception by the Clintons is not considered an unusual occurrence and Ayers wasn't Hillary's first hypocritical attack on Obama.

However, the FALN story is one for which Bill Clinton received a bipartisan censure more damning than his impeachment; 311-41 in the House and 95-2 in the Senate. He and Hillary were not investigated because the President's pardon powers are absolute. I'd like you to find 20 resolutions condemning a presidential action in the last 150 years that have passed in the Senate by 95-2. Go back 200 years.

As a Democrat I'd consider supporting her if she won the nomination fairly but anyone who watches the video I have attached above knows that there's no way Hillary could win the election once the Republicans launch a "patriotic" assault on this issue. Note, I'm not saying that Obama would necessarily win; I'm just saying the FALN pardons are a fatal compromise on her candidacy, they're more electorally negative than being black, having "Hussein" as a middle name, Wright's rants or visiting Ayers and receiving $200 in campaign contributions, serving with Ayers on a Chicago Mayor-appointed Board with Republicans and other decent citizens or even Bittergate, Rezko, Proudgate, National anthem-gate, Finger-gate and flag-pins.

Ayers has never been convicted of terrorism, never killed anyone. His co-radicals are the only people that died in the botched Weathermen bombings. Obama, having denounced Farrakhan for years, hasn't attacked Ed Rendell's (a Jewish man) endorsement of Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam seen here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P48VQ5xOfOQ

Pardoning convicted and unrepentant FALN terrorists who planted 130 bombs that killed innocent Americans so that your wife gets elected as US Senator for New York is unforgivable. Congress knew it was abuse of office by the Clintons and the Republicans wont let Hillary Clinton (the beneficiary) get away with it.

The Clintons weren't investigated for it because the White House prevented the Justice Department from enforcing a Congressional subpoena but the political world will convict politicians who lie. It's telling that the Republicans have something this damning and direct on Hillary but they haven't run it.

Once they do, her polls will fall like a stone and never recover because it touches honesty, patriotism, naked ambition for power, terrorism, national security, justice and abuse of office all wrapped in one scandal. Worst of all, the person who gave the pardons will be her chief advisor in the White House (remember her campaign line "two for the price of one").

This is Bosnia (x10) waiting to happen. I rest my case.

Posted by: Asja | April 27, 2008 3:17 PM

And Seed - remind me once again. Which candidate's campaign threatened to cut off Esquire's access to their candidate if they went ahead with a negative article they were planning to run? Which candidate planted a scripted question at a town hall meeting?

Oh, that's right. CLINTON!

As runs the campaign, so runs the administration.

Posted by: treetopflyer | April 27, 2008 3:18 PM

The President should be a good listener.

Posted by: Beaconps | April 27, 2008 3:21 PM


JP2

I'm appalled by your harsh stereotype of the people of Appalachia, which is a very large region that includes portions of several states.

My parents were born and raised in southeastern Kentucky, and they were liberal Democrats who supported equal rights for all people.

A painful lesson I've learned from the 2008 Campaign is that there are many so-called liberals who are liberal in every way except toward the group that exit polls show didn't lean toward their candidate in the latest primary.

Surely you can support Obama and affirm the rights of African Americans without trashing another group.

Posted by: ichief | April 27, 2008 3:24 PM

"I've got to be hitting more events."

And try holding them someplace other than a college campus.

Posted by: WylieD | April 27, 2008 3:26 PM

JP2 wrote:

"The issue for Obama isn't 'blue collar white voters'.

"It's Appalachia -- which from the mid-Atlantic down has a long history of hating blacks, immigrants, Jews, Catholics, minorities, educated, and on and on. It's a region that is mired in tough times and deals with tough times by looking for scape-goats. It gets played habitually by huckster politicians and the like."

You mean ignorant rednecks like Abe Lincoln, born in Kentucky, and raised in southern Indiana, and the inspiration for Obama's announcement speech from Springfield, IL.

What a maroon.

Posted by: WylieD | April 27, 2008 3:38 PM

Obama doesn't get into the clear with Wright, Ayers, Dorhn, Khalidi, Rezko and Auchi, and now here comes Jodie Evans with CODE PINK. Jodie bundled $50K for Obama. Here's another radical fringe element up close and personal to Obama. He is beginning to be the poster child for "would do anything to be President of US." Except the odd thing is, most people who hang out with Obama HATE AMERICA.

Posted by: LonghornMama | April 27, 2008 3:38 PM

It would be too bad if our next president is elected based on the results of speculation and barbs and low-blows lobbed by either side. It IS too bad that these tactics work. If they work this time, we've passed on a nice "gift" to the next generation of voters.

I read a post during the past few weeks where the poster concluded that HRC is basically a trustworthy person. Suppossedly, this analysis allowed the poster to forgive HRC's Bosnia lapse [lies that included, by association, her own daughter, Chelsea] (this is unforgiveable), HRC's promise to "obliterate" Iran as well as the low blows and utterly negative campaigning. My question? How does one determine another's basic trustworthiness--especially a politician's? What we voters, have instead, is a feeling (yes, a "hope") about which politician will do the right thing.

Once upon a time I thought that person's name was Clinton [insert Bill, not Hillary]. Unfortunately, sometimes, it takes a while [sometimes YEARS] to see that in politics, EVERYTHING is a crapshoot, including the politician on which you base your hopes.

Not a Clinton fan anymore. This is real and there is no November healing that will change my mind. I'm fed up with this stuff!!!

Posted by: Ollie | April 27, 2008 3:40 PM

The slice and dice MSM also did a number on Hillary with this comment where she responded that she would obliterate Iran. The question was "What would you do if Iran started an unprovoked nuclear attack on Israel? Clinton's answer would be the answer of any US President.

Posted by: Hillary's Comment on Iran | April 27, 2008 3:42 PM

I understand the need to make dire threats to ward off nuclear attack, but to actually carry out a similar attack in response is barbaric and unforgivable. It's been our policy ever since we had the bomb. 99.99% of the people it's designed to kill are innocent civilians. In place of Iran, consider this question:

Reporter: Mrs. Clinton, what would you do if someone murdered your daughter? [I am NOT advocating this!!! Don't get the wrong idea!]

Clinton: Murder their daughter.

If the idea is so horrific on an individual level, how does it suddenly become sound, accepted, even popularly demanded foreign policy on a national level? If slaughtering one innocent person to settle a blood debt is unconscionable, what about millions? THINK about what we're asking for - the merciless incineration of millions of people who have done NOTHING WRONG. The number of people killed in a nuclear strike anywhere by anyone doesn't alter the innocence by ONE IOTA of the people who would be killed in response. The people of Iran haven't chosen their rulers since we overthrew Mossadeq in the '50's. Should they be punished for what their rulers do? THINK!!!

Posted by: treetopflyer | April 27, 2008 3:59 PM

Senator OBama and the Rev Wright have both said that the Rev Wright's comments being repeated by their detractors are being used out of context. What context would make any of those statements appropriate(particularly the simulated sex act)from the pulpit and with children sitting in the pews?

Posted by: Just Wondering | April 27, 2008 4:03 PM

I don't believe that "any president" would give the "obliterate" response. Most presidents would give a more measured response--one in the area of it being ridiculous to speculate on such an explosive topic. But then, this shows that HRC is NOT READY for day one.

Posted by: Ollie | April 27, 2008 4:06 PM

I, somewhat, agree with Senator Obama's comment that "we need to work harder" to get the blue-collar vote; however, it's even harder if you're working against two candidates (one working one part of the country and ther other working the other part of the country, simultaneously). Bill and Hillary Clinton will definitely be a co-presidency if she wins, and I don't know about other bloggers, but, I've had enough of Bill Clinton being in the White House. Read my lips: HE WILL BE RUNNING THE WHITE HOUSE NOT HILLARY; JUST AS HE HAS TAKEN OVER THE CAMPAIGN.

Posted by: Rory | April 27, 2008 4:07 PM

Obama has more work to do than to "work harder", he has some fundamental issues with his candidacy. Karl Rove wrote a good article on Newsweek today that gives him advice for shaping up his performance.

Below are Karl Rove's 6 Suggestions for Beating "Elitist" Label
(the highlights, see the 04/27 Newsweek article for details: http://www.newsweek.com/id/134322/page/1)

Dear Senator Obama...
President Bush's former senior adviser's advice for fighting the 'elitist' label.

