Dan Balz's Take
Obama and the Critical Indiana Primary
By Dan Balz
Is Indiana a must-win state for Barack Obama?
Few in the Obama campaign will put it that bluntly. By their calculations, a narrow loss to Hillary Clinton in Indiana will do little to knock Obama off his steady march toward winning the pledged-delegate competition when the primaries end on June 3. Victory, along with a win in North Carolina the same day, could force Clinton to consider ending her candidacy.
But after Pennsylvania and Ohio, the stakes are much higher for Obama. Questions about his appeal to white working-class voters, to white Roman Catholics, to older voters -- to all the constituencies where he lost badly to Clinton in Pennsylvania -- will continue to dog him until he answers them. Victory in Indiana can help.
Neither Obama nor his advisers have fully faced up to the issue of why he has not done better with these middle and working-class voters, which is unusual for a campaign that in so many other ways has been attentive to and skillful in dealing with problems.
Obama was asked about his poor showing among these voters when he spoke with reporters in Indiana on Wednesday. "The problem," he said, "is that, to the extent there is a problem, is that the older voters are very loyal to Senator Clinton."
Gary Langer, the polling director at ABC News, which is The Post's polling partner, put up a helpful rejoinder Thursday, challenging Obama's thesis. The problem he has is not with older voters in general but with older, downscale and less-educated voters.
In general, Obama does better with younger voters and Clinton does better with older voters. That pattern has been clear from the Iowa caucuses forward and his success in generating enthusiasm among young voters could pay long-term dividends for the Democrats if he is their nominee.
But Langer's analysis of the exit polls showed that Obama does significantly worse among older voters without a college degree than he does among older voters who have graduated from college.
Combining the exit polls from the primaries, Langer calculated that white senior citizens with college degrees have backed Clinton by 50-42 percent. Among those seniors without college degrees, Clinton has trounced Obama by 69-21 percent.
He found a similar pattern based on income. Obama actually carried seniors with incomes of more than $100,000 (50-45 percent) but, once again, lost overwhelmingly among those with incomes below $50,000 (70-22 percent).
Obama argued that he is making progress with these voters, saying he did better with them in Pennsylvania than in Ohio. To reach that conclusion is to set the bar exceedingly low. He lost whites without college degrees by 44 points in Ohio and by 42 points in Pennsylvania. That is hardly progress.
The numbers are only slightly better when viewed through the prism of income: He lost whites earning less than $50,000 by 41 points in Ohio and by 34 points in Pennsylvania.
Of 30 states with sanctioned contests where there is exit poll data available, Obama has won the white vote in seven (Iowa, Illinois, New Mexico, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin and Vermont) and essentially tied Clinton in two others (California and Connecticut).
Indiana offers Obama an opportunity to reassure the doubters. It is neither a carbon copy of Ohio and Pennsylvania -- whose demographics and political culture were favorable to Clinton -- nor is it Wisconsin, whose demographics were similar to Ohio and Pennsylvania but whose political culture is not. Obama won a convincing victory in Wisconsin, carrying white men overwhelmingly (including working-class white men) and only narrowly losing white women.
Indiana has a substantial blue-collar population and education levels among whites are lower than in Pennsylvania or Ohio or Wisconsin. It is also culturally conservative. All that should be helpful to Clinton. At the same time, Indiana's primary is not closed to Democrats only, as it was Pennsylvania. A sizable percentage of the turnout on May 6 will not be Democrats. And, like Wisconsin, it borders Illinois. Voters in the northwest part of the state watch Chicago television and therefore are more familiar with Obama than voters in other states.
The state long has depended on manufacturing and like other states has struggled economically as those jobs have declined. Harold Ford, the chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council and the former House member who narrowly lost the Senate race in Tennessee two years ago, has some blunt advice for Obama: Sharpen your economic message and figure out a way to connect with blue-collar voters.
"Whichever of these candidates are able to develop the most convincing and compelling argument for dealing with the economy will be able to win," Ford said. "Senator Obama is going to have to develop a message that connects even more with voters."
Two other factors are notable about Indiana. First, it is a very red state. No Democratic presidential has carried the state since Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964. Obama has done well in Democratic primaries and caucuses in red states.
At the same time, it is a state with no history of competitive Democratic primaries. The last presidential primary of note in Indiana was in 1968, when Bobby Kennedy carried the state. In statewide races there, contested or truly competitive primaries have been rare. That means there is not much history to examine to predict the size or composition of the electorate on May 6.
As an example of the unpredictability, there have been three public polls there in the past two weeks. Two of them showed Obama leading by five points (although one of them put the undecided vote at nearly a fifth of the electorate) while the third showed Clinton ahead by 16 points.
Should there be any doubt about how Indiana will vote on May 6? The Obama campaign, in its famous internal spreadsheet that was accidentally sent to Bloomberg News some time ago, put Indiana solidly in Obama's column in its post-Feb. 5 projections. In fact, at that time the Obama campaign estimated that his margin in Indiana would be almost as big in North Carolina (seven points versus six points).
Since Obama advisers have played down their chances, preferring to adopt the view that Indiana is a truly competitive battleground. Obama, however, has made clear the importance of winning. Victory could help close down the Democratic race. Defeat, however, could raise even more questions about his candidacy. Indiana has become a crucial test for Obama.
Posted at 4:25 PM ET on Apr 24, 2008
| Category:
Dan Balz's Take
Share This:
Technorati
| Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Posted by: change | May 6, 2008 8:56 AM
Hillary and Bill Clinton have ran the 'worse" democratic primary in history. Look at this, Sen. Obama is "still standing" after the 3-on-1 have worked feverishly to defeat him. I don't believe the Clintons have worked this hard their entire lives... campaigning! It shows the consistency and "true grit" of Obama. How many times does the media have to ask him the same questions repeatedly? Any other mortal would have folded under the stress. One thing is clear to the American voters... the Clintons can't say he's not been tested. Because they have used fear and racist tactics to be elected - going for the uneducated whites who hate blacks and they don't even know why. Indiana voters please get out and vote for Sen. Obama today. He is the only qualified candidate between the three of them to be given the nomination. You have a uniter and not the divisive politics of yesterday. As Obama has always stated, the Clintons represent what was we want to go forward towards a brighter future. The Clintons believe in exclusion, but we know better it's about all of us and not the privileged few. The Clintons have uniquely shown "elitist" msnners by talking down to the poor and telling straight-faced lies! And, one of the latest is the gas holiday. Sen. Obama has experience with this and says that you don't save but a few pennies. Yet again, it's close to an election and she and Bill start their lying fantasies all over again. For instance, in Indiana Bill Clinton is talking with a thicker southern drawl than usual. Anyway, Clinton did come from Arkansas and was poor, so he's used to using code language (racist) to the uneducated. Indiana don't believe the Clintons. Take a higher road and vote for Obama. He is what this country needs. People are tired of divisiveness and name-calling! We are better than that... words from Obama!
Posted by: Change | May 6, 2008 8:52 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMWgqmoOndA
I think he can pull it off.
Posted by: MrJones | May 3, 2008 6:26 PM
Obama = Clinton II = McCain = 4 more years of creeping incremental socialism/fascism
If the voters in Indiana had any brains or balls, (or wanted to hang on to their tax money and their guns) they'd vote for in the Republican primary for Ron Paul. This would at least register their dissatisfaction with the Demopublican Party that stands in direct opposition to their individual rights. That would leave them free to vote Libertarian on Nov, 4, 2008 in the general election.
But I doubt many "hoosiers" have those necessary brains or balls. Too little backbone. Too little will to crawl when it's past time to run.
Good luck little sheeple! If you can't even ask for your freedom inside of a dark voting booth, then you'll certainly never fight for it. ...And that's what it takes to be free!
...Pathetic.
When the train gets to the gulag, wake me up ..if your leaders haven't taken my pistol, maybe I'll save a bullet for you. It's no longer funny or even entertaining theater. Give slaves their freedom, and they beg for their chains. It's all so miserably boring.
Obama is a mediocrity preaching soviet-style communism / collectivism / socialism / duty and Clinton II is a naked power-luster preaching all of the same. One is black and the other is a woman. Oooooooooh! Wow! McCain is the same, but in the tortured body of a confused and doddering old white man, with a slightly more nationalist view of socialism! Yawn.
This guy pretty much predicted the future in 1986: http://www.peikoff.com/op/home.htm
Do you think that a woman or a black man can't abuse the reins of power? Do you think that a doddering old enemy of freedom of speech and gun rights will change his ways once he gets in the whitehouse? (Or will he vote against freedom with a complacent and sated RINO majority?)
If you think any of the mainstream candidates are not tyrants bent on personal power, you're a simpleton. Simpletons have rewarded them for chasing power, and wielding it, their entire careers.
Each of these clowns has given the simpletons who elected them bigger and thicker chains after every election.
...And if you're a simpleton, there's probably a good explanation: government schools, churches that preach conformity and obediance to authority, and a nice comfortable life where you never once identified what it is that gave you your comfort. Of course, the thing that gave you comfort was the freedom that you've never exercised, and the once strong gold-backed dollar that you've bankrupted.
It was capitalism and freedom that made you comfortable, and you threw it away.
Luckily for you, the hell you fear is a myth. Unluckily for us all, maybe you can actually make the USA into that hell, and give your myth some real teeth. Nice pointy teeth, like the ones hidden by big brother's moustache!
If you think there's a choice between ClintonII, McCain, and Obama, you're not just asleep, you're in a coma.
Pleasant dreams. ...Don't let the shooting wake you up... It's just your brothers being sent to prison, for the holy war of prohibition and empire!
Sleep tight! Don't let the bedbugs bite!
Tomorrow, we'll all wake up early and have eggs and bacon, right from the supreme chancellor's breakfast table!
Then we'll all put on our school packs and take a little hike down to room 101 and face our deepest fears!
4 more years of war against the tax cheats! drug users! infidels! terrorists! enemy combatants! gun owners! christians! people of no faith! people of too much faith! home schoolers!
(everyone!)
