Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Campaigning in Washington State, Obama Gets Gregoire

By Shailagh Murray
SEATTLE - Three Democratic contests are scheduled for Saturday, but the big prize is Washington and its 78 pledged delegates.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton spent Friday campaigning around the state and have split the major endorsements, with Clinton picking up both senators, Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray, while Obama lined up Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, Rep. Adam Smith, and in a surprise addition on Friday morning, Gov. Christine Gregoire.

"I've done some soul searching. I've done a lot of debating. But I've come here today to announce my endorsement of the next president of the United States, Barack Obama," Gregoire declared before a packed 18,000-capacity arena in downtown Seattle. Obama supporters stood for the entire hour-long speech and crouched way up in the rafters, cheering at ear-shattering levels even for minor applause lines.

One supporter's t-shirt read: "Canadians Love Barack Too!"

The Obama campaign views Washington as an ideal playing field, well stocked with the progressives, professionals and young voters who have flocked to the Illinois senator in previous contests. While Clinton touted her universal health care plan, Obama pitched his alternative energy proposals, touring a Seattle company on Friday morning that retrofits homes to make them more efficient.

Like Nebraska, Washington is a caucus state, and Obama has won seven of eight caucuses held so far -- a credit, he said, to the enthusiasm of his supporters. "They're not casual voters, they're people who are paying attention, they're more likely to come out for a caucus," Obama told reporters before the rally.

By Web Politics Editor  |  February 8, 2008; 5:21 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: MSNBC Suspends Shuster Over Clinton Comment
Next: Fred Thompson Backs McCain

Comments

http://www.singlepayerhealth.org
Proposed Resolution for the February 2008 Washington State Caucuses:
It is apparent to all Americans that the state of health care in the United States has reached crisis proportions. At least 43 million American citizens are without health care.
Article 25 of the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights, enacted in 1948 and signed by the United States, states that health care is a basic human right.
Many Americans, who currently have health insurance through their places of employment, would lose their insurance coverage if they were sick or injured for an extended period of time, as they would also lose their jobs.
Americans pay more per capita for health care services than anywhere in the world and receive fewer services dollar for dollar. Approximately 31% of health care expense in the United States is due to bureaucratic paperwork for the billing departments of insurance companies and Health Management Organizations (HMOs).
Digitizing medical records will save $77 billion and will play a major part of the cost saving measures of the candidates' health plans. The United States spent $2.1 trillion on healthcare in 2006, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Office of the Actuary, National Health Statistics Group. 31% of that $2.1 trillion amounts to nearly $653 billion that is spent due to insurance company bureaucratic waste. Utilizing a Single Payer Health Insurance system, America could save much money while also providing superior health care.
According to the United Nations World Populations Project, the United States spent 13.9% of our Gross Domestic Product on health care in 2001. Only Switzerland at 10.9% and Germany at 10.7% spent anywhere near this amount for health care. These two countries are known for having some of the best health care in the world. They are universal single payer systems. Universal Health Insurance is part of an income tax levied along the same lines as our payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare. Absolutely every European has health care coverage and chooses whichever doctor they wish.
The Washington Post reported on February 8th 2008 that Merck Pharmaceutical paid a $650 million fine for defrauding the Medicaid system. Carrie Johnson, Washington Post staff writer, states, "Prosecutors say the drug maker gave pills to hospitals at virtually no cost to hook poor patients on expensive medicine. When the patients left the hospital, they often continued taking the drugs, but with the government footing the higher bill."
On January 16th 2007, Premera Blue Cross asked a judge to seal documents that disclosed it defrauded Medicare by using it to pay insurance claims. On August 26th 2006, the New York Times reported that the California State Attorney General filed charges against 39 drug companies suspected of defrauding the state by overcharging for medicines.
When former Republican President Richard M. Nixon first introduced HMOs to the American people in the 1970s, those who had developed the business structures knew they were taking client funds and profiting by not providing services. It is obvious that private insurers or Health Management Organizations cannot be involved in any successful health care system. The current United States health care system, using private insurers, is not only ineffectual and inefficient but it is corrupt, as well.
A health care system based upon human rights and dignity cannot work without eliminating the profit motive.
The current health care system also hurts the United States in economic ways that are immediately apparent.
It cost an additional $930 per vehicle to produce a car in the United States in the year 2000 because businesses bore the brunt of the cost of private insurance. This is the primary reason many auto manufacturers relocated their production plants from Michigan to Ottawa, Canada. Our health care system is another reason for corporations to export jobs. It would stimulate the economy to have a universal health care system in the United States.
Productivity lost due to untreated or unnecessary illnesses causing people to miss work costs the nation's economy untold dollars. The ethical cost is also high.
Representative John Conyers from Michigan and Representative Jim McDermott from Washington have proposed The United States National Health Insurance Act (House Resolution 676) to the 107th Congress. House Joint Resolution 30, introduced by Representative Jesse Jackson of Illinois, also in the 107th Congress, amends the Constitution of the United States and makes health care a constitutional right. Rep. McDermott has introduced another bill, H.R.1200, The American Health Security Act of 2003. These are proposals that address the concerns of the American taxpayer as well as the health care issue.
THEREFORE, we resolve that all Democrats and their Democratic Representatives work for a Federal Single Payer Universal Health Care system or "Medicare for All" that includes complete coverage of prescription drugs, dental, visual, and mental health in the United States and that covers all Americans and guests of our country.