1. Your stump speech is sounding old and out of touch.

2. When you get into trouble, pick one, simple explanation. And stay with it.

3. Your lack of achievements undercuts your core themes. It's powerful when you say America is not "Red States or Blue States but the United States." The problem is, you don't have a long Senate record of working across party lines.

4. You speak of the "fierce urgency of now" that calls leaders to confront important challenges. Sounds good, but people are asking, what urgent issues have drawn your enormous talents?

5. Stop the attacks. They undermine your claim to a post-partisan new politics.

6. To answer growing questions about your inexperience, people need to know, in concrete and credible ways, what they can expect from you as president. That's missing now. And don't think those position papers written by academics and posted on the Web do the job.

Posted by: Annette Keller | April 27, 2008 4:09 PM

I don't know about others, but Karl Rove's advice I would not heed. Very bad example.

Posted by: Ollie | April 27, 2008 4:12 PM

I don't believe that "any president" would give the "obliterate" response. Most presidents would give a more measured response--one in the area of it being ridiculous to speculate on such an explosive topic. But then, this shows that HRC is NOT READY for day one.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
And don't forget that in the 'nineties Bill Clinton warned North Korea that if it launched a nuclear attack on Japan, NK would be turned into "a sea of flame". Maniacal ravings run in the family, it would seem.

Posted by: treetopflyer | April 27, 2008 4:14 PM

Appalachia aside. I think the question is "Do white working class voters out right reject Obama and his candidacy OR, if given the choice on a primary ballot, do the simply prefer Clinton?"

My feeling is that for the majority of blue collar democrats the answer is the latter. They don't reject or even dislike Obama. They just preferred the Clinton brand name and will come around if Obama gets the nomination..

Posted by: swalker | April 27, 2008 4:15 PM

Longhornmama, with all due respect, I think you are being mislead and hypocritical about the candidates. Tom Hayden, as reported on Meet the Press this morning, did an article that should serve as a measured response to your vicious comments, and I quote:

"Hillary is blind to her own roots in the sixties. ... She was in Chicago for three nights during the 1968 street confrontations. ... She was involved in the New Haven defense of Bobby Seale during his murder trial in 1970, as the lead scheduler of student monitors.
"Most significantly in terms of her recent attacks on Barack, after Yale law school, Hillary went to work for the left-wing Bay Area law firm of Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein, which specialized in Black Panthers and West Coast labor leaders prosecuted for being communists. Two of the firm's partners, according to Treuhaft, were communists and two others `tolerated communists.'
"All these were honorable words and associations in my mind, but doesn't she see how the Hillary of today would accuse the Hillary of the sixties of associating with black revolutionaries who fought gun battles with police officers, and defending pro-communist lawyers who backed communists? Doesn't the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, whom Hillary attacks today, represent the very essence of the black radicals Hillary was associating with in those days?"

So, Longhornmama, do you want to continue your ranting about past associations and pastors, or we going to have a debate about the war, health care and economy?

Posted by: Rory | April 27, 2008 4:16 PM

Good point on Appalachia!

I also think that this what the blue collar vote has been saying in the last few primaries is being over blown.

Yes, Hillary has won their vote lately by decisive numbers but, does that really mean that the blue collar vote is outright rejecting Obama? Couldn't it be that these folks, when given a choice at the ballot between two Democrats, simply preffered Hillary?

I'm confident they will come around if Obama is Deomcratic the nominee.

Posted by: swalker3 | April 27, 2008 4:28 PM

Annette Keller,

And what was your point on the Rove article? I think that can apply to all the candidates equally. Haven't you been paying attention?

Posted by: Mike | April 27, 2008 4:30 PM

Interesting point about Lincoln -- Hardin County where Lincoln spent his very early years is west of the mountains. He also spent time growing up in Indiana and Illinois. Those early experiences probably helped to broaden his view of the world.

At the core the people that I've met in stretches of Appalachia in Virginia, West VA, and PA are mostly good and proud folk -- part of the stretches are absolutely beautiful country too.

If you talk politics or race though it's like a flash-back to the period before segregation. There is some pretty nasty hardened prejudice -- especially with some of the old timers. More so than in many other parts of the country.

The challenges that Obama faces in terms of racial attitudes in Appalachia and parts of the Old South are just going to be much greater than those that he faces west of the Mississippi. That's just a statement of fact -- and a reality that he will just have to deal with.

As LonghornMama shows there are haters in other parts of the U.S. as well. Texas has some pretty vicious haters too -- like I said though -- that's the Old South mentality and it's been a way of life for generations.

It's a drag on the rest of the country -- and holds this country from being the true envy of the world.

It's just part of the reality that any politician with dark pigmentation has to come to terms with. The resistance to his nomination in stretch of this country has nothing to do with policies or his associations. Those associations in particular are just a comforting way for some people to say: "Hey I'm not a racist". Well, maybe that's progress. Not much, but that's where we're at.

Posted by: JP2 | April 27, 2008 4:31 PM

The below few paragraphs are so well written, from a verbally entertaining, wordsmith perspective, that I had to post them here (the article is at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article3811396.ece)

"Until about a month ago Barack Obama had done a brilliant job of presenting himself as a transcendent figure, the mixed-race candidate with bipartisan appeal who promised to heal the historic and modern rifts in American life.

"But the mask has slipped. Under pressure in a Democratic primary, Mr Obama has sounded just like any other tax-raising, government-loving Democratic politician. Worse, he has revealed himself to be a member of that special subset of the party's liberal elite - a well-educated man with a serious superiority complex.

"His worst moment of the campaign was when he was caught telling liberal sophisticates about his anthropological observations on the campaign trail. In the misery of their daily lives, he said, the hicks out there in the sticks cling to religion and guns and the other irrational necessities of the unenlightened life. His wife had earlier told voters that they should be grateful that someone of his protean talents had deigned to come among them and be their president.

"The events of the last month have also revealed another side of Mr Obama that threatens to undermine his whole message. He is a cynic. He tells the mavens of San Francisco one thing and the great unwashed of Pennsylvania another. In defending his long relationship with the Rev Jeremiah Wright, he shopped his own grandmother, comparing the reverend's views (God Damn America! The US deliberately spread Aids among the black population) to his grandmother's occasionally expressed fears about the potential of being the victim of crime at the hands of an African-American.

"Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, has been busy shedding the final vestiges of shame and honesty in her desperate attempt to save her candidacy. She has abandoned any pretence of a message, and simply seized on every opening presented to her by her opponent.

"Mr Obama's missteps with the working class of Pennsylvania have thus transformed Mrs Clinton from the bluestocking Wellesley graduate into the good old girl, hanging out there with the straw-chewing rednecks, embracing their values, their worldview and even their lifestyle. ..."

Wow, now that's effective writing.

Posted by: Annette Keller | April 27, 2008 4:36 PM

Where can I get one of those Polygamist dresses? I feel like putting one on next time I go to the Mall (Wash DC) with my "Obama is My Generation's John F. Kennedy" sandwich sign. I can imitate the flat, little girl voice pretty well...

Posted by: Annette Keller | April 27, 2008 4:45 PM

It's not just Appalachia. In upscale Princeton, where I grew up, I saw some pretty ignorant racism among "educated" people. There's even a small street near the center of town called Race Street, if you can believe that. Don't believe me, believe Mapquest.

Posted by: treetopflyer | April 27, 2008 4:45 PM

Annette, thanks ever so much for showing how "positive" Hillary supporters are. Unlike that "negative" Obama...

Who says you'd need to imitate?

Posted by: treetopflyer | April 27, 2008 4:50 PM

OK Asja, get that on CNN and we'll get the ball rolling. He's not the one who can call names here. We know she's scarred but the latest revved up Clinton audience is either forgetful or uninformed.

Posted by: smande | April 27, 2008 4:52 PM

Annette; Obama's mask hasn't slipped, he's the same candidate he was at the begining, just more wiser to the ways of the Clintons and the press.

Hillary has had so many masks I can't keep track.

Posted by: RealityCheck | April 27, 2008 5:01 PM

Obama, free us from the tyranny of the "Clinton Machine" -- all those Hispanic, Asian, Jewish, gay, middle-aged-woman, senior citizen, bible-clutch and blue collar corrupt tools who vote for Clinton and sit around in smoke-filled back rooms forcing their manipulative games onto America.

You can can free the left-wing, affluent white elites and the college students from the oppression of "old Democrats"!

What are we supposed to do with all those brown, yellow and grey people? There's only room in the rainbow coalition of "new politics" for two colors: black and an elite, cool white. (That would be a slightly bluish white, not one with taupe or bisque notes in it.)