Gawd Bless AmeriKKKuh...
Posted by: ALERT! WAKE UP! WAKIE WAKIE, EGGS AND BACIE! | May 2, 2008 6:18 PM
NO ONE IS STOPPING YOU GO AHEAD AND VOTE FOR HILLARY. LISTEN TO FOX NEWS AND CNN AND CONTINUE TO LISTEN TO THE LIES PEOPLE ARE BRINGING UP ABOUT OBAMA. THEY HAVE NONE ON HIM.This is the most I have ever seen when it comes to a divided party. If were divided in may what makes you not think the democrats won't be arguing over Obama and Clinton in November. Think about it.
Good luck
Alex
Posted by: Alex | May 1, 2008 11:29 PM
lier, lier, snipper fire!
Hillary and Bill may be able to fool SOME of the uneducated!
When will the media stop supporting the liar? This only makes it harder for the uneducated!
Wasn't it the uneducated that voted in Bush? DUH
Posted by: | April 28, 2008 10:55 PM
Hillary is a liar (think Bosnia) and trend-f*c*er (think Nafta and Iraq stance switcheroo, think Annie Oakley and slugging down hard liquor) She has a radical past in working with the Black Panthers and in the Clintons pardoning of the Weathermen; she padded her resume like crazy. Obama, in fact, has more years than she does in elected office (he has 12, she has 8). She and Bill fight super-stinky dirty--google "Clinton Body Count", and be shocked.
She CANNOT win western swing states (Colorado for one). She is UNpopular out there. She can NOT win back the support of Black people after the myriad of ways she and Bill have insulted them. And No DEM candidate has EVER won the presidency without that support.
McCain would CRUSH her on that Bosnian lie. After all, his entire campaign is based on his military experience and she would be crushed on that in round one, to say nothing of all the Clinton skeletons rattling in the closet that he would bring out--because McCain would not be a gentleman like Barack.
I am an older white woman and I would NEVER vote for Hillary. My 80 year old mom in assisted living in Pennsylvania voted for Obama.
Dems, Independents, and Repubs, yes we can.
Posted by: | April 27, 2008 9:29 PM
Well, actually, Obama, you are right. The problem is that older voters are for Hillary.
Wisdom comes with age. Age has recognized who the better candidate is.
Younger voters are for you b/c you talk a good thing. Blacks are for you b/c you showed them you could be as black as they in South Carolina. White liberal intellectuals are for you b/c they fought for civil rights.
None of those recognize you as the better candidate. I wish it could be different for you. So, as the patriotic American and good Democrat that you are, please don't cause further damage to all of us. Just defer to the better candidate and quit.
Posted by: Lesley | April 26, 2008 11:22 PM
Isn't being in the lead the ultimate proof of his electability? Wouldn't it be correct to assume that someone that is not in the lead would be even less electable?
Go Obama 2008!
Posted by: Jen Boileau | April 26, 2008 4:27 PM
TOP TEN REASONS HILLARY SHOULD BE PRESIDENT:
10. SO SHE CAN SIGN AN EXECUTIVE ORDER OUTLAWING MOVEON.ORG
9. RUSH LIMBO SEC. OF EDUCATION
8. SHE WILL RAISE McCAIN A NUKE ATTACK TO HIS BOMB BOMB BOMB BOMB BOMB IRAN SONG
7. SO BILL CAN FIND THOSE EARINGS HIS FRIEND LOST ON AIRFORCE ONE
6. HILLARY CLINTON CURED DISCO FEVER
5. THE CLOSETS IN THE WHITE HOUSE ARE LIKE TOTALY CLUTTERED
4. SHE BELIEVES IN CHANGE - OF THE NOMINATION RULES AND HAS CREATED NEW MATH
3. ONE WORD, PANTSUITS
2. SHE WILL END THE WAR BY FALLOUT FROM NUKING IRAN
THE NUMBER ONE REASON HILLARY SHOULD BE PRESIDENT;
1. TO PISS OFF DICK MORRIS
Posted by: TOP TEN LIST | April 26, 2008 2:22 PM
Three months and I still can find any of Obamas accomplishments as a Senator.
I can see he did vote tor prolong the war.
and
He did support the NCLB.
Guess thats enough to be president these days.
Posted by: hhkeller | April 26, 2008 9:16 AM
By the posted comments, Obama supporters only know about War vote, they are sick. Obama's supporters are young, they use computer more than seniors but it doesn't mean they are smarter than old people, we, seniors have a pure heart from our experiences, immatured youngsters use all kinds of bad words to Hillary. I don't believe young people are ready to control our important election, seniors have the better view and wise idea than saucy youngsters like Obama.
He doesn't respect colleagues, specially Hillary Clinton, he will get same treatment from his supporters in the future . Hillary 2008.
Posted by: Kyu Reisch, Radcliff, Kentucky | April 25, 2008 11:27 PM
Yes, he was the " so call PASTOR " that touched that 7 years old girl unappopriately.
Pastor WILLIAM PROCANICK.
Posted by: Bertrand | April 25, 2008 10:22 PM
Can someone tell me anything aboout the Rev. william Procanick ?
if i'm not mistaken,he was Clinton's Pastor.
OOOPS,
Sorry !!!
Posted by: raymond | April 25, 2008 10:12 PM
Obama voted for oil firm tax breaks
Obama helped ex-boss get $1 mil. from charity
Obama fesses up to getting more Rezko money
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Presidential candidate Barack Obama now admits he got as much as $250,000 for his various political races from indicted Chicago wheeler-dealer Tony Rezko. That's well up from the $150,000 Obama had previously claimed.
Since this is not a rounding error, the question is, how much of a dent does this give to Obama's record for probity, and for his attempts to distance himself from Rezko?
Second, why did this come out? Did either the Chicago Sun-Times or the Chicago Tribune (Obama sat down with both papers' editorial boards to reveal this) have some goods on the dollar amounts in question?
And, in a bit of snark, since Obama said he gave all of Rezko's campaign contributions to charity, will he be cutting a check for another $100,000?
There is no god and I am his prophet.
(AP) Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama may have a lot of explaining to do.
He voted against requiring medical care for aborted fetuses who survive. He supported allowing retired police officers to carry concealed weapons, but opposed allowing people to use banned handguns to defend against intruders in their homes. And the list of sensitive topics goes on.
With only a slim, two-year record in the U.S. Senate, Obama doesn't have many controversial congressional votes which political opponents can frame into attack ads. But his eight years as an Illinois state senator are sprinkled with potentially explosive land mines, such as his abortion and gun control votes.
Obama -- who filed papers this week creating an exploratory committee to seek the 2008 Democratic nomination -- may also find himself fielding questions about his actions outside public office, from his acknowledgment of cocaine use in his youth to a more recent land purchase from a political supporter who is facing charges in an unrelated kickback scheme involving investment firms seeking state business.
Obama was known in the Illinois Capitol as a consistently liberal senator who reflected the views of voters in his Chicago district. He helped reform the state death penalty system and create tax breaks for the poor while developing a reputation as someone who would work with critics to build consensus.
He had a 100 percent rating from the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council for his support of abortion rights, family planning services and health insurance coverage for female contraceptives.
One vote that especially riled abortion opponents involved restrictions on a type of abortion where the fetus sometimes survives, occasionally for hours. The restrictions, which never became law, included requiring the presence of a second doctor to care for the fetus.
"Everyone's going to use this and pound him over the head with it," said Daniel McConchie, vice president and chief of staff for Americans United for Life.
Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said voters will be able to judge distorted accounts of his votes against his legislative career in general.
"I don't doubt that if you take a series of votes and twist them and kind of squint, you can write a narrative the way you want to write it," Gibbs said. "I think what people understand is that (what matters) is taking the full measure of his career and the full measure of his legislative efforts."
Abortion opponents see Obama's vote on medical care for aborted fetuses as a refusal to protect the helpless. Some have even accused him of supporting infanticide.
Obama -- who joined several other Democrats in voting "present" in 2001 and "no" the next year -- argued the legislation was worded in a way that unconstitutionally threatened a woman's right to abortion by defining the fetus as a child.
"It would essentially bar abortions because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this was a child then this would be an anti-abortion statute," Obama said in the Senate's debate in March 2001.
During his 2004 run for U.S. Senate, Obama said he supported similar federal legislation that included language clarifying that the measure did not interfere with abortion rights.
Such hot-button issues were the exception in a legislative career that focused more on building consensus to improve the justice system and aid the poor.
Gibbs noted Obama's leadership on legislation requiring police to videotape interrogations in murder cases. It started out as a controversial idea but ended up passing the Senate unanimously.
Allies and opponents alike say he listened to those who disagreed, cooperated with Republicans and incorporated other people's suggestions for improving legislation.
"He was looked upon by members of both parties as someone whose view we listened carefully to," said Republican state Sen. Kirk Dillard from Hinsdale, Ill.
Obama regularly supported gun-control measures, including a ban on semiautomatic "assault weapons" and a limit on handgun purchases to one a month.
He also opposed letting people use a self-defense argument if charged with violating local handgun bans by using weapons in their homes. The bill was a reaction to a Chicago-area man who, after shooting an intruder, was charged with a handgun violation.
Supporters framed the issue as a fundamental question of whether homeowners have the right to protect themselves.
Obama joined several Chicago Democrats who argued the measure could open loopholes letting gun owners use their weapons on the street. They said local governments should have the final say, but the self-defense exception passed 41-16 and ultimately became state law.
"It's bad politics to be on the wrong side of the Second Amendment come election time," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association. "It will certainly be talked about. You can take that to the bank."
On the other hand, Obama parted company with gun control advocates when he backed a measure to let retired police officers and military police carry concealed weapons.
Obama occasionally supported higher taxes, joining other Democrats in pushing to raise more than 300 taxes and fees on businesses in 2004 to help solve a budget deficit. The increases passed the Senate 30-28.
That's one reason Illinois business groups gave Obama a low rating, while labor groups praised him. But even Obama's allies say he refused to become a rubber stamp for their legislation.