Posted by: hyp3rcrav3 | April 5, 2008 12:35 AM | Report abuse

Wow, the level of discourse here does not speak well of the Democratic party.

Can we retain our passionate support for our preferred candidate and still treat each other with respect? Sure, it feels momentarily satisfying to fire off some emotionally charged snipe, but before you do, please take a moment and consider what effect vicious rhetoric has on the party, the country, the target, and your own well-being.

Outrageously rude behavior has become acceptable, even normal, perhaps because of the popularity of certain grandstanding figures in the political pundit world. Those individuals have discovered Howard Stern's formula for financial success: Use wild, disrespectful swipes with a razor to insult and hurt people, and get ratings through shock value.

Is this really the behavior model we want to follow? Where does it lead?

Posted by: registrations | February 13, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

ralphdaugherty wrote -
"Even worse is the rule that splits delegates if both people get over 15%. If Hillary gor delegates as in normal elections, shw would have all the delegates for California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and other large states and Obama would have all delegates for Illinois, Missouri, and Georgia but the rest are smaller states.She would be clearly winning instead of this split the delegates down the middle nonsense. No one can win that way"

You're obviously and idiot for making this statement. If nobody can win this way, how have the democrats been selecting presidential nominees ? The rules weren't just introduced in 2008 or were they ?

If you can't be bothered to write facts, just go home or where ever and worship at your Billarry shrine.

Posted by: mr-warner | February 9, 2008 9:52 PM | Report abuse

If it's true that "Hillary is focused on American jobs for Americans", then why did she co-sponsor a bill to double the quota of H-1-B visas? I have a hard time understanding how a politician who is so anti-worker and pro-big-business can call themself a Democrat.

Posted by: seattle_wa | February 9, 2008 9:48 AM | Report abuse

Hillary is having a hard time getting the democrats behind her and competing against a "rookie" senator. Do you really think she can rally the country to win the presidency? Against a "war hero" known for reaching accross the aisle and appealing to independents? GIVE ME A BREAK! The Clintons are the republican's dream candidates!

Posted by: baias | February 9, 2008 3:37 AM | Report abuse

It appears that 'R D' believes in "TWO for the price of ONE' Really ,that is not a good bargain for America.

Posted by: ds_cenpak | February 9, 2008 2:02 AM | Report abuse


Even worse is the rule that splits delegates if both people get over 15%. If Hillary gor delegates as in normal elections, shw would have all the delegates for California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and other large states and Obama would have all delegates for Illinois, Missouri, and Georgia but the rest are smaller states.

She would be clearly winning instead of this split the delegates down the middle nonsense. No one can win that way.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | February 9, 2008 1:35 AM | Report abuse

OBAMA is the only politician still running who has voiced some skepticism regarding offshoring. Hillary ESTABLISHED an offshoring firm in NY and takes political bribes from pro-outsourcing corporations.

---------

FALLACY 1. AMERICAN WORKERS ARE LAZY AND HAVE TO COMPETE.

THEN LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD!!!

Tax the Outsourced work to adjust for differences to currency value and add in the cost of US working standards and benefits. This would be FAIR trade, not 'FREE-LY STEAL The US Workers Trade.'

The American worker will then have a LEVEL playing field to compete.

I resent the sales pitch of Indian corporations putting down the quality of American work. It is well known that even with the unfair benefit of the Indian worker being cheap, a percentage of outsourced work STILL comes back because of SHODDY INDIAN WORKMANSHIP. Amazing. I know of some Indians that produce decent work and some that produce garbage, there is no rule here based on race or country.

The incentive for outsourcing is based on COST relating to the higher value of the US dollar. It is not based on quality.

FALLACY 2: Politicians just say Americans should just RETRAIN. Retrain for what?? To be a cashier at Wal-Mart a.k.a China-Mart? Are there enough plumbing jobs in the US for all the white collar workers?????

There is no higher value added product for Americans to re-educate themselves to create. Whatever that product is can also be produced by a corporation that moves the jobs offshore. Who wants to waste another many years in college to find out later that the opportunity has also moved offshore?

40% of White Collar jobs are at risk. With all of the engineering talent gone, this country won't be able to construct a cardboard box. I wonder whose taxes are going to pay for the wars then??? Oh yeah, we'll just borrower from China until they own us. ENOUGH of the trade deficit and PARASITIC trading relationships with foreign countries.

FALLACY 3: H1B's WILL HELP KEEP JOBS IN THE US.

Pure BS. I spoke to a recruiter trying to hire me to work for Cognizant. He said they had 20,000 consultants just waiting to come into the US but couldn't because of H1-B limits. The H1B workers only purpose is to outsource the work, and not immigrate or work here for any length of time. Just like Lou Dobbs states, if they take the limit off of H1-B's they will be used to outsource the work and the jobs will be gone.