What America needs in 2008 is a change in STYLE and TONE, away from all these dumpy "old Democrats" with their "old politics"!

America needs unspecified change brought about by someone who talks like they know and acts like they're cool.

Posted by: Annette Keller | April 27, 2008 5:02 PM

***Attention African-American Voters***
The Democrats will not elect Obama. They will take away the nomination from him.
Come back to Lincoln's party; the party of Colin Powell and Condi Rice. You deserve better respect than what the Democratic party is giving you.
Support John McCain.
McCain '08

Posted by: GOPBlack | April 27, 2008 5:07 PM

If the news had been as rabid about the Clinton's camp being the one to talk to Canada, Bill's connection to the Columbians concerning free trade and Hillary's involvement in NAFTA Obama wouldn't need to be working at all!

What a farce her campaign has been!

Posted by: Terry | April 27, 2008 5:10 PM

GOPBlack, The GOP knocks anything that ever benefited the African American community for decades, and now you want us to change parties?

Sorry to tell you this but you are about to lose big. And I will be there to help usher you out of all three branches.

You'd better buy enough diapers and tissues because you are going to need them come November.

Posted by: SmarterThanThat | April 27, 2008 5:17 PM

Absent any rational basis to support the candidacy of Senator Obama to the Office of President of the United States, we again are confronted with the fallacy of moral equivalence.
Senator Obama isn't unfit just because he equates the impossibility of disowning the pastor of his church, Reverend Wright, for his comments denigrating whites and Jews, with the impossibility of disowning his white grandmother for her comments expressing trepidation at finding herself in the street with an unknown black man (mimicking Jesse Jackson's comments that he's relieved when the person following him in the street is white). He's not unfit because he failed to object last year when his church, TUCC, honored Minister Farrakhan as their "Person of the Year" - according to his tax records, he donated $30,000 to the church last year alone - because, after all, 10 years ago, Governor Rendell, then Mayor of Philadelphia, appeared on the same stage with Minister Farrakhan.
NY Times reporter Michael Janofsky wrote the Mayor had convened the summit as part of a compromise negotiated to stave off scheduled protests by the Nation of Islam to race-based crime in the city "... to preserve the city's peace..." Colbert King writing in the Washington Post declared, "His decision to head off the march probably spared the city a lot of heartache."
Mr. Rendell said a few kind words about Minister Muhammad, head of the Nation of Islam. He lauded the Nation's focus on family and respect of women. He never praised Minister Farrakhan.
In my opinion, support of Senator Obama is trivialized when the willingness of a Chief Executive of a city to acquiesce to the extortion of someone whose threatened conduct he determines will otherwise jeopardize the safety and order of thousands of his constituents; at the cost of appearing on the same stage with this avowed racist and anti-Semite; is equated with the failure of a candidate for the Office of President of the United States fails to reject his church and its minister, his spiritual mentor, who have a long-standing close relationship with this same racist and anti-Semite. Apples and oranges.

Posted by: jbjd | April 27, 2008 5:18 PM

Umm... the title of this piece is Obama cites need to work harder - is it just me or is this title playing to racist sterotypes - Obama did not say he needs to work harder - he said he needs to work harder at getting blue collar voters - there is a big difference - the title on the front page is misleading and plays to racist sterotypes - booo washington post

Posted by: rm-rf | April 27, 2008 5:23 PM

its clinton's fault that he lost. although she is hated, she can control how all white people vote in the country --- odd, but true.

Posted by: tony | April 27, 2008 5:38 PM

Substance is a casualty of this election. The real issues are ignored in favor of headline makers. I would like to know what the candidates positions are on executive power and to what degree can the president ignore congress on issues such as torture, arrests and deportations of immigrants, denying benefits to legal non-citizns who lose their spouse in a war situation, ignoring legal treaties with other countries and so forth... Are those issues not far more important than wehether a candidate is wearing an American flag on his lapel? The only thing at stake is to what degreedoes American democracy continue to deteriorate

Posted by: Harold | April 27, 2008 5:41 PM

Why doesn't anyone talk about Hillary's electability issues with African Americans? Even if she gets the nomination, blacks won't vote for her because she and Bill used racial politics to win... She, nor any democratic nominee, can win it without the black vote. She only got 5% of the black vote in Pennsylvania. I think that should be discussed as often as Obama's supposed problems attractive the white working class vote.

Posted by: Travis | April 27, 2008 5:41 PM

Clinton Ahead in Popular Vote

The pro-Obama press won't print that Clinton has more votes now than Obama, as if, with FL and MI delegates not seated, the votes in those states weren't cast.

A "rules based" count of number of popular votes cast has no basis in reality, and belies the premises of the populist arguments of the Obama camp that superdelegates must vote according to the "will" "of the people" despite their discretion according to the rules.

Besides, without MI & FL, Clinton has won more votes than Obama, according to statisticians whose job it is to measure popularity (See, e.g. the Rasmussen 04/26 feature "Popular Vote Gives Clinton an Edge" at http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_michael_barone/popular_vote_gives_clinton_an_edge).

More evidence that an argument that Obama leads in the popular vote can't be won is that the "Instructions to Superdelegates" has changed.

The "Instructions to Superdelegates" are the special, previously unknown and unwritten rules that Obama had discovered, that he says the superdelegates must follow in his case. The Obama campaign now says that superdelegates must vote for the candidate that has the more "pledged delegates", dropping the "popular vote" rule that Obama had previously decided the superdelegates must follow.

Posted by: Annette Keller | April 27, 2008 5:41 PM

Obama needs to work smarter, not harder. But it's not as though you can make it up as you go along--and that may be his problem. He has a very clear constiuency that reflects his life experience--black people and elites. No mystery. He understands the black experience; he understands the elite from his college days and since. Apparently he has no experience with the white working or middle classes.

Posted by: mclovin | April 27, 2008 5:46 PM

I think in order to connect more with blue collar voters, Obama should emphasize his community organizing credentials. Most people don't really know what community organizing means. If he explained that it is bringing diverse groups together in a community to improve the conditions in neighborhoods and obtain needed services for economically disadvantaged people it would show people that he does care about blue collar workers. The fact that he chose to do that with his legal expertise rather than further corporate interests, I think should be of great interest to blue collar workers, but I'm not sure that point is being made.

Posted by: ilima1 | April 27, 2008 5:47 PM

GOPBlack, the party of Lincoln stopped being the party of Lincoln the moment that LBJ got involved in that whole "civil rights" business. Since then the GOP has built it's foundation on the southern strategy exploiting racial divisions in this country.

The main voices talking about the "secret Muslim" and how a candidate's "real" agenda is to "enslave the white race" -- are coming from your adopted brethren. Enjoy the company -- for a handful there will even be very nice pay out for sitting at the front of the shop window.

The Grand Old Perverts exist to make the rich, richer, and to screw everyone else in exchange. If you're in the top .01 percent of the income scale -- good for you.

The interesting thing about Obama's support is that east of the Mississippi, the Virginia numbers in particular are kind of telling -- Clinton won in a landslide in the southwest, but turnout for her was 10 percent lower than the state average.

Since then Operation Rush Limpdick has kicked and that has thrown some of the exit polling numbers for a loop.

At this stage we're comparing apples-to-oranges when we generalize about exit polling. In a state like Mississippi where HRC received an overwhelming share of white male voters who had a low opinion of her and a high opinion of John McCain -- it doesn't take a genius to figure that some factor is at work. Same story in Texas, Ohio, and PA. The impact is on the margins at 2 to 5 percent -- but most of the media "experts" don't factor this into their analysis. The effect is real and it is at play.

That support will not be there for Clinton in the general election -- and it is not, nor ever has been part of the Democratic base (at least not since 1964).

Posted by: JP2 | April 27, 2008 5:48 PM

"Instructions to Superdelegates" ver. 2008.2
The press won't print that Clinton has more votes now than Obama, as if, with FL and MI delegates not seated, the votes in those states weren't cast.

A "rules based" count of number of popular votes cast has no basis in reality, and belies the premises of the populist arguments of the Obama camp that superdelegates must vote according to the "will" "of the people" despite their discretion according to the rules.

But even without MI & FL, Clinton has won more votes than Obama, according to statisticians whose job it is to measure popularity (See, e.g. the Rasmussen 04/26 feature "Popular Vote Gives Clinton an Edge").

More evidence that there's no winnable argument that Obama leads in the popular vote, is that the Obama campaign has changed its "Instructions to Superdelegates".