"He always wants to understand an issue and think it through," said Roberta Lynch, deputy director for Council 31 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. "You have to make your case no matter who you are."
For six years, Obama served in a Republican-controlled Senate, so he and fellow Democrats only got a fraction of their bills signed into law.
During his last two years, Democrats controlled the chamber and he was the go-to guy on a variety of issues. He helped pass legislation overhauling Illinois' troubled capital punishment system and was a key figure in requiring a massive statewide study of traffic stops to look for signs of racial profiling. Although police groups opposed the legislation, they say Obama listened to their concerns and accepted some of their suggestions to improve the bill.
Even when he was in the political minority, Obama sometimes played a critical role. He helped write one of the rare ethics laws in a state known for government corruption and worked on welfare reform with Republicans.
He sponsored legislation to bar job and housing discrimination against gays, and he helped create a state version of the earned income tax credit for the poor. Obama also led efforts to reject federal rules that would have put workers' overtime checks in jeopardy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by: | April 25, 2008 10:08 PM
The only reason he isn't for Mi and Fla redoing primary, is he knows she'll pass him up by a mile
Posted by: | April 25, 2008 9:55 PM
Barack Obama has missed 223 votes (40.2%) during the current Congress. See a list of his missed votes since 1991 or see a full list of vote missers.
wow,another prez not around
Posted by: | April 25, 2008 9:37 PM
Obama is a Muslim, going to get you one night when his kin comes and crashes into your town
Posted by: Kasco03 | April 25, 2008 9:31 PM
Check out the April 21, 2008, (The Roland
Report) about Ed Randell in PA. who supports Hilary. (April 14, 1997)
VERY INTERESTING
Posted by: Henry | April 25, 2008 7:59 PM
Quote: "Can we get on to the contrasts with John McCain and stop this. Please!!!
No, because Senator Clinton thinks she is destined to be crowned president and refuses to read the math or the fact that half the democrats hate her, plus all of the republicans. She will take the democratic party down with her for years to come.
Believe me, I saw it happen in Texas. Used to you couldn't find a republican in Texas now every major elected office in the state is republican and you can hardly find anyone who admits to being a democrat. And they brought it all on themselves with the same stubborn reasoning.
Posted by: | April 25, 2008 6:51 PM
See below - I realize that these numbers were compiled by the Obama Campaign but the overall pattern is hard to argue with. Can we get on to the contrasts with John McCain and stop this. Please!!!
Obama Campaign's Memo to Superdelegates
April 24, 2008 7:13 p.m.
TO: Superdelegates
FR: Obama Campaign
RE: The strongest candidate to face John McCain
DA: April 24, 2008
Who's the strongest candidate to take on John McCain?
After 45 contests, Senator Obama has won more delegates, twice as many states and territories, and more of the popular vote. He's won in every part of the country, and has scored victories among every segment of electorate. He's inspired Democrats, Independents, and Republicans, building an unprecedented coalition of more than 1.4 million contributors. And when it comes to head-to-head match-ups versus John McCain, Obama performs better than Clinton in key states and shows the potential to put new states in play for Democrats up and down the ballot.
Polling data from across the country, from large states and small, reflects the advantage Senator Obama would bring in a race this fall. His ability to expand the Democratic base, and his ability to capture the crucial Independent vote, make him a stronger candidate than Senator Clinton, who would enter the fall campaign with the highest unfavorable ratings of any nominee in half a century.
Big States
• California: Obama beats McCain by 27, Clinton beats him by 23. (SurveyUSA, 2/23)
• New York: A February poll of Clinton's home state shows her beating McCain by 11, while Obama beats McCain by 10. (Quinnipiac, 3/18)
• New Jersey: Obama and Clinton both beat McCain by 5. (Farleigh Dickinson, 3/30)
• Illinois: Obama beats McCain by 29 in his home state, while Clinton wins by 9. (SurveyUSA, 2/28)
Traditional Battlegrounds
• Iowa: Obama up 7, Clinton down 6. (SurveyUSA, 4/17),
Among Independents: Obama up 9, Clinton down 31. (Rasmussen, 3/31)
• North Carolina: Clinton trails McCain by 11, Obama ties him. (Rasmussen, 4/10)
Among Independents: Obama up 8, Clinton down 16. (Rasmussen, 4/10)
• Oregon: Obama up 9, Clinton up only 1 (SurveyUSA, 4/17) A march poll showed Obama up 6 and Clinton down 6 (Rasmussen, 3/26)
Among Independents: Obama up 11, Clinton up 4. (Rasmussen, 3/26)
• Wisconsin: Obama up 5 while Clinton ties. (SurveyUSA, 4/17) A March poll showed Obama up 4 and Clinton down 4. (WPR, 3/26)
Among Independents: Obama up 17, Clinton up 2. (Rasmussen, 3/26)
• Michigan: Obama trailing by 1, Clinton trailing by 3. (Rasmussen, 3/25) A February poll showed Obama up 8 and Clinton tied. (Rasmussen, 2/17)
• New Mexico: Obama up by 3, Clinton down by 3. (Rasmussen, 4/8)
Among Independents: Obama up 8, Clinton down 5. (Rasmussen, 4/8)
• Nevada: Obama leads by 4, Clinton leads by 1. (Rasmussen 3/19)
• Minnesota: Obama up 14, Clinton up 5. (Rasmussen, 4/22)
Among Independents: Obama up 9, Clinton down 14. (Rasmussen 3/19)
• Pennsylvania: Clinton up 9, Obama up 8 (Rasmussen, 4/9)
Among Independents: Obama down 1, Clinton down 19. (Rasmussen, 4/9)
Making new states competitive
• Colorado: Obama up 3, Clinton down 14. (Rasmussen, 4/19) A February poll showed up Obama up 9 and Clinton down 6. (SurveyUSA, 2/28)
Among Independents: Obama up 9, Clinton down 13. (Rasmussen, 3/17)
• North Dakota: Obama up 4, Clinton down 19. (SurveyUSA, 2/28)
Among Independents: Obama up 9, Clinton down 29. (Survey USA, 2/28)
• Virginia: Obama down 8, Clinton down 16. (SurveyUSA, 4/17)
Among Independents: Obama up 10, Clinton down 8. (SurveyUSA, 3/16)
• Montana: Obama down 5, Clinton down 18 (Rasmussen, 4/6)
Obama down 2, Clinton down 12 (Rasmussen, 4/6)
• Texas: Obama down only 1, Clinton down 7 (SurveyUSA, 2/28)
Posted by: Timothy Crocker | April 25, 2008 6:02 PM
Quote: "Why should Obama waste his time with another debate with Clinton? Everyone knows the issues they stand for. It is another attempt for Clinton to dig in the knife. No more debate - its a waste of time. Obama vs. McCain debate not that lier Hillary."
Yep, she should better spend her time making up the reasons why she shouldn't go to jail in the upcoming fraud trial.
Posted by: | April 25, 2008 5:31 PM
Why should Obama waste his time with another debate with Clinton? Everyone knows the issues they stand for. It is another attempt for Clinton to dig in the knife. No more debate - its a waste of time. Obama vs. McCain debate not that lier Hillary.
Posted by: ob08 | April 25, 2008 4:54 PM
AND NADER YOU CAN
GO TO H@#@
Posted by: AL GORE | April 25, 2008 1:59 PM
POPULAR VOTE DON'T COUNT FOR JACK
AND BILL DOESN'T HELP TO HANG AROUND
ASK
ME
AL GORE
Posted by: AL GORE | April 25, 2008 1:56 PM
WOW
GIVE ME A SHOT AND BEER
AND
END THE DRAMA
VOTE OBAMA
298 TO VICTORY
Posted by: ROLLING ROCK | April 25, 2008 1:53 PM
COUNTDOWN TO VICTORY
298 DELEGATES TO GO
OBAMA WINS
VS 436 HILLARY
WITH ONLY 706 LEFT
298 SUPERS 408 ELECTED
LOOKING GOOD
FEELING GOOD
GO OBAMA
END THE DRAMA
VOTE OBAMA
Posted by: | April 25, 2008 1:50 PM
Quote: "3 More Super Delegates Back Obama Including Ok. Governor."
Posted by: | April 25, 2008 12:47 PM
This kind of navel-gazing commentary is precisely what Clinton wants. Way to be a tool, Dan. You downplay the inroads Obama made into her base and devalue the fact that he took over half of her lead away. You put the questions to Obama without looking in turn at Hillary, as to how she could fritter away a 20 point lead. 20 POINTS. Hillary's 9 point win is setting the bar too low.
Posted by: get real | April 25, 2008 12:39 PM
Quoting: "Witnesses who personally interacted with Paul that will be called to confirm that Paul was illegally expending millions to support Hillary's campaign solely as a quid pro quo for Bill Clinton's agreement to serve as a rainmaker for two of his companies for a year as soon as he left the White House. The quid pro quo made between Clinton and Paul subjected Paul's expenditures to federal maximum limits for his expenditure/in-kind contributions to Hillary's campaign. The quid pro quo by operation of law made Paul's donations illegally excessive. Witness/participants include former DNC Chair and Penn. Gov. Ed Rendell- who directed various illegal contributions made by Paul to the DNC and Hillary's campaign and who failed to report to the FEC Paul's expenditures of more than $100,000 for a gala for 150 Hollywood people for Al Gore's campaign and the DNC on June 8, 2000"
Posted by: | April 25, 2008 12:38 PM
Quoting: "The case represents much more than the frauds that Hillary and Bill directed to win and keep a Senate seat to launch a Presidential campaign from- it has the ability to expose the institutional culture of corruption embraced by the Clinton leadership of the Democratic Party- which is dedicated to assuring the attaining of unaccountable power for the Clintons at the expense of the Rule of Law and respect for the Constitutional processes of government."
Posted by: | April 25, 2008 12:36 PM
Quote: "Indeed, the video appears to confirm that Hillary was intimately aware of all aspects of Paul's fundraising activities."
Start packing those pant suits for jail, Hillary.