Those jobs will move offshore either way, but they'll move faster with the H1B's workers getting first-hand knowledge of that work inside the US.

-----------VOTING------------

The American worker votes for the politicians and they have no obligation to India to vote for a sleazy US politician that encourages the offshoring of US Jobs.

If Americans ever get any common sense they will vote for politicians that will tax outsourcing and add a percentage tariff to imported products (read "products that were created through outsourcing"). This should be done to the point of keeping unemployment and the standard living in the US stable. This should also be done to keep the US independent. What if our relationship with a country that we then depend on for all engineers isn't our friend anymore? Stupid politicians.


Tariffs are the reason we have foreign auto manufacturers manufacturing cars in this country.

Amazing, we'll use tariffs to protect other industries like auto manufacturing, furniture, or shrimp farming, but when it comes to high tech, no one cares. It's actually very straight forward; there isn't a strong IT worker lobby paying off politicians. This country works on political bribery. Maybe when outsourcing start affecting more of the other occupations voters will finally get a clue.


OBAMA is the only politician still running who has voiced some skepticism regarding offshoring. Hillary ESTABLISHED an offshoring firm in NY and takes political bribes from pro-outsourcing corporations.

---
This person, Paul Craig Roberts, who was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan, seems to have a good perspective on where off shoring is taking the country: http://www.vdare.com/roberts/080120_stimulus.htm.

Posted by: blapera | February 9, 2008 1:35 AM | Report abuse

"Talk is cheap," no, it isn't. Regan essentually said that he was going to make the rich richer, expand the military, and destroy the social safety net, and he did!

The President of the United States is not a mere administrative post, but more importantly, the figurehead of our nation. What good would it do to elect a simple beaurocrat to that post?

Posted by: UrbanHillbilly | February 9, 2008 1:35 AM | Report abuse

I was at this rally. It was electric.. Amazing stuff. Never been so moved... He is so inspiring. Yes we can...

Posted by: shasbe | February 9, 2008 1:31 AM | Report abuse

Iowatreasures, I was reading your comments on the Rezko/Obama "relationship" earlier and noticed your quotes from Fox News. Interesting source considering how closely we have found them tied to the current administration. In short, I would be more likely to believe headlines from The Onion.

As for those who think that Obama is "pandering," consider what he did with himself after graduating from Harvard. One who wants to be president of the United States does not start as a community organizer in the poor neighborhoods of Chicago, they work in large law firms, on the boards of multi-national corporations and as far inside the political machine of their party of choice. And yes, for those of you who aren't quite sure, that would be a reference to HRC.

Obama can win the White House, Hillary cannot. I have seen first hand the hatred that many conservatives have for her and I can tell you that it will do nothing but make McCain's job easier if she is nominated.

Posted by: dixielandpunker | February 9, 2008 1:30 AM | Report abuse

Because of the stupid rule of the party allowing the so called INDEPENDENT VOTERS, the Democrat party has literately been kidnapped and overwhelmed this year. That how we got Obama. Wake up, Dem supporters!

Posted by: sunrise41510 | February 9, 2008 1:26 AM | Report abuse

We just can't trust a rookie (If not worst) with the most important job in the free world just because he is a great SPEAKER.


Talk is cheap, We need substance. People who are greedy for money and power usually are good speakers, like Reagan, who managed to fool the entire nation into believing that he had done a lot, while he was the laziest president ever. Reagan and his wife had literately turned the WH into a circus Hollywood style, with them being the clown and actors for 8 years. Many woman, children, and minority people are still suffering financially today because of Reagan.

Posted by: sunrise41510 | February 9, 2008 1:22 AM | Report abuse

that should read, Hillary is focused on American jobs for Americans.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | February 9, 2008 1:15 AM | Report abuse

seattle_wa - Hillary is taking tax breaks away from outsourcers. H1-B shouldn't be increased, I agree, and Hillary is all about jobs for Amercans.

Gates and others want an increase in H1-B quotas but majority now goes to Indian outsourcers American subsidiaries. End those and Gates and others would have thousands more quotas to fill.

We need to impose tarriffs on imports and outsourcing from countries sucking us dry anyway.

Hillary is foused on American jobs for Americans.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | February 9, 2008 1:12 AM | Report abuse

Hey Film,

First of all, as somebody who took park in 3 war protests, all poorly attended, nobody in American really cares about this war. We don't. It's a nice talking point on the campaign, but if all the youngsters and anti war people really cared, we'd march on Washington and shut it down.

I had hope in the marches I was in. I'll march this year, hoping people will listen. But I don't see many people out there. The Hillary vote on the war is a pretty story for Obama campaign. Americans really don't care about Iraq.

Second, I don't think you're a Democrat, but if you are and you're implying that all Obama supporters will not back Hillary, then the Democratic Party is sad and Obama supporters are liars. Because they shouldn't hate Hillary.

I've been against the war from the start, but I'm not a one issue voter, and any Democratic is better than "100 yrs" McCain.