The "Instructions to Superdelegates" are the special, previously unknown and unwritten rules that Obama had discovered, that he says the superdelegates must follow in his case. The Obama campaign now says that superdelegates must vote for the candidate that has the more "pledged delegates", dropping the "popular vote" rule that Obama had previously discovered that superdelegates must follow.

The current version of "Instructions to Superdelegates" is ver. 2008.2. Please download and install the update in all superdelegates.

(sorry for updating a previous entry... )

Posted by: Annette Keller | April 27, 2008 5:52 PM

Ollie

Oddly enough Karl Rove is the one of the few who gives the straight stuff on Obama.

As you must admit, the media is mostly "in the tank" for Obama, and I welcome any information from Karl

Remember, he got Bush elected TWICE. Guy is flawed but smart. And re: Obama, he points out information that we are simply not getting anywhere else.

THANK YOU KARL.

Posted by: Truth Seeker | April 27, 2008 6:00 PM

"Instructions to Superdelegates" ver. 2008.2

More evidence that there's no winnable argument that Obama leads in the popular vote, is that the Obama campaign has changed its "Instructions to Superdelegates".

The "Instructions to Superdelegates" are the special, previously unknown and unwritten rules that Obama had discovered, that he says the superdelegates must follow in his case. The Obama campaign now says that superdelegates must vote for the candidate that has the more "pledged delegates", dropping the "popular vote" rule that Obama had previously discovered that superdelegates must follow.

Why drop the argument over who has more popular votes? Even without MI & FL, Clinton has won more votes than Obama, according to statisticians whose job it is to measure popularity (See, e.g. the Rasmussen 04/26 feature "Popular Vote Gives Clinton an Edge").

The current version of "Instructions to Superdelegates" is ver. 2008.2. Please ensure your local superdelegate understands his/her responsibilities so everyone's on the same page.

(shortened, last time posting this, sorry for repeat)

Posted by: Annette Keller | April 27, 2008 6:04 PM

Ok, now its not just us seniors he is not familiar with --
WATCH OUT WORKIN MAN!
He said this today in this article -- "I am less familiar with some of these blue-collar voters than [Clinton]. ... They are less familiar with me than they are with her, and so we probably have to work a little bit harder," Obama said on "Fox News Sunday."

WELL, that boils it down to yuppy wannabees, his black voters, and his elite friends and supporters.

HE WANTS TO BE PRESIDENT??

JUST WHAT IS HE IN TUNE WITH?

I take offense at him wearing the USMC T-Shirt while secret service men intimidated the poor school kids playing ball.

He played like a sissy with sissified moves.

I am FED UP with Obama, and all the racial threats from Clyburn and the like.

Very timely, a few days left before the NC primary.

ROCKEFELLER, KENNEDY, AND YOU OTHER SPOILERS, are you happY now that there is horrible racial tension in our nation?? Wanna go back to the 60's? I AM ASHAMED OF YOU SO CALLED BIG GUYS.

Posted by: GrandmaDee | April 27, 2008 6:10 PM

mclovin - Can you tell me again what Hillary's experience with the working class is (Wellesley Goldwater Girl)? Oh, that's right - shafting them while sitting on Walmart's board of directors.

Anything else?

I didn't think so.

Posted by: treetopflyer | April 27, 2008 6:30 PM

"If elected president, Obama said, he would instruct Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq who was recently promoted to lead Central Command, to come up with suggestions for "how best" to create a timetable to leave Iraq....."


Obama would 'instruct' Petraeus to "come up with suggestions for how best to leave Iraq"

Maybe we should elect Petraeus if we want a commander in chief.

Posted by: JohnAdams1 | April 27, 2008 6:34 PM

I have it on good authority that radicals within the powerful rightwing Jewish Lobby including [AIPAC] American Israel Public Affairs Committee are vexed, frustrated and displeased with Barack Obama's refusal to accept special interest money. The concern is that the Senator's policy prevents them from exerting influence or extracting favor from his administration should he become the next President in these United States of America. In an effort to allay their fears, Senator Obama has offered his assurance that if elected, an Obama administration would not be a foe to Jewish interest- yet this does not seem to halt their resistance to his candidacy. Reportedly, Senator Clinton's campaign saw an opening to exploit the Jewish community's apprehension and began stoking the anti-Obama fire behind the scene.

In collaboration with the Clintons, they [the Jewish Lobby] dispatched a number of "candidacy assassinators" including former Clinton special counsel, Lanny Davis, Florida congress woman, Debbie Wasserman-Shultz, California congress man, Brad Sherman, CNN news anchor, Wolf Blitzer [vis-a-vis Lou Dobbs], Independent Senator, Joseph Lieberman, the far right crippled Washington Post Journalist, Charles Krauthammer and others to torpedo Obama's nomination bid. The above mentioned Jews were mandated to fan the flames of hateful passion against the Illinois Senator using demagoguery and nefarious spin of the Reverend Wright issue to toxify the American voters. Their mission is to convince the public that Obama would be unelectable in November due to his optics and alleged third party association to Rev. Farrakhan. This while simultaneously promoting Hillary as the only friend of Israel. It is also reliably reported that Democratic Jews are being counseled to vote for John McCain- should Senator Clinton not get the nomination.

Take a look at the YouTube video where Rachel Maddow from Air America recently discussed the topic on her show. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdYzGzvXO0U

African American Leaders dub the Jewish and Clinton's anti Obama campaign, "mean spirited" but so far have opted to remain restrainedly tentative. They however suggest hypocrisy when Governor Rendel [who happens to be a Jew] is able to praise Minister Farrakhan for his "goodness" and remains an embraced surrogate of Senator Clinton. Elected Democrats have also taken note and are increasingly frustrated with the Clinton's controversial tactics of infusing racial divide into the electoral process. Appalling is how they describe her alliance to hawkish groups including John McCain to annihilate a democratic colleague and worry that it provides damaging ammunition to their nemesis [the republicans] that could derail Obama's candidacy should he become the nominee. Some are even calling her conduct treacherous and privately accuse her of deliberately trying to sabotage the Democratic Party because of the unlikely odds of her fairly winning the nomination. Mrs. Clinton has also been criticized for taken the low road by playing the gender card to exploit disharmony amongst the sexes. But who is willing to bell the Cat? After-all, the Clinton's wield influential power within the party and super delegates worry about political reprisals should they offer public criticism.

Additionally, the Jewish Lobby has tremendous financial reach and clout. For decades they have been able to effectively manipulate the Holocaust to keep politicians beholden to their agenda. Those who resist or oppose are targeted with the anti-Semitic or Bigoted label [as evidenced by President Carter] in order to gain compliance. Some feel they run the risk of overplaying their hands in this instance though. Their chief Obama "Hit-Man", Lanny Davis is causing

Posted by: Republican | April 27, 2008 6:37 PM

I have it on good authority that radicals within the powerful rightwing Jewish Lobby including [AIPAC] American Israel Public Affairs Committee are vexed, frustrated and displeased with Barack Obama's refusal to accept special interest money. The concern is that the Senator's policy prevents them from exerting influence or extracting favor from his administration should he become the next President in these United States of America. In an effort to allay their fears, Senator Obama has offered his assurance that if elected, an Obama administration would not be a foe to Jewish interest- yet this does not seem to halt their resistance to his candidacy. Reportedly, Senator Clinton's campaign saw an opening to exploit the Jewish community's apprehension and began stoking the anti-Obama fire behind the scene.

In collaboration with the Clintons, they [the Jewish Lobby] dispatched a number of "candidacy assassinators" including former Clinton special counsel, Lanny Davis, Florida congress woman, Debbie Wasserman-Shultz, California congress man, Brad Sherman, CNN news anchor, Wolf Blitzer [vis-a-vis Lou Dobbs], Independent Senator, Joseph Lieberman, the far right crippled Washington Post Journalist, Charles Krauthammer and others to torpedo Obama's nomination bid. The above mentioned Jews were mandated to fan the flames of hateful passion against the Illinois Senator using demagoguery and nefarious spin of the Reverend Wright issue to toxify the American voters. Their mission is to convince the public that Obama would be unelectable in November due to his optics and alleged third party association to Rev. Farrakhan. This while simultaneously promoting Hillary as the only friend of Israel. It is also reliably reported that Democratic Jews are being counseled to vote for John McCain- should Senator Clinton not get the nomination.