Posted by: | April 25, 2008 12:22 PM
And more and more. The beat goes on:
"Clinton man indicted in Medicaid fraud case
Ole Petterson had expressed interest in running for Oneida County Executive in the last election
Now, Pettersen is accused of collecting roughly $500,000 in payments from the State Department of Health to which he was not entitled.
Pettersen faces one count of grand larceny, 10 counts of falsifying business records in the first-degree and one count of offering a false instrument for filing.
He will enter a plea in Oneida County Court on April 21."
Posted by: | April 25, 2008 12:17 PM
Quote from the news: "At the conclusion of a hearing Thursday morning before California Superior Court Judge Aurelio N. Munoz, lawyers for Hollywood mogul Peter F. Paul will begin seeking sworn testimony from all three Clintons - Bill, Hillary and Chelsea - along with top Democratic Party leaders and A-list celebrities, including Barbra Streisand, John Travolta, Brad Pitt and Cher."
Posted by: | April 25, 2008 12:09 PM
Robert ask:
"Why won't Obama debate anymore?"
When you are "knocked down" you get up. Obama came up short in the last debate, and he ain't getting up.
Posted by: Billw | April 25, 2008 12:04 PM
"That was before his relationship with racist Wright made the news on March 13..."
Are you speaking of the Rev. Wright whose comments were taken out of context by the Clinton campaign. The same Rev. Wright who was just presented with an award by the Brite Divinity School of TCU, one of the most prestigious theological schools in the nation. Rev. Wright ain't running.
Posted by: | April 25, 2008 11:59 AM
LOL. All this is moot. The super delegates will take one look at the Clinton fraud trial and flock to Obama. Who cares what happens in Indiana or anywhere else.
Posted by: | April 25, 2008 11:55 AM
Why won't Obama debate anymore? I think debates are much more telling than soundbites. I would think he'd want another chance to show he can meet Hillary toe to toe.
Posted by: Robert | April 25, 2008 11:55 AM
OBAMA COULDN'T VOTE FOR THE WAR BECAUSE HE WASN'T A SENATOR YET!!!
Posted by: Open Eyes | April 25, 2008 11:51 AM
ccclam said:
"SENATOR OBAMA HAS HAD MORE AMERICAN'S CAST THEIR VOTES FOR HIM"
That was before his relationship with racist Wright made the news on March 13, and before his remarks about small town people. Last tuesdays primary was the first since those occurances, and had this happened earlier, the vote ratio would be different today. Unfortunate for Clinton.
Posted by: Billw | April 25, 2008 11:50 AM
OBAMA SAT THROUGH 20 YEARS OF HATED-FILLED, RASCIST SERMONS. GOOD JUDGEMENT?
Posted by: Open eyes | April 25, 2008 11:49 AM
Quoting from the news:
'Hillary Clinton and "The Largest Election Law Fraud in History"
Hillary Clinton's campaign appears to be in possible legal jeopardy with the introduction of a "smoking gun" video in a court case that has somehow escaped the attention of the mainstream media.
Investor's Business Daily explains that the "scandal involves allegations by movie producer Peter Paul that a 2000 senatorial fundraiser for Clinton in Hollywood violated campaign laws. Paul claims he spent $2 million to produce the fundraising event -- a de facto campaign expenditure. Under campaign law then in effect, campaign gifts were limited to $2,000."
John Armor, Election Law Expert at Equal Justice Foundation, says Hillary is involved in the "largest election law fraud in US history."
Posted by: | April 25, 2008 11:45 AM
SurveyUSA interviewed 600 registered voters in each of the 50 states. A total of 30,000 interviews were completed. If John McCain faces Barack Obama, Obama wins 280 to 256. McCain carries 26 states. Obama carries 24 states plus the District of Columbia ... and then there is Nebraska, which divides its electoral votes based on which candidate wins each of the state's congressional districts. McCain wins Nebraska 45% to 42%, but loses in two of the state's three congressional districts, which results in Barack Obama taking two of Nebraska's five electoral votes.
Posted by: | April 25, 2008 11:42 AM
The upcoming Clinton fraud trial:
Quote: "A status conference hearing is scheduled for April 25, 2008, and a trial date is expected to be announced soon.
Discovery in the case is expected to begin in May, 2008 as it proceeds to trial.
The discovery will expose an ongoing cover-up of the campaign finance crimes and the obstructions of justice directed by Hillary Clinton with the help of Bill Clinton and former DNC Chair Ed Rendell. The cover-up rivals Watergate in its corruption of each branch of government and the media."
Posted by: | April 25, 2008 11:38 AM
The Clintons are toast, finally.
Posted by: | April 25, 2008 11:36 AM
FEC fines Hillary
fund-raising group
Senator denies responsibility
but civil suit under way
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
"A committee that helped fund Sen. Hillary Clinton's 2000 Senate campaign has been fined for filing three false reports to the Federal Elections Commission regarding a Hollywood gala that feted her husband, former President Bill Clinton.
In a "Conciliation Agreement" with the FEC, New York 2000 and its treasurer Andrew Grossman agreed to pay a civil fine of $35,000 and amend false reports to reflect failure to report a $721,000 donation by Los Angeles millionaire lawyer and businessman Peter Franklin Paul."
Posted by: | April 25, 2008 11:34 AM
Quote: "Hollywood filmmakers normally inclined to support candidates such as Sen. Hillary Clinton are working quietly behind the scenes to put the finishing touches on a documentary alleging the New York Democrat committed felonies to get elected and assisted her husband in defrauding a major donor."
Posted by: | April 25, 2008 11:29 AM
WND Exclusive ELECTION 2008
Clintons to face fraud trial,
Judge setting date, testimony to include ex-president, senator.
Posted by: | April 25, 2008 11:23 AM
NewsWire:
While Senator Clinton is on the campaign trail telling reporters that the use of her opponents' 'bitter' remarks could damage Senator Obama's chances to win the general election if he should win the nomination, a California superior judge will soon be setting a trial date for the historic civil landmark case in Paul vs. Clinton.
Apparently the Clintons believe that the word 'bitter' is far more damaging than testify under oath in a civil fraud trial.
For some reason, the media doesn't think that a historic trial to haul a former President and a Presidential candidate to court for fraud is newsworthy.
A status conference hearing is scheduled for April 25, 2008, just three days after the Pennsylvania primary. California Superior Judge Aurelio N. Munoz is expected to finally set a trial date after delayment back in February.
Judge Munoz ruled back in February that Paul's legal team can begin seeking depositions from a host of big names - including Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton - that allegedly were witnesses to an effort by the Clintons and top Democratic leaders to extract millions of dollars from Paul in illegal donations and then cover it up. Discovery is expected to begin in May.
Posted by: | April 25, 2008 11:21 AM
LESBIANS FOR CLINTON!!!!!LYING LESBIANS FOR CLINTON!!!
Posted by: LetthemdrinkCrownRoyal | April 25, 2008 10:17 AM
You're asking Obama all these questions, older voters, less educated voters...
Why don't you see that Clinton has also real problems with certain type of voters?
Why can't she win the young vote? Younger voters heavily choose Obama.
Why can't she win the African American vote?
So far, African American have heavily chosen Obama, do you think she can win in November without the African Americans?
Why can't she win the educated voters? They have also heavily chosen Obama?
Why can't she win some Republicans voters? She's still in this race because Rush Limbaugh urged the republicans to vote for her in Ohio and Texas, otherwise she would have already ended her race ?
Some republicans will clearly vote for Obama in november if he's the nominee and will never vote for her if she's the nominee. A lot of my republican friends tell me all the time that Obama is their candidate if he's the nominee, they'll never vote for Clinton and will go back to McCain (even if they don't like him) if Clinton is the nominee.
Most importantly, why can't she win the Independents? Very heavily the independents favor Obama, if she's the nominee they'll also go back to McCain.
These are all voter categories Clinton cannot win and hasn't win so far, how can she win in November without those voters?
Obama is the strongest candidate, once is the nominee he'll convince older voters to vote for him, it's just a matter of time. Clinton on the contrary has half of the country against her, people just don't like her, if she's the nominee, the republicans and the independents will back McCain and he'll win, McCain has no chance of winning if Obama is the nominee.
See ya
David, NY
Posted by: David | April 25, 2008 10:07 AM
Oh how funny,as that would be a great and
very descriptive new name to cover both the
rabid Obama Youth Stormtroopers and the
Toxic Kool Aid Drinker Obamabots,under the
name of "Idiots for Obama in 2008" now then
and it certain fits them to a tee.
And especially so,when you realize that this creepy braindamaged by cocaine drug
addict,pathological liar,empty suit,loser
Barack Hussein Obama is the least qualfied
and most totally inexperienced Democrat
Presidential Candidate in history,and so
you definitely would have to be an idiot
to be stupid enough to vote for Obama.
Posted by: Claudine | April 25, 2008 10:04 AM
The difference between more educated and less educated is simply that the former are more willing to be colorblind and the latter less. It is racial prejudice that drive the "typical" rural Clinton voters. Not so much Obama and his campaign could do at this point. For HRC is not stand still there. She and her campaign have done their best to repeatedly hint on it. The truth is unspeakable here and now. How could Obama and anyone point out it? Voters have every right to make their own decisions. Morality is weak and nothing at this point. The Clintons' cynicism is cruel and shameless. Their thirst for power is dangerous. I just hope the Dem party could be stronger to defeat their horrible attempt to power. It's been lesson after lesson that the Republicans as a party are always stronger in this sense.
Posted by: pinepine | April 25, 2008 10:02 AM
The simple truth, while I seldom take any poll seriously, is, it suits politicians such as Senator Clinton to assure and reassure not so educated, not so privileged, not so motivated working class people (often referred to rightly or wrongly "underclass')across the racial/ethnic divide that their needs will be looked after, once they get the political power. Sad thing is, the working class people believe these politicians and swallow their assurances and vote for them. As for the hardened racists, no matter, which socio-econmomic group they belong to, nothing and no one can truly change their attitudes or minds toward black people. One must not dismiss the envy or jealousy or how dare he or she rise above his or her station factor either. There is Senator Obama in spite of being a son of a white mother has been successfully labelled as a 'black' candidate - the Clintons were more than anxious to do that. The truth is he is not, he is a mulatto. Senator Obama's brain, looks, education, eloquence, eating habits, behaviour etc., normally equated with 'superior' whites are irritants to some white folks. How many blacks have managed to rise to highly elevated, distinguished positions of political power during the past 50 years?