Posted by: camasca | February 9, 2008 1:03 AM | Report abuse

From TIME about Obama. He doesn't care about the difficult problems, whether the economy, iraq or global warming, or even the voters. All he cares about is winning as his recent TV appearances have been suggesting:
"And yet there was something just a wee bit creepy about the mass messianism -- "We are the ones we've been waiting for" -- of the Super Tuesday speech and the recent turn of the Obama campaign. "This time can be different because this campaign for the presidency of the United States of America is different. It's different not because of me. It's different because of you." That is not just maddeningly vague but also disingenuous: the campaign is entirely about Obama and his ability to inspire. Rather than focusing on any specific issue or cause -- other than an amorphous desire for change -- the message is becoming dangerously self-referential. The Obama campaign all too often is about how wonderful the Obama campaign is. "

Posted by: sd71 | February 9, 2008 1:03 AM | Report abuse

While I agree health care is an important issue, you'll find in this neck of the woods that unemployment caused by the glut of imported labor is even more important. Just ask the thousands and thousands of unemployed software workers, still, years and years after the dot com recession. They have been replaced by immigrants on H-1-B visas, making one third to one half of what American workers used to make. Bill Gates can cry all he wants to about a "shortage of trained software workers" and Sen Clinton can pander to the richest man in the world by promising to double the H-1-B quota, but working stiffs know better. This is just a ploy to lower labor costs, so management laughs all the way to the bank and the rich get richer. Obama gets my vote.

Posted by: seattle_wa | February 9, 2008 12:57 AM | Report abuse


and more than half the Democrats voted for her, and would never vote for someone like you.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | February 9, 2008 12:56 AM | Report abuse

Half the Democrats in the country not only don't like Shrillary, they can't stand her.

Yet, the Clintonistas, living in the same chromosome-driven cult-world inhabited by the Busheviks somehow believe 50% of the Democratic Party will beat the GOP + Independents + the 50% Democrats who will stay home.

The new Time magazine poll which shows Obama beating McCain while Shrillary loses to McCain proves as much.

When Michael Moore gets around to saying, as he did on CNN yesterday, that not only could he never vote for Hillary, but in light of her support of the Iraq war, her vote against the Levin amendment which would have held up the war, along with her YES vote on the Iran resolution last fall, he considers a vote for Hillary "immoral", you know the writing's on the wall.

Posted by: filmex | February 9, 2008 12:51 AM | Report abuse

Something strange is brewing.

According to many Obama supporters, Hillary supporters are viewed as negative if they attack Obama. This implies that if one attacks Obama, the "owner" of the positive message, then one must be negative.

I've heard this before. When Right Wing Christians tell people that they are going to hell because they don't accept Christ as their Savior.

I believe in inspiration. And Hillary's life is inspiring. Especially when one looks where she came from. From middle income in middle America to the first woman with a shot at the presidency.

Posted by: camasca | February 9, 2008 12:48 AM | Report abuse

I wrote:"Don't have any idea what internship you're talking about..."

Oh that's another Obama lie I didn't even go into. A Rezko associate funnelled donations from Rezko to Obama under his name, but Obama said he didn't know him even though his son worled as an intern in Obama's Senate office.

Sure, I believe that.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | February 9, 2008 12:44 AM | Report abuse

well djwinfield, I guess the truth hurts. I'd bow out if I didn't know anymore than you do about Obama and Rezko too.

Don't have any idea what internship you're talking about, you're seriously misguided anyway. The $625,000 property of Obama's that Rezko bought also came with $300,000 proce lowered on Obama's mansion same day. Obama bought a portion a few months later but all the property is only accessible to him.

The property was said by Obama's people to have been sold by Rezko but it was bought by Rezko's lawyer, in other words shuffled with Rezko's money to somebody not named Rezko because he's on trial for corruption.

I won't even go into the millions of tax dollars that Obama funnelled to the Muslim slumlord Rezko over 17 years to be able to call upon for favors like a million dollars in help on his mansion, since clearly you're not intellectually up to it.

It'd be nice to think that Obama supporters did know more about who they were supporting. That's ok, the Republicans will educate you this fall until you're sick of hearing it, and sick you didn't listen to friendlier people earlier.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | February 9, 2008 12:38 AM | Report abuse

I sure hope all these posts don't reflect typical Democrat attitudes. I am left feeling I shouldn't vote for either of these wretched dem candidates.
Good God, please let's see some discussion about their approach and where they might take the country, if elected.

BTW: I read that Gregoire was elected by a small margin, but what's really relevant now is whether she is successful and respected as governor. Is she a success?

Posted by: jonmar | February 9, 2008 12:34 AM | Report abuse

Who cares what endorsements either candidate got? I think everyone can see how useful endorsements were in Massachusetts and California even with the massive publicity accompanying them. An politicians endorsement does not mean their friends will vote for you but their enemies will not forget. There is likely to be little additional excitement generated in the primaries unless the Pope endorses. I see where Bush has endorsed McCain. I can't help but feel that that should provide the Democratic candidate with plenty of fine sound bites for the general election.

Posted by: bfc1949 | February 9, 2008 12:31 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton is a strong woman, tested by adversity, and successful.