Take a look at the YouTube video where Rachel Maddow from Air America recently discussed the topic on her show. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdYzGzvXO0U

African American Leaders dub the Jewish and Clinton's anti Obama campaign, "mean spirited" but so far have opted to remain restrainedly tentative. They however suggest hypocrisy when Governor Rendel [who happens to be a Jew] is able to praise Minister Farrakhan for his "goodness" and remains an embraced surrogate of Senator Clinton. Elected Democrats have also taken note and are increasingly frustrated with the Clinton's controversial tactics of infusing racial divide into the electoral process. Appalling is how they describe her alliance to hawkish groups including John McCain to annihilate a democratic colleague and worry that it provides damaging ammunition to their nemesis [the republicans] that could derail Obama's candidacy should he become the nominee. Some are even calling her conduct treacherous and privately accuse her of deliberately trying to sabotage the Democratic Party because of the unlikely odds of her fairly winning the nomination. Mrs. Clinton has also been criticized for taken the low road by playing the gender card to exploit disharmony amongst the sexes. But who is willing to bell the Cat? After-all, the Clinton's wield influential power within the party and super delegates worry about political reprisals should they offer public criticism.

Additionally, the Jewish Lobby has tremendous financial reach and clout. For decades they have been able to effectively manipulate the Holocaust to keep politicians beholden to their agenda. Those who resist or oppose are targeted with the anti-Semitic or Bigoted label [as evidenced by President Carter] in order to gain compliance. Some feel they run the risk of overplaying their hands in this instance though. Their chief Obama "Hit-Man", Lanny Davis is causing tremendous concern at the great lengths he goes to decapitate the Illinois Senator's chances of ever ascending to the Presidency and his conduct is described as vilely snake-like. The argument is that public opinion can boomerang if blacks are able to expose hypocrisy in what many now view to be a Jewish lynching of Senator Obama. Interesting coincidence since it was the Biblical Jews who betrayed Jesus to the Romans so he could be crucified

Posted by: Republican | April 27, 2008 6:43 PM

"Truth"seeker, thank you, thank you, thank you for your hilarious post.

Saying that Rove is capable of non-partisan, spin-free analysis is like saying that the national GOP is the party of Law and Order.

Consider this -- under the GOP regime the past 8 years:

The #3 at CIA -- Kyle Dusty Foggo convicted of public corruption.

The #2 and #3 at Interior -- also convicted in corruption scandals.

Inside the White House we have Safavian (convicted -- out pending appeal); and Ralston (likely under indictment).

Amongst the House leadership we have
the #2 Ney going down for public corruption;
DeLay's top ranking staff convicted in corruption scandals;
Hastert having a nasty cloud hanging over his head;
Renzi under indictment;
Lewis the #3 in the House got a "get out of jail free card" when the US Attorneys for the south and central district of CA were canned in 2007;
Doolittle from California under investigation by the FBI.
Randy "Duke" Cunningham convicted in the largest congressional bribery scandal in history.

That's just over the past FOUR YEARS!

Probably one of the reasons why the GOP is having such a problem with fundraising this year is because it's main fundraising apparatus -- including Abramaoff (convicted); and the MZM-ACDS group are facing possible criminal sanctions -- some big money at stake there.

Rove himself would probably be under a criminal indictment too if he hadn't destroyed state's evidence -- he's not completely out of the woods either.

In historical terms the GOP party of the Bush years has been THE MOST corrupt administration in our history. This is even in comparison to Harding and Grant -- going back 80 and 130 years.

Yet the GOP and is sh-tto-heads hold these folks up as patriots and role models who the people should trust!

These are the same people warning us about just how fake and corrupt some Dem politicians are.

Those folks would definitely know -- they vote for those kind of politicians and get played for suckers by them EVERY SINGLE election cycle!

In the case of Ron Paul supporters -- I think they are backing a candidate with some crazy ideas -- but at the very least I am willing to acknowledge that they are backing a crazy man with consistent principles and some moral sense.

That's more that can be said about the other clowns that they've put in office who in a very real way have undermined our economic and national security.

I'm not surprised that they're hiding behind the flag this election cycle. The GOP party of today has no clothes.

Posted by: JP2 | April 27, 2008 6:57 PM

It is hard to continue to be agressive when you've already won but Obama would serve himself well by fighting hard to win Indiana. If he does, he'll get a big block of superdelegates and be the presumptive nominee -- even though Hillary will continue to keep her delegates until the convention.

She has become the Dems version of Mike Huckabee -- which is why I like to call her "Hillabee"

Posted by: Mutzy | April 27, 2008 7:01 PM

I think in order to connect more with blue collar voters, Obama should emphasize his community organizing credentials. Most people don't really know what community organizing means.
--------------------------------------------

Oh sure, it's sorta like what Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton do...get a group of "victims" together to demand economic investment from private companies and gov't officials. They enrich the "leaders" of these groups while the little folks get squat.

How about that...39 or so shootings in one Chicago weekend last week?!?! Sure, he did alot of good improving the lot of the people in Chicago.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 27, 2008 7:14 PM

He showed he could steal lines from superdelgates, not just friends...

Obama outworked in W.Pa., Doyle says
By David M. Brown and Salena Zito
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Friday, April 25, 2008

Barack Obama needs to "demonstrate he can connect with blue-collar, working-class people," says U.S. Rep. Mike Doyle.

"Up to this point, I don't think he's shown that yet. That causes me some concern," said Doyle, a Forest Hills Democrat whose 14th District includes much of Pittsburgh.

Doyle is one of 29 Pennsylvania superdelegates -- and one of just six who remained uncommitted -- after Hillary Clinton won Pennsylvania's Democratic primary on Tuesday.

Doyle said he told Obama that he needs to try harder.

"I told him I wasn't real pleased" with his approach and that "he can't win campaigns in Western Pennsylvania on television," Doyle said in an interview. "You have to go out there amongst the people, and I felt Hillary was outworking him in Western Pennsylvania, and she got a result for it.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/search/s_564224.html

Posted by: Anonymous | April 27, 2008 7:19 PM

Democrats deserve a candidate:

1. Who loves America? Not ashamed of America or only proud recently
2. Who loves "all" Americans? Not one who calls half of America "Macaca"
3. Who is not member of extremist group like "black KKK" or "white KKK"
4. Who does not associate with unrepentant domestic terrorist like "Timothy McVay" or "Ayers" or "Dorin"
5. Who has strength to fight terrorist or honest enough to state he will talk with "HAMAS" , "IRAN'S CRAZY LEADER", and OTHER TERRORIST
6. Who loves his/her mother and does not leave them to die alone
7. Who loves his grand mother and does not try to put her under bus to win votes
8. Who loves his father but does not try to glorify a horrible polygamist and deadbeat
9. Who loves his children and does not let them hear hateful "black KKK" message
10. Who loves his children and does not allow them to play on "Rezko's" land next to his house
11. Who can win

Posted by: Seed of Change | April 27, 2008 7:21 PM

Saturday, April 26, 2008
Follow the Money: Guess Who's Coming to Dinner? Part 3
Before: For some time RezkoWatch has been asking about the April 1, 2004, private dinner reception at Chicago's Four Seasons hotel hosted by Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich and the April 3, 2004, party held at the house of its host, indicted political fixer Antoin "Tony" Rezko (see here and here)--both held in honor of Iraqi-British billionaire businessman Nadhmi Auchi--and whether Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) was in attendance at the events.

In his April 14, 2008, testimony in Tony Rezko's federal fraud trial, Stuart Levine said that both Sen. Obama and his wife, Michelle Obama, were at the party. Levine's testimony was confirmed the following day by another source, Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn, who had attended the party at Rezko's house.

On April 16, 2008, Chicago Times reporter Michael Sneed reported that he had a "source" who claimed that not only did Sen. Obama give a "big welcome" to Mr. Auchi, Rezko's guest of honor, but that Sen. Obama also "made a few toasts!"

After: Now, Chicago Tribune reporter John McCormick writes that in an April 25, 2008, interview Sen. Obama didn't deny the "assertion" by Levine, the "government's star witness in the Rezko trial, about the party honoring Nadhmi Auchi, a British citizen who is appealing a fraud conviction in France. Obama said he didn't recall the event."

"I mean this has been, I guess, four years ago," he said. "My understanding, through his lawyer, Mr. Auchi doesn't recall meeting me."

Asked if he thought Rezko may have been using him to impress potential investors, Obama replied: "I just don't have a recollection of the event. As I said, I was in the middle of running a U.S. Senate race. So, you know, I was speaking all the time, probably six, seven, eight times a day."