Therefore, all this not so helpful polls, analyses really do not mean much. It would be desirable for political commentators, analysts not to add to the unfounded fears about the candidate and cause more confusion. By all means comment and anlyze the relevant poltical issues; educate and help the electorate to choose between the two candidates at this stage of the election. Nation's education is such an important issue and am yet to hear any attention being given to it by the candidates or the political pundits. There has been a couple of articles here and there and that is not enough. Education - a wholesome, solid education is the answer to many of our ills in the society.
Posted by: koks | April 25, 2008 9:53 AM
But the question is,how would you feel about a Lesbian president?
Posted by: LetthemdrinkCrownRoyal | April 25, 2008 9:41 AM
IDIOTS
FOR
OBAMA!
Posted by: | April 25, 2008 9:34 AM
Obama's = Lifting the Country up!
Clinton's = Tearing each other down!
Posted by: | April 25, 2008 9:27 AM
Obama's = Yes WE can
Clinton's = Yes YOU have to
Posted by: shishir | April 25, 2008 9:23 AM
SENATOR OBAMA HAS HAD MORE AMERICAN'S CAST THEIR VOTES FOR HIM. What is the problem with you people. Do the millions of American's who are black, brown, white, yellow, men, women, etc... who voted for him not account nothing? If you answer YES, then you are the problem with this country. The racism, the bias in reporting this primary is fueling the hatred and prejudice that obviously exist in America. A vote is a vote. It should not matter who is casting it. What color our skin or collars are should not have any bearing on the value of our vote. If you give Senator Clinton Florida, Michigan and then give Senator Obama Florida and the "uncommitted" vote in Michigan since his name was not on the ballot, HE STILL HAS MORE VOTES. The media needs to go back to reporting the "facts" and get out of the "entertainment" business. The fact is you have two good candidates, racist, people with strong gender bias and those of us in the middle. The media knows this and also knows American's love to cover their eyes, cry their tears, and grip their seats as they witness the horror of a car wreck. The longer this primary goes on, the better it is for the "not the news media". It is a terrible "disservice" the modern media is doing to all of America.
Posted by: ccclam | April 25, 2008 9:21 AM
Obama's = Peace
Clinton's = War
Posted by: shishir | April 25, 2008 9:17 AM
Obama's = Positive
Clinton's = Negative
Posted by: Shishir | April 25, 2008 9:14 AM
Obama says that "older voters are very loyal to Senator Clinton." That is especially important in states with closed primaries such as Ohio and Pennsylvania because independents are excluded.
Posted by: FirstMouse | April 25, 2008 8:41 AM
.
N E O C O N S
F O R
H I L L A R Y
.
Posted by: | April 25, 2008 8:22 AM
If Hillary Clinton is the strongest candidate, why did she recieve just 3 supperdelegates to Obamas 69 since Feb. Obviously they think Obama is the better candidate and I want to Win. Hillary Clinton has a book of scandals and controversies that the republican party is going to pounce all over. We just havent heard them yet. Vist Utube and find out what republicans use on Hillary during the general election.
Posted by: North Carolina | April 25, 2008 7:33 AM
Indiana for Obama
Posted by: Indian | April 25, 2008 7:27 AM
Reading some of these comments made ME ashamed of my country. I can definitely relate to Obama's wife when she said for the first time in her adult life she was proud of her country. Does that mean she hated her country? No. For some of you with your heads buried in the sand, wake up! America is NOT perfect nor without faults and sometimes a person IS judged by the color of their skin. That is a FACT. So back off for none of you can tell Mrs. Obama what she has experienced as a person of color coming up in America. You can never walk a day in her shoes so you CAN'T relate. Leave her alone. Now, the pastor thing is really old now and really just an excuse people use. It is getting increasingly hard for the powers that be to dig up anything of any true political bad substance on Barack so what do they do? They attack his pastor. It's an old political ploy. The black church is a pillar in the black community. When you want to create disharmony, you attack the black church. Do you think Pastor Wright is the ONLY pastor in the US who've made comments like these? Probably not. In fact, some pastor that has endorsed McCain blamed the people of New Orleans for Hurricane Katrina or something like that. Not to mention, Bill Clinton had Pastor Wright at the White House during his impeachment. Another thing, Pastor Wright grew up in a time totally different from my own and different from Barack's. While I would never damn anybody on that level, I wouldn't try to tell this man how to feel. I didn't live his life. I didn't go through what he went through coming up in a very split, racially charged country where Blacks were treated as less than human. Effects of the such do not go away over night, indeed, they have been known to last a life time. He is an elder and you just don't walk up to him and tell him what he is feeling is wrong. The best you can do is disagree quietly and keep on. Not to mention the "well paid for media" showed the following masses exactly what they wanted them to see. Many of us are so stuck inside of a box it's pathetic. Get out of the box people. Stop being so quick to judge when you only see what you want to see. I was for Hillary at first because I've read a couple of their books and I felt she had a powerful hand during the Clinton administration. However, I am growing ever more disgusted with her dishonest and unethical tactics. And Bill? Well, let's just say he hasn't been the same since his triple bypass surgery. He would be of no use to Hillary. She's already had to ask him to let her handle things. LOL.
Obama will more than likely win the nomination. However, the Republican Party is powerful and they have been known to do whatever it takes to get what they want. I do fear Obama is to "good" to fight such people and I would hate for them to rub off on him. Hillary supporters are going on and on about this and that but the bottom line is this: he has the most votes, has won the most states, has raised the most money, and is seen as the most honest. If he has done all of that and he is in the leader, how could he not win? I would never imply anybody is stupid, but I will say some people just see what they want to see.
Also, I was wondering something, if anybody has any information concerning this, please post it. Back when Edwards was still in the race he won a few delegates himself. He suspended his campaign (I think) which means he kept control of most of his delegates (again, I think). Anyway, I believe he gets to distribute those delegates out in any way he sees fit, but I'm not sure. I don't believe he has endorsed either candidate, but I was wondering about his delegates, if he still has control of them and which way people think he will swing with them.
Posted by: smoothsoulsis | April 25, 2008 3:08 AM
The one thing Idiana superdelegates and voters should be considering is, who is capable of helping the party retain control of congress come November. Clintons spent eight years in the White House and the party lost net seats and also lost the presidency when the economy was supposedly robust. Does anyone not really believe that one of the major reasons Al Gore lost was because of the Clintons. George Bush's campaign mantra was 'restore dignity to the White House'. What do you think it will be if Clinton becomes the nominee. The party will again lose control of congress and possibly the white house in this messed up economy. Think about it. The reality is staggering.
Posted by: DJ | April 25, 2008 1:53 AM
Old people with no education degree have not been in colleges where people intellect and close the gap of race. This is why this people are judging Obama by his skin colour. People that has bee to university understand the race subject better, because there's a 50% chance that they had a person with colour as a friend in the university.
Posted by: Atuhe | April 25, 2008 1:28 AM
Clinton is the establishment candidate so why is nobody making a big deal at her inability to win the black votes. I think that Ohio and Penn are full of white people who are not civilized enough to want to ever vote for Obama just because of his race. They are still very backward and will remain that way-hence they have no jobs. If these folks go to other states they will realize that lots of people are looking beyond the color of the skin. Working class whites with little education the Clintons are playing you like they played the blacks for years!!
Posted by: AD | April 25, 2008 1:19 AM
Hillary Clinton is by far the best candidate to represent the Democratic Party in the general.
She can carry Catholics, union families, women, families with incomes under $75,000 and those without college degrees. That is a huge base.
Obama has blacks, young and wealthy liberals.
You tell me how a democrat can win the general who cannot win Penn, Ohio and the entire South. I will give him Colorado, Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada, Missouri and he still loses if he loses Ohio and Penn.
I want a winner. I want Hillary Clinton!
Posted by: Kentucky | April 25, 2008 12:50 AM
Everyone wants to talk about how many people loyal to Hillary will not vote for Obama when he wins the nomination. Just consider for a moment, the amount of angry voters from urban/innercity areas, who will feel their candidate was totally robbed and will not show up in the general election if hillary win the nomination.
Posted by: BrianS | April 25, 2008 12:40 AM
Which nomination are we talking about? This race has been over since February 19th. The corporate media want a piece of the fortune the Clintons collected from Kazakhstan, Colombia, Saudi Arabia...So they pretend that Hillary still has a chance so she can buy the air time to throw her kitchen sink with.
Stop the drama, Go Obama
Crow / Sinbad '08
Posted by: tchanta | April 25, 2008 12:34 AM
Pepitone;
You must be blogging and getting high at the same time you answers make no sense at all, pitty that I don't smoke so we could be on the same frequency
Posted by: bushed | April 25, 2008 12:25 AM
Well, gotta go for the night. Been nice, and please note:
I'm a lover of peace, protector of the
downtrodden, (always for the underdog,
unless he's losin'...). I'm true-blue Odie Colonie.. Descended from Royalty.
Constant as the north star, and there when you need me. With words that serve
to inspire and enlighten... Peace unto you Brother, and the horse you rode in on.
Posted by: Billw | April 25, 2008 12:22 AM
bushed: So Wright was a marine. Is that what made him a racist and an anti-american. Plus a hate for white people. Is it because his sargents and commander's were all white and gave him a hard time. He wasn't the only black person in the Marines, Navy or Army. He has nothing to cry about. If he doesn't like this country there's the door. Shape up or ship out.
Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | April 25, 2008 12:19 AM
Ah, I did hear rumors that Jimmah was going to endorse Obama. That was before his trip to meet with Hamas.
What the far left Dems don't get is that normal Americans don't appreciate a former president meeting with terrorists then calling the Secretary of State a liar.