For 15 years the right wing attack machine has been on her. She has not played the victim. In the face of unrelenting criticism, personal attack and scrutiny, she has become Senator and now is a leading candidate to be the Democratic nominee for President. The negative attacks continue to this day.

She has always said, "Yes I can", and has followed through.

In the face of sexism, which goes unchecked as compared to racism (see MSNBC story), she has fought on.

Her haters want her to "die" in the political arena, but she hasn't. Bill is a self made man, Hillary, a self made woman. They are successful Americans by any definition.

Her life is an inspiration, and her actions over her life provide inspiration for the American dream.

Posted by: camasca | February 9, 2008 12:25 AM | Report abuse

ralph daugherty I will end my conversation with you because you are not an intellegent person you are a sad person.

Posted by: djwinfield | February 9, 2008 12:24 AM | Report abuse

kajzarjev please stay in Europe you have enough problems!!!

Posted by: djwinfield | February 9, 2008 12:21 AM | Report abuse

ralphdaugherty if you care about everything then care about the truth---
The revelation of the internship comes after Obama acknowledged a mistake in buying property from Rezko in January 2006 -- a deal that enlarged the senator's yard in the Kenwood neighborhood on the South Side. The transaction occurred at a time when it was widely known Rezko was under investigation by the U.S. attorney's office. per the Sun Times

Posted by: djwinfield | February 9, 2008 12:18 AM | Report abuse

obee1 wrote:"They looked the other way when Bush was a coke addicted, drunken AWOL SOB so long he repeated the GOP mantra and was a WASP."

I sure as heck didn't look the other way. I wrote long and hard against it in 2004 and it's still posted on my site. Quite frankly Republicans still don't believe what Bush did.

Reminds me very much of Obama.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | February 9, 2008 12:10 AM | Report abuse

And as for Clinton winning NY, CA, NJ and MA - they are blue states anyway. They will remain blue states for Obama. He also won the majority of Independent votes in NY, CA and NJ. That's the vote that could threaten a blue state.

Posted by: JayKay2 | February 9, 2008 12:09 AM | Report abuse

PMSL - petitions to sign for Obama to be Veep to Clinton? Now that is sooooo funny - and so desperate people. ANY ticket with Clinton on it will lose. You can't absorb Obama's popularity for Clinton - not when he is diametrically opposed on fundamental issues. Such a move would be political suicide for Obama.

Posted by: JayKay2 | February 9, 2008 12:07 AM | Report abuse

I am not American but follow this race with great interest and I am, as a huge majority of the Europeans is, in favour of the Democratic nominee for your next President. Like both Obama and HRC but can't help wondering, what is so galvanising about Obama figure that some people makes really "crazy" and ready to follow the "preacher"? It was so obvious at the debates I followed that HRC has something to tell and Obama usually sticks to his general, although very well communicated, but empty phrases on change and hope. That's all empty talk to me, unfortunately so common among many politicians on the continent I am coming from. It is not the rhetoric and pose that should decide the winner in this US election. It did in a past and it's not pretty. Please do not make the same mistake again...

Posted by: kajzarjev | February 9, 2008 12:06 AM | Report abuse

IowaTreasures
Two years after switching parties, Reagan joined the campaign of conservative presidential contender Barry Goldwater. Speaking on Goldwater's behalf, Reagan revealed his ideological motivation in a famed speech given on October 27, 1964. Note the timing it was during the Civil Rights Movement - My point exactly

Posted by: djwinfield | February 9, 2008 12:06 AM | Report abuse

Man Americans are the biggest bunch of hypocrites in the world. They looked the other way when Bush was a coke addicted, drunken AWOL SOB so long he repeated the GOP mantra and was a WASP.

But God forbid if Barack admits to using pot as a youthful indiscretion.

You people are full of sh!t. At least he did not snort coke like Bush jr, or wag his cheating lying finger in our face on national TV and look us in the eye that he did not have sex....

Posted by: obee1 | February 9, 2008 12:05 AM | Report abuse

I happen to live about 5 blocks from where HRC spoke today and for the size of the PSU it's amasing that she took the time to come here. I respect the fact she did and after reading what everyone says about her, let's remember that she is running not Bill. She came out of the toughest situation a wife can face smelling like a rose. Everyone I know here in Washington, which isn't that many people, are voting for HRC. Just remember that it doesn't matter if you can pack a stadium, it's about who gets the votes! It's about targeting people that vote, 4/4 voters are the key to winning an election!

Posted by: lori | February 9, 2008 12:04 AM | Report abuse

djwinfield - I care to know everything. That Rezko did not donate to Clintons is public record, just as it public record that he donated large sums to Obama and even to Bush. And if you were President then yes you would take lots of pictures at a presidential convention in Chicago with lots of people you don't know. If you don;t know that you need to get out more.

As for Rezko buying Obama's $625,000 backyard for him, it's well documented by the Chicago press who have been investigating. Again it's all a matter of public record but only came out recently in Rezko's bail paperwork on property he owns. He received so many million sfrom middle east that he has been jailed pending his trial starting this month.

So yes, I know because I care enough to inform myself.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | February 8, 2008 11:58 PM | Report abuse


So someone that hates Hillary is going to vote for the most liberal member of the Senate?