McCormick is as equally mystified as RezkoWatch:

Why, just weeks after winning the Democratic U.S. Senate primary in 2004, would Barack Obama attend a party for a controversial Iraqi-born billionaire whom Rezko was trying to lure into an investment?

Why indeed!

Posted by: max | April 27, 2008 7:26 PM

The idea that Hillary Clinton is more 'blue-collar', down to earth in touch with the common man, than a man raised by a single mother living on the South Side of Chicago is laughable at best.

There are those low income whites who look at an educated Black man and blame him/his race/affirmative action/immigation etc., as the cause of their personal problems. That they can then vote for the wife of the man who caused those jobs to flee (NAFTA) is evidence of either extraordinary confusion or plain racism.

Many others however read the newspapers, review and evaluate the candidates' credentials, believe the Presidency should be won not bestowed upon someone as a wedding present, can discern between fact and fiction and vote based on what is best for this Country regardless of the color of the candidate. Those are the people that have and will vote for Sen. Obama.

Posted by: Destiny | April 27, 2008 7:28 PM

Republican wrote - "Additionally, the Jewish Lobby has tremendous financial reach and clout."

[sarcasm]I hear they also kill Christian babies and drink their blood on Sabbath. Moreover, they're responsible for global warming, bad shows like Deal or No Deal, lost socks and tennis balls and are in contact with aliens to steal our souls for their gladiatorial games on Xaxlu 7. The world doesn't know it, but we're all going to be enslaved by .0000000001 percent of the world's population - and we're helpless, helpless before them, because they control the media and our web browsing. They're why I'm losing at online backgammon at this moment! Wake up, people!!!!!![/sarcasm]

Glad you're living up to your handle, Republican. Kind of reminds me of that icon of fair-mindedness, James Baker, who said, "[Expletive] the Jews, they don't vote for us anyway."

Aren't you late for a Hitler Youth meeting?

Posted by: treetopflyer | April 27, 2008 7:29 PM

max -- bring it on baby!

Let's talk about public corruption scandals and Rezko. Obama buys a piece of land at market price from Rezko on one side (terrible!) -- on the other we have McSame cutting a deal for his buddy Charles Keating which cost tax-payers $120 BILLION in a bailout.

GOP administrations are also responsible for $8 TRILLION worth of debt since 1980 which has done absolutely nothing for the middle and working class.

Yes, let's talk more about public corruption! The GOP and its national politicians know of what they speak when that subject comes up.

Posted by: JP2 | April 27, 2008 7:30 PM

The voter that he has not and cannot reach is the voter that wants more experience, more track record, more than a good speech and a promise.
You can't reach these people by knocking on their doors.
You can only reach these people over the course of time as they become familiar with you and see your efforts.
This isn't the year for Obama; he needs to take the next four years and work hard and then he will reach these people.
And a final thought: I am sick of the media reporting these dollars in, dollars out as if they have anything to do with the value of a person as President. If anything, I am ashamed of how much both of these campaigns have spent and someone needs to start pinning both of them to a commitment to NOT use public funds in a general election. Donate the millions raised to charity and quit trying to buy the Oval Office. It's disgusting!

Posted by: KG | April 27, 2008 8:21 PM

Yes KG we can only trust the candidate who opts for public financing and has his campaign run by federal corporate lobbyists (McSame).

I'm sure the RNC will hold its fire as well with all of the public dollars that it has stashed away.

Meanwhile there IS a candidate in this election with a donor base of 1.45 million Americans from all walks of life -- someone who in a real sense of the word is funding his campaign with broad public financial support -- without the middle-man; pumping money into local economies throughout the campaign cycle.

Let's keep that money from circulating in the American economy. If we're good Republicans we know that money belongs to the super-rich to off-shore tax havens and the Chinese -- by no means spend that money in the American economy in communities large and small!

For those voters who are just looking for a career politician -- the kind of person who has done such a superb job dumping trillions of dollars of debt on the American taxpayer over the past couple decades AND an ill-advised war -- there is always McSame.

Posted by: JP2 | April 27, 2008 8:47 PM

clinton is ahead in the popular vote. blah blah blah blah blah... enough already, obama is ahead in all categories so please get over it.

Posted by: giveitarest | April 27, 2008 8:54 PM

Obama is the only electable democrat. He is ahead in the popular vote as well as all the other metrics. To try to count the illegitimate votes in FL and MI is patently absurd. If Obama doesn't get the nomination, this will go from the highest number of voters participating in a general election to the lowest. We will have 4 more years of Bush through McCain and that means 4 more years of war, recession, if not depression, probable war with Iran.

Posted by: Sueb2 | April 27, 2008 9:20 PM

This article desperately needs to be corrected. The following quote is very inaccurate:

"I am less familiar with some of these blue-collar voters than [Clinton]. ... They are less familiar with me than they are with her, and so we probably have to work a little bit harder,"

The way Obama's quoted here makes sound like he's saying that he's not familiar with blue collar voters and they aren't familiar with him. That is emphatically not what he said. He flubbed the statement and corrected himself partway through, but the correction has been cut out and replaced with ellipses.

Please fix the quote so it's accurate and remove the misleading ellipses.

Posted by: Justin | April 28, 2008 1:06 AM

Wow... It is amazing how little some Obama supporters know about him...

First, his mother was married TWICE and earned a PhD in anthropology. They lived on food stamps because she was an "academic" who was working on her degrees and underemployed. This is not the typical story of a black man who lived in poverty.

Second, Obama came to Chicago as an adult, and was in fact recruited by Rezko to come to Chicago when Obama was still in college. Obama called Rezko mentor and friend. The plan all along for Obama was to get him into politics and wield influence.

Third, the politics of South Chicago (Obama's base) are "radical" in comparison to the politics of rural America and blue-collar workers. Included in that base are Wright, Ayers, and Obama's wife, Michelle.

Fourth, the term "elitism" has NOTHING to do with wealth, but rather to do with attitude in "knowing what is best for other people"... without acknowledging their needs and concerns. Hillary is a good listener and reacts to what she hears to propose policies and programs. Obama got stuck on his "change" message without addressing the specifics to which the blue collar demographics could relate.

Fifth, Obama and his supporters from DAY ONE have denigrated the older generation who "cling" to their ideas... which include the "old politics" of the last 20, 30, and 40 years. Yet, within these decades good things came about-- Civil Rights, War on Poverty, economic prosperity, more access to higher education, Children's Health Insurance Program, etc. etc. etc. In other words, Obama et al keeps dismissing entire generations of people who worked and sacrificed to make these things happen.

It will take more than "hard work" on Obama's part to get the blue collar votes he is seeking.

Posted by: nickyle | April 28, 2008 12:07 PM

You Obama supporters can attack Hillary and McCain all you want... but that will not get the social conservative and blue collar vote for Obama.... and he needs a significant number of this demographic to win the Presidency.

In fact, the more you disparage Hillary, the more likely her supporters within this demographic will vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee. McCain is not evil and he is not a clone of Bush. In fact, his reputation is that as a maverick who does not always conform to the GOP party line.... McCain is a moderate and is closer to the center.

McCain has the following advantages:
1. Proven bipartisanship in his career in Congress.
2. History of comprehensive immigration reform (Hispanic vote).
3. Dedicated to combating global warming... more than Obama.
4. Military service and war hero (veteran votes).
5. Campaign finance reform and has never used earmarks.
6. Ability to relate to middle America. (Can make fun of himself and tells bad jokes.)
7. KNOWN QUANTITY. People feel comfortable with him because he is no stranger to the public.

Posted by: Nickyle | April 28, 2008 12:22 PM

associated press, april 28

"38 islamic militants killed in sadr city clashes with american and iraqi troops"

any of you liberals want to comment on this FACT?

please refrain from the trite use of "women and children", as the body count, and identies have been confirmed by iraqi govt. officials.

Posted by: almanac kid | April 28, 2008 12:42 PM

As she campaigns throughout Indiana, Sen. Hillary Clinton has been talking quite a bit about Magnequench, a Valparaiso, Ind., factory that moved to China. "We've got to elect a president next January who's going to remember Magnequench," Clinton told voters in Valparaiso on April 12. It seems, however, that when it comes to Magnequench there's quite a bit that Clinton has conveniently forgotten. Watch "World News with Charles Gibson" TONIGHT at 6:30 p.m. ET for the full report. "We went to...

Posted by: Sean Whitworth | May 1, 2008 12:45 AM

Dear Senator Obama,

I want you to be my next president, but you are not going to make it unless you make some changes.