You don't have to like the current administration to see that Jimmah's losing it.
If it were GHW Bush running around the world during the Clinton administration doing ad hoc "diplomacy" with terrorists, calling Albright a liar it obviously would've been just as detrimental and unhinged.
If Dems nominate Obama, they will be refusing a gift-wrapped presidential win and handing it over to the GOP. Ain't gonna happen. They don't respect those who aren't virtually Marxist.
Posted by: Pennsylvanian | April 25, 2008 12:19 AM
billw;
Amen to that!
But on that I'm a proud american and therefore pragmatic and played no dramas of moving to Canada when those clowns got elected the 2nd time, soak it up and move on, everything happens for a reason, those guys have damaged the so called Reagan coalition beyond repair and to me that's excellent news, the best is yet to come!
Posted by: bushed | April 25, 2008 12:18 AM
pennsylvanian: I am so glad you said that to BillW. He needed something like that. I guess his mouth got him in trouble this time. I just sent him a message myself. I love that list of endorsements that Obama got. That's right on the head.
Posted by: | April 25, 2008 12:07 AM
Pennsylvanian said re Obama's endorsements:
"Probably can count Jimmy Carter in but I imagine the Obama camp is telling him to keep it to himself..."
Yep, they kept a lot to themselves, but it leaked out on March 13... to their dismay.
Had it been known earlier the primary results would be different today.
Posted by: Billw | April 25, 2008 12:07 AM
Obama endorsements cont'd:
"New" politics of:
Tom Daschle
Jesse Jackson Jr (who compared primary to OJ vs. the wife he murdered)
Posted by: Pennsylvanian | April 25, 2008 12:07 AM
pennsylvanian: I am so glad you said that to BillW. He needed something like that. I guess his mouth got him in trouble this time. I just sent him a message myself. I love that list of endorsements that Obama got. That's right on the head.
Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | April 25, 2008 12:07 AM
pennsylvanian: I am so glad you said that to BillW. He needed something like that. I guess his mouth got him in trouble this time. I just sent him a message myself. I love that list of endorsements that Obama got. That's right on the head.
Posted by: | April 25, 2008 12:07 AM
Pennsylvanian said re Obama's endorsements:
"Probably can count Jimmy Carter in but I imagine the Obama camp is telling him to keep it to himself..."
Yep, they kept a lot to themselves, but it leaked out on March 13... to their dismay.
Had it been known earlier the primary results would be different today.
Posted by: Billw | April 25, 2008 12:07 AM
Another Obama endorsement:
New Black Panther Party
Fat Teddy Kennedy
Loser John Kerry
Xerox provider - Gov. of Massachussets
(No wonder she carried Massachussets)
Posted by: Pennsylvanian | April 25, 2008 12:02 AM
Why is David Axelrod advising any of his surrogates to attack Bill Clinton (again) after his candidate drew 97% of the black vote in PA.
David Axelrod is not only tarnishing the legacy of Bill Clinton but he is ripping the country apart by playing the race card too many times.
It seems to me that Axelrod is threatening the superdeligates with the argument that if you take this nomination away from Obama, it will be your fault for igniting a racial war (causing possible riots?) in America.
Posted by: Steve | April 24, 2008 11:59 PM
bushed
You might say we've been Bush-whacked.
Posted by: Billw | April 24, 2008 11:58 PM
Amber: You are so right. The reason there are so many comments against the Clinton's is because they set goals for themselves and they accomplished their goals. Many people set goals and don't have the ability to accomplish them. It all adds up to jealousy. Jealousy is a disease that eats into you when you want what someone else has. And that's what is happening. The Clinton's earned their money and they were smart at making it. I give them credit for that. Bill Clinton became a governor then ran for the presidency. Hillary became an attorney then first lady. Now she is a senator running for the presidency and she might just make it. And as far as the war, Hillary was not the only senator that voted for the war. Obama didn't vote for the war but he voted for the funding. What does that tell you.
Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | April 24, 2008 11:58 PM
Hey Billw: Let's make list of Obama endorsements:
Martin Sheen
Farrakan
Hamas
That dude from the terrorist group in Columbia on his laptop...
Rev. Wright
Rev. Meeks
Oprah
Probably can count Jimmy Carter in but I imagine the Obama camp is telling him to keep it to himself...
Posted by: Pennsylvanian | April 24, 2008 11:57 PM
Pepitone loves this country so much that she or he forgets there's something call the 1st amendment. From my part I much prefer someone that criticizes his country but when called goes and serves it(as reverend Wright did on the Marines)than someone who poses as a patriot and a tough guy, wears a flag pin but when his country needs him gets 5 deferments alledging that he has other priorities, and I bet all the "bushes in my farm" that you've voted for the guy with the 5 deferments , TWICE!
Posted by: bushed | April 24, 2008 11:56 PM
The college vote is going strong for Obama. Hillary is doing well with the uneducated vote. It shows.
Posted by: gmundenat | April 24, 2008 11:53 PM
To Mariann Pepitone
Sorry, I don't get your point. I was supporting your view regarding Wright.
Posted by: Billw | April 24, 2008 11:52 PM
Why is Indiana being painted as "critical"? North Carolina has twice the delegate count. Oh yes, Hillary will be smoked by 15-25% in NC. The media needs a battle so as to continue to perpetuate the myth of her viability (to make money through ratings). Hillary is making a lot of big enemies in the party; her campaign in 2012 will never get off the ground. Nobody likes a loser.
Posted by: gmundenat | April 24, 2008 11:46 PM
BillW. If you are in college or went to college you probably are in the same class as Obama with drugs and heavy drinking. That's what most of the college students have for dinner and never seen the inside of a church. If Hillary is toast Obama is natural toast. He's not black or white he is Mulatto. If you don't understand the word look it up. Blacks don't like that name but that's too bad it exists. Therefore Obama would not be the first black president of this country.
Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | April 24, 2008 11:43 PM
besides...i want a commander and chief, not a camel toe and thief!
Posted by: seattleshawn | April 24, 2008 11:43 PM
TH said:
"Martin Sheen has just endorsed Obama"
Farrakhan endorsed Obama too, note.
Posted by: Billw | April 24, 2008 11:37 PM
vote no on the camel toe
Posted by: seattleshawn | April 24, 2008 11:36 PM
You really think he can change things?
I would rather stick with waht I know.
And please you Journalist, we know who to
vote for dont play games like Cambell and Martin on Cnn
Posted by: terry s | April 24, 2008 11:35 PM
Martin Sheen has just endorsed Obama on British TV. It was on the Graham Norton Show on BBC2. Penn was a setback, but things like this will help revive his momentum, and he will win.
Posted by: TH | April 24, 2008 11:31 PM
Obama snores and farts.
Posted by: Oawald | April 24, 2008 11:30 PM
And I know what you are. Your the kind that likes anti-american people or you wouldn't defend him. You should start going to his church if you think he's so great. The media didn't think so they kept talking about him for days and now they are showing the AD on Wright that the GOP started running. And you will not like that Ad. But there are two more going to run and they are worse yet. Don't miss seeing them.
Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | April 24, 2008 11:26 PM
trudem211 said:
"HIS NAME SAYS IT ALL"
Well... almost. His past association with shady characters and Wright says a lot as well. Maybe if he makes the white house he can invite Wright over and they could do a toast to Farrakhan.
Posted by: Billw | April 24, 2008 11:24 PM
I am not sure this country is ready for a Lesbian president.
Posted by: LetthemdrinkCrownRoyal | April 24, 2008 11:24 PM
BARAK HUSSIEN OBAMA
HIS NAME SAYS IT ALL
Posted by: trudem211 | April 24, 2008 11:19 PM
Someone said:
"And now we know what you are."
Mariann Pepitone is a person capable of knowing a hate-filled and foul-mouthed racist from a pastor.
Posted by: Billw | April 24, 2008 11:17 PM
Sorry, pepitone, but Hillary is toast.
Have a good evening.
Posted by: | April 24, 2008 11:16 PM
Quote: "The threat to the party as well as the Clintons that is posed by the discovery and trial in the suit is that it not only links the Clintons personally to felony violations of the law and obstructions of justice but it will also destroy the credibility of Clinton surrogates who control the party at a time when Obama will be looking to take over the Party with his people.
The significance of the lawsuit is that it exposes a broader focus on the Corruption of the Clinton Cabal that has a stranglehold on the Democratic Party."
Posted by: | April 24, 2008 11:15 PM
You couldn't afford to purchase the pant suits Hillary wears. And I am sure your not a millionaire. Hillary wears different outfits everyday, I thought Obama would never change that dark suit. I saw him in a brown suit one time. But of course, he doesn't have 50 million in the bank nor could he ever write out a check for 5 million from his own bank account. The bank would refuse him. He doesn't have three million.
Posted by: | April 24, 2008 11:13 PM
EXPLAIN THIS--THINK ABOUT THIS. WONDER THISs:
That Hillary in an interview with Newsweek called New Zealand's current Prime Minister Clark--a FORMER Prime Minister???
I know she "misspoke" on that one too. To which the Clark is reported to have said--"As current Prime Minister, I even spoke to Former President Bill Clinton last week."
Beyond embarrasing herself, and Candidacy, Hillary "abused" her "foreign Policy" Credentials. Is there not a danger here that if elected, President Hillary could pick up a phone to Iraq and say "Saddam must get his political house in order. US troops can not stay here in Tehran indefinately." So much for EXPERIENCE!!!
Posted by: Etesot Obe | April 24, 2008 11:11 PM
EXPLAIN THIS--THINK ABOUT THIS. WONDER THISs:
That Hillary in an interview with Newsweek called New Zealand's current Prime Minister Clark--a FORMER Prime Minister???
I know she "misspoke" on that one too. To which the Clark is reported to have said--"As current Prime Minister, I even spoke to Former President Bill Clinton last week." Now you can tell which Madam is a poor in the truth!