Sure, I believe you.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | February 8, 2008 11:52 PM | Report abuse

ralphdaugherty people like you read and hear what you want too. This is why Bush got in again. Yes Obama did admit his connection to Rezko however Rezko has been indicted by the Fed's not Obama!!! Also Hillary forgot to mention she took a picture with him and her quick excused - they take lots of pictures with many people. But do you know that the only way to get that close and personal you have pay the big bucks. You are the only one that perhaps didn't know this or care to know this.

Posted by: djwinfield | February 8, 2008 11:52 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA IS THE BEST DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE.

Hillary is a dirty white trash who wants to derail the only Black presidential candidate that is viable!

Blacks have been enslaved and marginalized in AMerica for too long. (Phew women arent marginalized, and dont even argue with me on this)

This is OUR TURN, Our time is NOW! I will never vote for a white girl instead of a good black man! Period.

This is not racist. This is a fact. We have expressed that preference as a group in South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama. And we will show it again in Louisiana, Virginia and DC.

Black Power!!!! LETS SHOW THAT WHITE TRASH WOMAN THAT WE OWN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY!!!

Posted by: samuel19406 | February 8, 2008 11:50 PM | Report abuse

djwinfield:

You chastize SVReader saying, "Did you know Hillary was a Republican before she became a Democrat:

I say: Djwinfield: Did you know Ronald Reagan was a Democrat when he worked in Iowa as a newscaster or d.j., before he became a Republican?

We thought Reagan sold us down the river at the time. He was not well-liked by most Democrats.

Tonight there was a big spiel by Joe Johns on CNN about how much the republican right hates Hillary.

That was such good news - if they liked her, we wouldn't vote for her. She is our next President, I am praying. gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 8, 2008 11:49 PM | Report abuse

See Hill-Billy win the nomination.
See Hill-Billy unite the Dems.
See Hill-Billy win in November.
See hell freeze over.

Tim Flagerman
flag@lawyer.com

Posted by: erin_go_bragh | February 8, 2008 11:46 PM | Report abuse


Hillary has thought hard about it. She's scrapping NAFTA and all tax breaks for outsourcing companies.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | February 8, 2008 11:44 PM | Report abuse

meldupree:

I have had a rest now - and since you brought up the picture of Clintons with Rezko in that photo, you have given me the opportunity to tell you about that photo:

John Kass, investigative reporter for the Chicago Tribune, on Jan. 27th, 2008, wrote an article about the Rezko/Obama relationship/friendship. (Some of the below mentioned quotes are also from an interview he did on Fox News.)

In the article, and on Fox, John Kass said:

The photo of Clintons/Rezko is "inconsequential."

"Rezko belongs to Obama."

The Rezko/Obama relationship is "significant."

"Rezko is Obama's guy."

* * * * *

In other articles, (there have been over 100 articles written in the Chicago newspapers.):

Obama, while a Illinois State Senator, wrote letters on his State Senate official letterhead to city and state officials that netted Rezko fourteen million dollars ($14,000,000) in taxpayer funds paid to Rezko.

Obama sat in on business meetings for Rezko to influence potential investors.


I say:
Obama says nothing illegal went on, but it smacks of "fat cats" working together in shady backroom deals, to me. And Obama has the audacity to claim he is running against the "fat cats" in Washington.

(I also say that Obama references his work in "community organizing," and I say Obama became wealthy in his "community organizing" efforts.)

Barack and Michelle Obama wanted a 1.9 million dollar mansion they couldn't afford. On the same day that the Obama's got $300,000 knocked off the price of their mansion, Rezko's wife purchased an adjacent, inaccessible lot next to the Obama mansion for $650,000.

Since Rezko were indicted for "influence peddling," the Obama's paid $110,000 for that same inaccessible vacant lot to Rezko for that piece of property, "to extend the Obama garden."

Obama now says he made a "mistake" buying that vacant lot after Rezko was indicted.

Last week the FBI picked Rezko up because he was indicted for "influence peddling" and they became worried about whether he would attend his upcoming trial "because he was moving large sums of money around"

You can try to fluff this all away, but Obama has continued his association with rezko since he was in the U. S. Senate, investing $44,000 in some kind of questionable business associated with Rezko.

The papers also say the following:

Rezko is from Syria.
Rezko is an Arab.
Rezko receives very large amounts of money from people in the middle east.

I say, do we want this scenario in the White House? The information from the Chicago papers should cause some pause about whether people should be jumping on the Obama train to nowhere, that Obama train is certainly not going to end up at the White House. gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 8, 2008 11:44 PM | Report abuse

For you folks who still have jobs,be grateful that NAFTA has not caught up with you. My wife was a witness,at the White House, when then President Bill Clinton signed it. Within a short time afterwards, her job was sold out to China. In January 2007,my job was relocated to Canada. What makes you think that his wife will be different? Think hard about it. Think about your future.