First, George W. didn't do everything wrong. He got elected, not once, but twice. Hasn't anyone on your team studied how he did it? He identified with the blue-collar voters.

He didn't take himself seriously. He made himself a prototype blue-collar worker, not by claiming roots, but by appearances and behavior.

Now I'm not saying you should get a Texas accent, buy a ranch, talk about being a C student, and claim that your opponent is a graduate of an ivy-league college, implying falsely that you are not. But you could say WE instead of THEY. And watch out for those tricks. Remember, they won two elections.

And it isn't a lapel pin. It's the symbol of the country for which you want to be president. A lot of the blue-collar voters have, for one war or another, put their lives on the line to uphold this symbol. It means a lot to them. Wear it. Get yourself a lot of ties in those colors. Wear the lapel pin. Make it yours. In every speech talk about how important it is. You can talk about how unhappy you are when people desecrate it by using it as an excuse to attack anyone who wears a turban.

Third, and I realize you may be opposed to this, but you need a nickname. Something with a good American blue-collar sound. I think "Rock-o" has a sound that relates to the stressed syllables in your name and makes it easier to remember and more difficult to confuse with "Osama."

Fourth, maybe you need someone on your team who is tuned in to these things. The WE instead of THEY part, and using the flag are so basic that you cannot get elected without them.

I really like the way you take the high road in most arguments. Of course you should not abandon that.

Please, oh please, be my next president.

Jean
Female, 73 year-old, retired English teacher.

Posted by: Jean Waldman | May 1, 2008 6:33 AM

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
http://www.votenic.com
New Poll Started, Latest Results Just Posted!
Enter to win a Votenic t-shirt!

Posted by: votenic | May 1, 2008 11:24 AM

This can be a message to the super delegates afraid of Obama because of Reverend Wright.

I learned this the hard way. As an African American you grow up hearing about the man, the man, the man. And I have met my fair share of racist European Americans. But the older African American men, Reverends to be exact, have taken advantage of African Americans for personal fortune and fame.

The church was about healing, but most focus on profits, almost like corporations. They have linked themselves with political movements and are very powerful. To get the African American vote, you have to go through the Church!

Some churches have property developments and a vast amount of businesses that do not reflect the member or their income levels. They get the property from the city, get grants to build the condos, get the materials as a donation, but they sell the condos/homes on lease to buy deals, using Sec 8 and rob the citizens blind.

I know several pastor's that have maids and butlers and lives in a Mansion. They are robbing the African American community blind. I heard that Keith Butlers church in Detroit has an ATM machine in the church so members do not forget to pay dues. Reverend Windell Anthony who runs the Detroit chapter of the NAACP has a $90,0000.00 dollar mortgage on his church and Bill Clinton visits the Church, he was linked to Reverend Wright who as two benzes and a $10,000,000.00 home. And the Clinton's help set up that Monday press conference!

That is what Obama will not tell the Press. He did not now about the Speeches, but he did not realize how tied Reverend Wright was with the Clintons. It was a setup, that was the Clinton secret weapon, to have Reverend Wright ruin Obama, if they needed his to.

Then Wright would get $250,000.00 for speeches and a book deal if you know what I mean!

So, Obama obviously did not agree with the Reverend, but in the game of city politics, he was the man.


Some people ask why with the growth in income levels have the African America families fallen behind and I blame drugs and for profit churches!
The African American churches have become the man!

Posted by: plot | May 2, 2008 1:08 AM

Just Can't Wait Until The Election?

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll

http://www.votenic.com

Come Enter To Win In The Votenic T-Shirt Sweepstakes!

Votenic, The Only Poll That Matters.

Posted by: votenic | May 2, 2008 1:48 PM

OBAMA a FLIP-FLOPPER just like John Kerry. He is now attacking the Gas Tax as a Washington gimmick because the idea didn't originate from him. What a DISHONEST POLITICIAN HE IS! THIS GUY IS A FRAUD. GO OBAMA!!!

THE SPIN:
Obama argues that Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Republican Sen. John McCain -- he calls them "the two Washington candidates" -- are pandering to voters by proposing to suspend the federal gas tax of 18.4 cents a gallon for three months. He says a tax holiday would provide consumers little real relief, ignore the country's energy problems and take money from road and bridge repairs.

"This is the problem with Washington. We are facing a situation where oil prices could hit $200 a barrel. Oil companies like Shell and BP just reported record profits for the quarter. And we're arguing over a gimmick that would save you half a tank of gas over the course of the entire summer so that everyone in Washington can pat themselves on the back and say that they did something," Obama says.

Clinton says Obama is turning his back on people who need relief from rising gas prices. Republicans, including the campaign of rival John McCain, question his switch.

THE FACTS:

In 2000, gasoline prices were climbing quickly, reaching $2 a gallon in the Chicago area -- a remarkable price back then. Illinois legislators scrambled to offer some election-year relief to angry motorists.

Obama voted three times for a tax holiday.

The version that ended up becoming law required a six-month suspension of the state's share of the sales tax on gasoline, a 5 percent tax paid directly by consumers rather than gas stations. It also required gas stations to post signs on their pumps saying that the Illinois General Assembly had lowered taxes and the price should reflect that cut.

Posted by: No Obama in '08 | May 4, 2008 11:36 AM

OBAMA a FLIP-FLOPPER just like John Kerry. He is now attacking the Gas Tax as a Washington gimmick because the idea didn't originate from him. What a DISHONEST POLITICIAN HE IS! THIS GUY IS A FRAUD. GO OBAMA!!!

THE SPIN:
Obama argues that Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Republican Sen. John McCain -- he calls them "the two Washington candidates" -- are pandering to voters by proposing to suspend the federal gas tax of 18.4 cents a gallon for three months. He says a tax holiday would provide consumers little real relief, ignore the country's energy problems and take money from road and bridge repairs.

"This is the problem with Washington. We are facing a situation where oil prices could hit $200 a barrel. Oil companies like Shell and BP just reported record profits for the quarter. And we're arguing over a gimmick that would save you half a tank of gas over the course of the entire summer so that everyone in Washington can pat themselves on the back and say that they did something," Obama says.

Clinton says Obama is turning his back on people who need relief from rising gas prices. Republicans, including the campaign of rival John McCain, question his switch.

THE FACTS: The Truth!

In 2000, gasoline prices were climbing quickly, reaching $2 a gallon in the Chicago area -- a remarkable price back then. Illinois legislators scrambled to offer some election-year relief to angry motorists.

Obama voted three times for a tax holiday.

The version that ended up becoming law required a six-month suspension of the state's share of the sales tax on gasoline, a 5 percent tax paid directly by consumers rather than gas stations. It also required gas stations to post signs on their pumps saying that the Illinois General Assembly had lowered taxes and the price should reflect that cut.

Posted by: OBAMA for Prez in 2020 | May 4, 2008 12:48 PM

The two posters' portrayal of Obama as a flip-flopper is dishonest. As you know, if you read, Obama learned that the gas tax relief provided in Illinois did not work. Based on his EXPERIENCE he knows that the tax holiday does not benefit. This tax holiday proposed by Clinton will cost the US jobs and much needed road improvement. Obviously, you forgot about the bridge collapse last year.

In other words, Experience, coupled with Intelligence matters. (Swiftboating is not an option in this nominating season.)

Posted by: Ann Clark | May 4, 2008 3:13 PM

It seems the media is controlled by Republicans. Don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out.

They know that we the people know that there are plenty of other issues to be discussed involving McCain and Clinton, but they choose to exploit Obama. Those with Peripheral Vision can see what's happening here. In my opinion all the candidates have some sort of baggage, but the focus is definitely only on Obama. They have not touched Hillary's laundry list. That makes a statement right there.

The lady with Testicular fortitude. Was that an insult or a compliment?

Well, anyway back to Obama:
The media will loosen the rein's on Obama, then they tighten the rein's on Obama. It's all about control.
You know the media will make a story out- of-nothing and they do it by, keeping it going and keeping it going until they realize nobody is listening.

I don't give a hooty-tooty about Rev. Wright! Let's talk about the gas prices! But there is not remedy for THAT and because they don't have answers we are constantly distracted with Rev. Wright. Rev. Wright has nothing to do with what happens when I pull up to the pump!!!!
You can distract some jack-rabbits, but not all are distracted. Because ALL is absolute!

Go Obama'08!

Posted by: stop the nonsense | May 4, 2008 5:03 PM

This has Republican written all over it!