Beyond embarrasing herself, and Candidacy, Hillary "abused" her "foreign Policy" Credentials. Is there not a danger here that if elected, President Hillary could pick up a phone to Iraq and say "Saddam must get his political house in order. US troops can not stay here in Tehran indefinately." So much for EXPERIENCE!!!
Posted by: | April 24, 2008 11:08 PM
Quote: "I don't care what you say, Pastor Wright is not holy and needs to repent himself for his anti-american statements and his hate against white people. Yes, I am holier than him. He's a non gospel preaching preacher and don't belong in the church. Those awards are given to him by those that believe in what he says. He should have been deported out of this country years ago along with his sidekick Farrakhan. This country is no place for people like them. And if you like those kind why don't you join them."
And now we know what you are.
Posted by: | April 24, 2008 11:06 PM
Debra: You are so right in what you said. Obama is not interested in the black people who live in the Englewood area. He lives in Hyde Park in the house Rezko bought for him because he didn't have the money. Obama don't like to go into black neighborhoods even though he is half black himself. Obama is for Obama and no one else counts. He is desperate to make history like MLK but don't have the same integrity. The only change he knows is the change in his pocket. The word hope he uses is from the speeches of RFK when he was campaigning for the presidency. Obama is incapable of doing anything himself. That's why the Mayor of MA gave Obama his speech to use. And he's a Harvard graduate. You couldn't prove it by me. There is going to be an AD against Obama regarding the death penalty. It will be out soon.
Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | April 24, 2008 11:05 PM
Hillary is toast. I hope she gets pants suits to wear in jail.
Posted by: | April 24, 2008 11:00 PM
jamerd said re Obama:
"Nearly all of "facts" about him on this post are blatant lies."
Well, this is true:
Obama said Wright was like an uncle to him. Wright was his spiritual adviser for 20 years. Wright curses America and is a racist. Wright awarded "achievement of the year" award to Louis Farrakhan. Birds of a feather flock together, yes they do.
Posted by: Billw | April 24, 2008 10:59 PM
"Hillary and Chelsea to be key witnesses in Bill Clinton Fraud Trial in Los Angeles
"The new documentary film "Indicting Hillary" shows Hillary Clinton's role in the campaign fraud that elected her to the Senate. It combines explosive home video taken by Peter Paul with key interviews to show why Hillary Clinton is unfit to lead America.
Stan Lee swears $225,000 reported by Hillary Clinton to the FEC was not his!
This video shows "Spider Man" creator Stan Lee swearing under oath that he contributed nothing to Hillary Clinton's 2000 Senate campaign, contradicting Hillary's latest report to the FEC."
Posted by: | April 24, 2008 10:58 PM
EXPLAIN THIS--THINK ABOUT THIS. WONDER THIS:
That Hillary in an interview with Newsweek called New Zealand's current Prime Minister Clark--a FORMER Prime Minister???
I know she "misspoke" on that one too. To which PM Clark is reported to have said--"As current Prime Minister, I even spoke to Former President Bill Clinton last week."
Beyond embarrasing herself, and Candidacy, Hillary "abused" her "foreign Policy" Credentials. Is there not a danger here that if elected, President Hillary could pick up a phone to Iraq and say "Saddam must get his political house in order. US troops can not stay here in Tehran indefinately." So much for EXPERIENCE!!!
Posted by: etesot Obe | April 24, 2008 10:58 PM
I don't care what you say, Pastor Wright is not holy and needs to repent himself for his anti-american statements and his hate against white people. Yes, I am holier than him. He's a non gospel preaching preacher and don't belong in the church. Those awards are given to him by those that believe in what he says. He should have been deported out of this country years ago along with his sidekick Farrakhan. This country is no place for people like them. And if you like those kind why don't you join them.
Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | April 24, 2008 10:56 PM
'Hillary Clinton and "The Largest Election Law Fraud in History"
"Hillary Clinton's campaign appears to be in possible legal jeopardy with the introduction of a "smoking gun" video in a court case that has somehow escaped the attention of the mainstream media.
Investor's Business Daily explains that the "scandal involves allegations by movie producer Peter Paul that a 2000 senatorial fundraiser for Clinton in Hollywood violated campaign laws. Paul claims he spent $2 million to produce the fundraising event -- a de facto campaign expenditure. Under campaign law then in effect, campaign gifts were limited to $2,000."
John Armor, Election Law Expert at Equal Justice Foundation, says Hillary is involved in the "largest election law fraud in US history."
Posted by: | April 24, 2008 10:55 PM
Quote: ". I already know what they are because I read them on the internet."
You can read? You could have fooled me.
Then read up on the upcoming Clinton fraud trial. Read it and weep.
Posted by: | April 24, 2008 10:53 PM
I believe the root of Barack's inability to 'connect' with many uneducated White voters is due to what he reminds them of. At one time in this country, no matter how poor you were as a White person...you could at least feel good saying to yourself..."At least I'm not a ******!"
Barack reminds them that in spite of all of the injustices African-Americans have endured throught the history of this nation, there are educated Black people out there who are in better shape economically than they are.
Having a Black man elected president would truly be a daily reminder that an uneducated, underskilled White person is now at the bottom of America's food chain, and this is a reality many are unable to face.
Posted by: Ken | April 24, 2008 10:53 PM
Whoever said:
"Ah, but people did know about Obama and the Clintons' character."
You are absolutely wrong. More of Obamas behavior and character was learned on March 13. Typical Obama supporter error.
Actually probably not an error - just disassociation from reality.
Posted by: Billw | April 24, 2008 10:49 PM
'Hillary Clinton and "The Largest Election Law Fraud in History"
"Hillary Clinton's campaign appears to be in possible legal jeopardy with the introduction of a "smoking gun" video in a court case that has somehow escaped the attention of the mainstream media.
Investor's Business Daily explains that the "scandal involves allegations by movie producer Peter Paul that a 2000 senatorial fundraiser for Clinton in Hollywood violated campaign laws. Paul claims he spent $2 million to produce the fundraising event -- a de facto campaign expenditure. Under campaign law then in effect, campaign gifts were limited to $2,000."
John Armor, Election Law Expert at Equal Justice Foundation, says Hillary is involved in the "largest election law fraud in US history."
Posted by: | April 24, 2008 10:46 PM
If it truly is the educated older folks that back Hillary, that must scare the hell out of the word. And you're telling the world she is working for the blue collar worker, RIGHT. Lets get all the votes from the uneducated Americans who sacrifice and pay for Hilary's wages with blood, sweat and tears. Show us a tear Senator. Still want to see Chelsea Clinton on the front line, in uniform. She is a big girl now. Lets nuke China. Must admit she is starting to sound like a man on steroids.
Posted by: justadad55 | April 24, 2008 10:45 PM
That 19% of the Pensylvania electorate ADMITTED that the would not vote for Sen. Obama ONLY because he is Black is a sad commentary on America. Bill Clinton veiled racist comments and Hillary's failure to timely renounce or reject them allows her to benefit from them. They know exactly what they are doing.
Posted by: SuJay | April 24, 2008 10:44 PM
Pepitone: You are a real hoot, look up Bill Clintons relatives if that makes a difference. He never knew his father and his mother supposedly was a heaavy gambler and friendly with the mob in Hot Springs.
Jimmy Carters brother was a drunk, his sister was a holy-roller preacher and his nephew could not stay out of jail.
Obama's relatives and Rev. Wright are not running for the president.
If you base your vote on relatives, you are dumber than I thought.
Posted by: | April 24, 2008 10:42 PM
The poster must have had a mechanical gun. Get real. MI & FL are negotiating to seat their delegates at the convention according to reports. If that happens she will then surpass him in the popular vote. And that will increase her delegate count because she was the only one on the ballot in MI. I can't wait to read your comments on the two new ADs that are going to run against Obama in NC. They are going to be doosies. I already know what they are because I read them on the internet.
Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | April 24, 2008 10:40 PM
WILSON POSTED: To those who suggest that the race issue (Bradley effect) was a major problem for Sen. Obama in Pa, I disagree. I have serious doubts about Sen. Obama's ability to govern, his attitudes and his numerous associations--and my concerns have nothing to do with race.
------------------------------------------
Amen! Those who call it the "Bradley Effect" are using a euphemism for crying "racist". That has been Obama's MO from the get-go. "You don't like me cuz I'm black." No, I would NEVER vote for a white man with your puny background or nefarious supporters... Actually, it is less racist since we are treating him like a grown up.
Posted by: Pennsylvanian | April 24, 2008 10:34 PM
I don't have to look up my facts. In fact, why don't you try and get a copy of his Bio that was in the NYT and read it. Its very interesting. Its tells about his mother and father. His mother was married three times and his father four times. There are eight children involved whom Obama only knows one of them. The other six are probably running around Keyna somewhere. Incidently, I don't believe that Law Fraud because I believe it is a scam to make people change their vote from Hillary to Obama. Are you aware of the fact a a church on the border line of NC & SC has put up a sign reading Obama-Osama-are they related? They will not take it down, its there to stay. That's what they think about him.
Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | April 24, 2008 10:34 PM
Quote: "If your thinking Barack Hussein Obama is going to get the nomination think again. That's not going to happen..."
Don't make any statements that you can't back up. The last time that I heard one like that was on another political blog. One of the rabid posters said that if Bush was re-elected he would shoot himself.
Bush was, and I guess the poster shot himself as he was never heard from again. LOL
Posted by: | April 24, 2008 10:31 PM
Thursday, April 24, 2008
OBAMA PACKS UP HIS TOYS, GOES TO INDIANA
Tells Evansville crowd, I'm not gonna play with those Pennsylvania poopy heads ever again!!
http://carbolicsmokeblog.blogspot.com/2008/04/obama-packs-up-his-toys-goes-to-indiana.html
Posted by: | April 24, 2008 10:29 PM
'Hillary Clinton and "The Largest Election Law Fraud in History"
"Hillary Clinton's campaign appears to be in possible legal jeopardy with the introduction of a "smoking gun" video in a court case that has somehow escaped the attention of the mainstream media.