Posted by: ds_cenpak | February 8, 2008 11:41 PM | Report abuse


And the reason I care about it is that this is a real Whitewater, worth hundreds of thousands of dollars to Obama, that the neocons will so tarnish Obama's reputation with in quite ugly terms that by the time they're done Americans will feel unpatriotic to even consider voting for someone aligned with enemies of America, a Syrian Muslim, and worse.

Obama is not vetted. Let him get vetted in a rough Senate campaign first. He's got a ways to go since that was first thing he did when elected to Senate three years ago.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | February 8, 2008 11:40 PM | Report abuse

svreader wrote:

Lots of people have been editor of the Harvard law review. They have a new editor every year. Its "editor" not "president".
---------------------------------------

It's "president," not "editor."
http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/2006/02/07_gannett.php

Posted by: smc91 | February 8, 2008 11:31 PM | Report abuse

meldupree wrote: "would you like a picture of rezko, bill and hillary for your files, svreader?"

The picture is from the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. Being Presidemt and First Lady they took pictures with thousands of people at the convention. Rezko did not donate to Clintons, but donated to Bush and Obama. Big time to Obama.

But that's not what I care about. What I care about is the $625,000 yard that Rezko bought for Obama three years ago when Obama was elected Senator... and Rezko had just been publically indicted for corruption. Still Obama went to him to help buy his house.

He was most comfortable going to an indicted Muslim slum lord for thousands of black constituents in Obama's own district. Rezko walked out on all 17 properties leaving poor black people freezing without heat, and Obama went to him when he needed someone to help him buy a 2.5 million dollar mansion and property.

This is the same Muslim slum lord that he claimed in the debate he only knew from doing about five hours of legal work several years ago. Instead the truth is this is the Mulsim slumlord that owns his backyard.

Give me a picture of that backyard if you're handing out pictures.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | February 8, 2008 11:30 PM | Report abuse

I find the comments from people who believe HC can beat McCain fascinating. Of course she can't. Every poll says so, and so do all my instincts. Obama will find the task very difficult, and probably impossible, but honestly folks, he's the only chance there is. It doesn't matter which one of them I want. It matters which one of them is electable, and she simply isn't. Americans are not going to elect a woman as Commander in Chief in 2008. That's just a simple fact.

Posted by: dsolov | February 8, 2008 11:25 PM | Report abuse

I have just been watching Anderson/360 and David Gergen, etc., and I am very happy to report to you that they are finally "getting it."

They were discussing whether Hillary or Obama were in a better position to beat McCain.

They finally had to admit that Obama has not been vetted and there are issues that have not been brought out about Obama that clearly be used against him by McCain.

I am telling you as forcefully as I can, if you don't want McCain in the White House, you had better vote for Hillary.

Obama's past history in Illinois is not pretty. McCain will take the truths I have been telling you and he will pound Obama into the ground with them.

This is not a racial issue. It never has been except when Obama, Oprah, Michelle, used the race card to win SC.

My reasons for not trusting Obama since he was in Iowa has nothing to do with race.
It didn't even occur to me when he was referencing MLK in Iowa, or when Michelle got on the morning talk shows and was talking to the black people saying, "they need to know that this is possible."

Clinton got blamed for it, but he didn't do the race card thing.

But you really do need to read up on the Rezko/Obama relationship and learn why Obama can't win. If you don't, you will hear it from McCain when he runs his bulldozer over Obama in the General Election.

(You can go to Google/Rezko and read some of it, or go to Chicago Tribune, Jan. 27th, article by John Kass, investigative reporter.)

I feel so strongly about this Rezko/Obama relationship that I believe Rezko has helped Obama's campaign financially, and in a significant way.

gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 8, 2008 11:21 PM | Report abuse

SVreader:

Where are you getting your inside information?

If you don't like a candidate - fine. But don't smear them with lies you cannot possibly know anything about.


Posted by: ljines1 | February 8, 2008 11:20 PM | Report abuse

svreader - speaking of the past - did you know that Hillary Clinton was a Republican first??? Also Ask Bill Clinton to unseal her Thesis on the Civil Rights Movement. Oh Yeah Barry Goldwater voted against it.

Posted by: djwinfield | February 8, 2008 10:58 PM | Report abuse

A few months ago Hillary led big time in all super tuesday states. Super tuesday states broke 13/Obama -- 8/Clinton. Obama stunned the political world. I'm happy to be a long time supporter of Barack. I am also happy he wrote about snorting a few lines...I did too as a kid. THAT is one of the reasons I'm voting for him, honesty!

Bush and Clinton in the White house for the last 28 years...sick of it. CHANGE IS IN THE AIR!

Obama/Webb-08

Posted by: tracer | February 8, 2008 10:58 PM | Report abuse

So tell me svreader, is the conversation working for you?

Is Hillary having fun yet? She told Obama, "This is when the fun begins" with that trademark cackle of hers. Are we having fun, now?

Posted by: meldupree | February 8, 2008 10:56 PM | Report abuse

would you like a picture of rezko, bill and hillary for your files, svreader?

Posted by: meldupree | February 8, 2008 10:53 PM | Report abuse

svreader, rhbate beat me to the punch. THANKS rhbate!