A lot of Republicans are on this blog.
Read below:

Obama's grandmother's occasionally expressed fears about the potential of being the victim of crime at the hands of an African-American.

"Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, has been busy shedding the final vestiges of shame and honesty in her desperate attempt to save her candidacy. She has abandoned any pretence of a message, and simply seized on every opening presented to her by her opponent.

"Mr Obama's missteps with the working class of Pennsylvania have thus transformed Mrs Clinton from the bluestocking Wellesley graduate into the good old girl, hanging out there with the straw-chewing rednecks, embracing their values, their worldview and even their lifestyle. ..."

Wow, now that's effective writing.

Posted by: Annette Keller | April 27, 2008 4:36 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | May 4, 2008 5:43 PM

Love the 1st post (JP2) . An Obama supporter insulting and demeaning blue collar workers. That's their typical MO. Attack those that don't agree with you. How ignorant, desperate and pathetic these Obama supporters have become. Barry can try all he wants to win over the blue collar workers. He is wasting his time on an exercise of futility. The more blue collar workers hear Barry, the more they are convinced that HRC is the one to vote for. Blue collar workers will not be fooled like Obama supporters.

A VOTE FOR OBAMA IS A VOTE FOR MCCAIN.

Posted by: Jack Straw | May 4, 2008 6:07 PM

Though I would agree with Obama's assessment I wonder if it's worth the effort. That is a demographic block that has voted against their best interests, their economic interest for the past 28 yrs. Good Luck!

Posted by: str8 talk | May 4, 2008 8:03 PM

I am ashamed of the racist rants on the blog.

Do you realize that you put your pants on in the morning just like everybody else in the world does; one leg at a time.

You say horrible things about Jews, Blacks, Arabs, Mexicans, etc and if your not doing that you are insulting their religious beliefs.

You cling to race because somebody told you that's all you have and guess what, nobody cares about that but you.

You need to try to turn some of that negative energy into something positive. Who cares what you look like, because most people don't care.

Nobody can see themselves unless they look in a mirror. Did you know that you can't see yourself, you CAN"T see you face, you can see your feet. So, who the blank cares!

The maker made many races of people and you are just one of them. One out of many. e pluribus unum. Everybody here in this country is of foreign decent, except for the American Indian.

So, stop being so hateful!~~

Posted by: Anonymous | May 4, 2008 8:44 PM

That is right. What president wouldn't take action against Iran if they obliterated Israel. Maybe one named Obama who is running right now and has friends in the Senate who dislike Israel. That has been known for a long time and makes its so scary that anyone would consider putting him in as our president. Also as he calls for change. Has he defined it for anyone? If he wants to change the old guard he will have to start with Kerry and Kennedy. Hmmmmm..........Change Washington????????? Does he really think he is Christ? Sounds more like the Anti- Christ even before he gets elected as that is what the Bible says he would do; that is, to obliterate Israel. I'll take my chances on Hillary.

Posted by: dcacnc | May 4, 2008 11:04 PM

Dear Washington Post:

I am reacting not only to the article by Zachary A. Goldfarb, but also to recent pieces by Kathy Banks Hoffman, Bill Gibson, and Peter Navarro.

When Rev. Jesse Jackson ran for President twice and had a first rate Key Note Speech at the National Convention, did anyone even consider asking him to drop out before the Nominee was selectedl. I voted from a Illinois politician by the name of Sen. Paul Simon. When it comes to the famous Key Note Speech by Sen. Barak Obama of the Illinois Senate at time, it was at the insistence of Sen. John Kerry that Obama do so. It was a well received speech, even greater than that by Rev. Jesse Jackson several election cycles ago.

Is it no wonder that I feel insulted on Hillary's behalf that now Democrats show no compunction to ask Sen. Clinton to drop out and bloggers don't even consider her VP material and accuse her of staying in to recoupt the campaign debt. Well that is simply a cheap shot and not deseving of a great campaign. I thought also that Sen. George McGovern, Gov. Bill Richardson, Sen. Christopher Dods, and countless other Superdelegatges like President Jimmy Carter were made of better political fabric than that, not to belittle Carter's Nobel Peace Prize. I would seriously have considered a coup de grace by VP Al Gore, but no one should blame Bill Clinton for Al Gore's loss. Even "Tipper" Gore, did not want the former President to be involved in Al Gore's election in 2000. As least I can say that I have seen both President Clinton and Sen. Clinton up close and personal in speech engagements in Austin Texas as well as in Honolulu, Hawaii. They are both, together with Chelsea Clinton made of sterner backbone material and are true blue Die Hards and Believers. They are the "Defiant Ones" of Tony Curtis and Sydney Poitier fame. Do you know of the film? It's worth checking it out from your Libraries there.

Well,it's not all over till the Fat Lady Sings, and she ain't done yet. I figure we owe her and the American people until the end of the race at Puerto Rico.

Me Ke Aloha Pumehana,

Arvid Tadao Youngquist
P O Box 37542
Honolulu, Hawaii 96837

Posted by: Arvid Tadao Youngquist | May 9, 2008 12:18 AM

Well, as we all know, election season is once again upon us. Our choices are, as always, a great source of controversy and strife among the American people. This is understandable as not every candidate fits our ideals of the perfect President.

However, I've noticed some very disturbing trends among voters and, most glaringly, the Democrats. Frankly, it's appalling. I can't get through a blog or a chat room without seeing Democrats at each other's throats, each bashing the views and private lives of one another's pick as the Dem candidate.

You know what, people?? Knock it off. I'm not particularly wild about Hillary or Obama either, to be honest but all have a common goal here. That goal is to do everything we can to keep the GOP out of the White House.

Haven't the GOP done enough damage already? For the past 7 years, we've been subjected to two recessions, the invasion of a sovereign country with no violent designs on us, over 935 lies from this administration ABOUT IRAQ ALONE, and the blatant trampling of our civil rights such as our privacy with the warrantless surveillance and with free speech with arrests of peaceful protestors and even people whose only "crime" was merely wearing an anti-war or anti-Bush T-shirt.

John McCain has stated that he plans on continuing our occupation of Iraq. He has also stated that he not only wants us to stay in Iraq for 100 years, but is already planning on attacking Iran, as he so playfully reiterated in his rousing rendition of the Beach Boys song "Barbara Ann" titled "Bomb Bomb Iran."

Obama and Hillary's ideas are really not so different from one another. They have similar ideas on health care, Iraq, national security in general, etc. There are subtle nuances that make their plans slightly different but when it comes down to it, one is really just as good as the other.

It's bothersome that people are saying things like "Hillary is a warmonger"... or "Obama is a Muslim sympathizer." These same lines that Rightwingers were using against the two of them just a few short months ago and the Dems were scolding them for, the Dems are now using. I, personally, never chose a particular party with which to label myself. I consider myself an Independent even though I never formally even declared myself as such... and this is why. Both sides seem to go off the deep end when elections come up and I am so disappointed that Dems have allowed themselves to stoop to the level of "The Righties."

I don't like any party spreading lies and innuendo about any candidate, whether he or she is Republican or Democrat. It's juvenile and ignorant. I don't approve of McCain's policies but I'm not going to perpetuate the rumor that he committed treason while in the service. I have no proof that he did. On the same token, I won't perpetuate the rumor that Barack Obama is a Muslim terrorist sympathizer. We have more than ample evidence that he is not.

Let's think about that particular rumor for a moment. George W. Bush has been more in the pocket of Muslim terrorist sympathizers than anyone else. Despite the fact that the Saudis not only have an appalling track record on human rights but they're also funding terrorists and helping to fund the insurgency which is killing our soldiers... Bush calls them "friend." Not only that but he's also given them weapons which are in turn being used against our troops in Iraq.

The same applies to Pakistan who has openly harbored Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden for a couple of decades. Then there's Uzbekistan, a nation with a record of committing unspeakable atrocities against its citizens...again, Bush calls them "friend."

So to say anything about Obama is not only stupid but incredibly hypocritical if you're Bush supporter. If you're a Dem, it's insincere and ridiculous. We need to pull together in these elections this year and vote for whoever the Dem nominee turns out to be, even if we have to hold out collective noses to do it. I know I will. If a GOP president gets in again, I would hate to look back and know that my missing vote helped to get him in.

So come on... remember that common goal we have to do something good for this country and keep the GOP out.

VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE!!!
_________________
Don't blame this mess on me... I'm an Independent!

Posted by: redhed67 | May 13, 2008 12:14 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2010 The Washington Post Company