Investor's Business Daily explains that the "scandal involves allegations by movie producer Peter Paul that a 2000 senatorial fundraiser for Clinton in Hollywood violated campaign laws. Paul claims he spent $2 million to produce the fundraising event -- a de facto campaign expenditure. Under campaign law then in effect, campaign gifts were limited to $2,000."
John Armor, Election Law Expert at Equal Justice Foundation, says Hillary is involved in the "largest election law fraud in US history."
Posted by: | April 24, 2008 10:28 PM
I don't have to hear about any fraud trial and Hillary will not be going to jail. That's probably your wish. It will never happen. If your thinking Barack Hussein Obama is going to get the nomination think again. That's not going to happen. Everyone is aware of his close ties to a racist pastor, Rezko the crooked businessman, whom no doubt gave Obama tons of cash not reported to the IRS, Ayers who bombed three times and went underground to avoid arrest, Farrakhan and Ayres. He really knows how to choose the best of friends. What candidate campaigning for office of the presidency chose friends like that? You will see the next Ads that are going to run in NC and they are by two separate organizations going after Obama.
Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | April 24, 2008 10:24 PM
Again,
Ms. Pepitone, have you heard of the upcoming Clinton fraud trial?? Hillary will not be the nominee and will be lucky to stay out of jail.
Posted by: | April 24, 2008 10:24 PM
Quote: "I don't care about the awards he receives because those that give him the awards are in the same category as he is."
I would suggest you ask your pastor about the Brite Divinity School. Don't pull your self righteous, holier than thou, stuff on me.
Posted by: | April 24, 2008 10:21 PM
Quote: "If they did, how come he can't win the big battleground states that she won. The major states. Its because they don't want him as our president. Get a grip."
You don't believe that Texas is a major battleground state.?? Obama won there. Texas is the 2nd largest economy in the nation and the 15th in the world. Pretty major, I would say.
Posted by: | April 24, 2008 10:18 PM
I don't have to check my facts on Rev. Wright. It is all on video or have you closed your ears to it. I don't care about the awards he receives because those that give him the awards are in the same category as he is. You can't be a true American and state anti-american racists remarks against this country. He is a white peoples hater but its the whites that are voting for Obama. He should shut his mouth and start preaching what he suppose to be preaching, the gospel.
Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | April 24, 2008 10:16 PM
Ms. Pepitone, have you heard of the upcoming Clinton fraud trial?? Hillary will not be the nominee and will be lucky to stay out of jail.
Posted by: | April 24, 2008 10:15 PM
Quote: "Who cares who she votes for. Hillary will not miss her vote anyway."
That's because Hillary will not be the nominee. The Clinton fraud trial will take care of that, even if she doesn't step down, as she is behind in all counts.
Posted by: | April 24, 2008 10:14 PM
Yes, I am correct. Ayers and Obama have been friends for years and George knows that otherwise he would not have brought that up. Who's kidding who. Sniper fire is not as bad as anti-american racist statements. No wonder the republicans are going after Obama and that's not the only Ad that is going to run. There are two more different organizations that are going to run Ads in NC against Obama. And you thought everyone liked him. If they did, how come he can't win the big battleground states that she won. The major states. Its because they don't want him as our president. Get a grip.
Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | April 24, 2008 10:11 PM
Quote: "So, democratic leaders, wake up! I am highly educated but I do believe Hillary has the better chance to win against the Republican nominee. Based, so far, from votes gotten by Hillary from cruial states.
So, "highly educated", that's not what the polls are saying. Look above.
And by the way, "highly educated", that should be crucial, not cruial.
Posted by: | April 24, 2008 10:10 PM
Just pick one of them and get behind them and get those rich, radical, right wing, repubulsivecans out of there and get this country back into the hands of the people.
This country is in a total mess. I am a white , old, WWII vet with a college degree which does not amount to a squirt.
When I was discharged from the servic I was so proud of this country and would have never thought it would turn out so sad
Posted by: westexacan | April 24, 2008 10:07 PM
I am white and older than that 71 year old that said she would not vote for Hillary. Who cares who she votes for. Hillary will not miss her vote anyway. The only reason Dean doesn't want to seat the MI & FL delegates, not because they changed their date but because Hillary will surpass Obama and he endorsed Obama. New Hampshire changed their date but he didn't penalized that state because he thought Obama was going to win but lost and it was too late. If I am correct Illinois changed their date also but because Daley endorsed Obama Dean did not penalize that state. That shows you how underhanded the DNC is. If Obama needed MI & FL Dean would seat them immediately. Its a one sided deal. Dean, Reid and Pelosi should all step down.
Posted by: | April 24, 2008 10:06 PM
Better check your facts on Rev. Wright. And stop believing the sound bites that the Clinton media wants you to hear.
He was just presented with an award by the Brite Divinity at TCU, one of the top theology schools in the nation.
Posted by: | April 24, 2008 10:06 PM
Obama is just like any traditional politicians even if he mouths up the usual old SCREAMS FOR CHANGE every election time!
The difference is that he reads speeches and teleprompters with great eloquence. However, standing beside the better ones, he is observed to be unable to think fast on his feet. Without talking-point scripts, he just blabbers on.
The President of the U.S. in modern times has never been elected by a few educated and high-income "elitist" groups.
So, democratic leaders, wake up! I am highly educated but I do believe Hillary has the better chance to win against the Republican nominee. Based, so far, from votes gotten by Hillary from cruial states.
Posted by: Firefly2 | April 24, 2008 10:02 PM
Obama is our Savior? You must belong to the same church as Obama and listening to pastor Wright who is wrong. My church recognizes Jesus Christ as our Savior and preaches the gospel. You really need help. Obama is an anti-american racist like his pastor that's why he stayed with that church for 20 years. Voters should wake up and smell the coffee. Obama is desperate to make history like MLK. He doesn't have the integrity of MLK. In fact, he shouldn't be campaigning for the presidency to begin with. And his wife Michelle's comments that she likes this country now. And their Americans.
Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | April 24, 2008 9:57 PM
'Hillary Clinton and "The Largest Election Law Fraud in History"
Hillary Clinton's campaign appears to be in possible legal jeopardy with the introduction of a "smoking gun" video in a court case that has somehow escaped the attention of the mainstream media.
Investor's Business Daily explains that the "scandal involves allegations by movie producer Peter Paul that a 2000 senatorial fundraiser for Clinton in Hollywood violated campaign laws. Paul claims he spent $2 million to produce the fundraising event -- a de facto campaign expenditure. Under campaign law then in effect, campaign gifts were limited to $2,000."
John Armor, Election Law Expert at Equal Justice Foundation, says Hillary is involved in the "largest election law fraud in US history."
Posted by: | April 24, 2008 9:57 PM
To those who suggest that the race issue (Bradley effect) was a major problem for Sen. Obama in Pa, I disagree. I have serious doubts about Sen. Obama's ability to govern, his attitudes and his numerous associations--and my concerns have nothing to do with race.
Sen. Obama's associations are particularly troubling. He's surrounded by people such as the violent Ayers, the Hitleresque Wright, his wife Michelle (whose thesis clearly expresses her anti-American sentiments; http://www.politico.com/pdf/080222_MOPrincetonThesis_1-251.pdf), his half brother Abongo "Roy" Obama (a Jihadist terrorist), his Jewish/Israeli hating best friend Rashid Khalidi, his close advisor Robert Malley (who advocates supporting the terrorist group Hamas), Mr. McPeaks (Obama's military advisor who believes American Jews are the "problem"), Sen. Meeks (who speaks against all whites and gays), as well as Sen. Obama's most dangerous affiliation--Mr. Auchi--who was Saddam Hussein's right hand man, made billions in Iraq and has been an important supporter and behind the scene man throughout Obama's rise to power.
How can the American electorate seriously think that Sen. Obama would unite the country? How can a candidate with these associations effectively govern? No, it is not the Bradley effect, it's Sen. Obama's associations! And Sen. Obama's associations speak volumes about his attitudes and his true character.
Posted by: Wilson | April 24, 2008 9:53 PM
Quote: "And you say he has more experience than Hillary. Get a grip. He went to pakistan for a vacation and that's the end of it. He has never met or talked to world leaders..."
You had better look up the facts before you are accused of lying or "mis-speaking" like Senator Clinton.
Posted by: | April 24, 2008 9:52 PM
hillary cannot win all things are working together for our good. BY THE WAY LOOK AT HILLARY VIDEO VICTORY SPEECH (PA) STARTING AT 5 MINS AND 18 SECS. BILL CLINTON STANDING BEHIND A WOMAN WITH A BLACK ARM LESS TOP, THERE IS ALEFT HAND TOUCHING HER SHOULDER, WHOSE HAND IS THAT, AND IF IT IS BILL OH NO IF SHE WERE TO GET IN THE WHITE HOUSE, DO YOU THINK SHE WILL BE THERE WHEN THE PHONE RINGS AT 3:AM OR SHE WILL BE SITTING IN A TAXI UNDER A TREE SPYING BILL. LOL.
Posted by: sexy | April 24, 2008 9:48 PM
.
.
--------------- O B A M A
--------------------------------------------------------------------->
--------------------------------------------------------------------->
.
Posted by: | April 24, 2008 9:48 PM
Quote: "Am I correct when I say that Obama got caught in a lie about his pastor's statements saying he never heard him in church when he was seen sitting in the pew. When George asked him about Ayers didn't he say there were not friends when they are next door neighbors."
No, you are not correct. I am not friends with my next door neighbor in a small town, I sure would not be in Chicago.
Did Senator Clinton say that she landed under sniper fire in Bosnia , when the pilot of the plane, and the commander on the ground say that she did not. Did she say that she helped set up the Irish Peace ag

The Clintons have pulled in $100 MILLION dollars for the last 10 years! So, who is the elitist and out of touch person here. Sen. Clinton was known in Arkansas as the "smug" wife of a governor. She came to the White House refusing to add her husband's name to her own until it came politically correct to do so.
The Clintons are elitist who have yet to tell the American people where the money is coming from towards the Clinton library. Do your homework... read, research the facts! You don't want to put someone in the White House by mistake!