Posted by: meldupree | February 8, 2008 10:49 PM | Report abuse

svreader, if you think Bill isn't running by proxy, then you are in serious denial. One of the reasons (among many) I won't vote for HRC is because Bill wants back in the White House. Methinks he will advise HRC all right; it will be (or become) a co-presidency which circumvents the 22nd amendment (ask Obama about that since he taught Constiutional law at UChicago Law School).

Btw, we can talk about Obama's drug use till you're blue in the face; we can talk about Rezko too. With Obama, it's out there and people with make their decisions fully informed, unlike the Clintons whose perchance for secrecy and lying are way too evident (i.e., Hill's working notes on healthcare reform that are hidden in the archives til 2012 and Bill's deal in Kazakhstan, as well as some other questionable business dealings with Burkle). Oh yea, there is HRC's bundler name Norm Hsu, remember him? No one vetted him that he was a convicted felon on the lam until two months ago. And HRCBill do not mention Rezko's name in public anymore since the picture showed up on Good Morning America.

Then there is that matter of Bill's "I did not have sex with that woman" to "I had an inappropriate relationship . . . " Yeah, after a nasty blue dress with a nasty stain from Bill on it came front and center. So svreader, tell me that Bill is an honest man. LOL!!! This is the co-president to be with Hill! LOLLOLLOL!!! Let's have a conversation!

Posted by: meldupree | February 8, 2008 10:48 PM | Report abuse

Experience. The Bush cabinet was the most experienced in the history of this country and look where that arrogance got us. Experience was a terrible quality that led to the current mess in Iraq and our economy. Voting for experience will not guarantee anything.

Posted by: martinor108 | February 8, 2008 10:42 PM | Report abuse

HILLARY CLINTON'S 35 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE BS: The first 15 years she spent in "public service" she worked for the biggest law firm in Little Rock, Arkansas. Her goal then: make as much money as possible, ethics be damned. Almost forgot her stint working in Goldwater's campaign for president. Then there was White Water, Travelgate Vincent Foster, et al. Then there was her job working at Wal-Mart where she did an outstanding job of fighting off the workers attempts to organize a union for collective bargain. Then she took the DC Bar exam which she failed twice. By then, she was fighting against the "Vast right-wing conspiracy. Stole items from the White House and later gave them back - only because she was caught.
The most extensive experience this woman has is serving tea to foreign dignitaries. Claimed to be a New Yorker so she could run for the senate. Voted to authorize Iraq war; voted to give Clinton to go to war against Iran. Bottom line: This woman has no ethics. She has a lot of class - but it's all low.

BILL CLINTON: Where to start? This ex-con, convicted of lying to a federal grand jury, obstruction of justice, stripped of his right to practice law is the only president impeached in modern times. There was also his use of the Arkansas State Troopers to chauffeur him to visit his many mistresses. But at least he visited Jennifer Flowers and a few others on his own gas card. And don't forget Monica "I did not have sex with that woman - Lewinsky." This felon who wants to be your CO-PRESIDENT recently made himself 31 MILLION DOLLARS by facilitating a deal with the government of Kazakhstan, a country that has one of the worst records on human rights in history. He injected race into the campaign after Hillary was trounced in North Carolina he said" Jesse Jackson won North Carolina also." He was saying what's the big deal, a black man won NC before and it didn't mean a thing. Otherwise, why did he pick a black man? John Edwards also won North Carolina in the past, and he is white. Clinton has been reduced to a pathetic figure unable to complete a sentence without a reference to himself.

DO YOU WANT THIS FELON FOR YOUR CO-PRESIDENT?

DO THESE PEOPLE REPRESENTS ETHICS TO YOU???

Posted by: rhbate | February 8, 2008 10:38 PM | Report abuse

it's a bit disheartening to read all the venom being thrown back and forth by Obama and Hillary people. Calling Hillary's convention 3000 old people is a dishonor to those long time Democrats. Unlike you I don't have the luxury of living in a liberal bastion. Down in Gerogia I am shocked to see how many die hard republicans have nothing bad to say about Obama. 2 republican leaning friends (she voted for bush twice) openly told me they cast thier vote for Obama. Over 40% of Southern White men voted for Obama. Think how just a few years ago that would have been unheard of. I was in the air about which way to go until Bill Clinton came down and did a Carl Rove in SC. It was disgusting. I can now understand why the republicans hated him so much. In 96 he did the same thing Bush did in 04. Swift boated a veteran who had fought for his country, brought out his own radical base and drove the negatives up on his opponent.
I can tell you without question, there is only one thing that can unite Republicans and Independents. It may not be her fault, but all republicans and most independents will vote McCain to keep her out. Please think carefully before you vote tomorrow. In 2000 in Fl I voted for the 1st time and in the booth gave it to Nader. Thinking that 199 other people and myself could have changed the course of history makes me feel sick that I did not do it. Please vote for Obama and change.

Posted by: martinor108 | February 8, 2008 10:38 PM | Report abuse

meld --

You hit the nail on the head. And so, every time you bring up Bill's BJ, we'll bring up Obama's nose candy.

Bill isn't running Hillary is.

Obama is running, and did lots of drugs.

We've got to stop electing coke-heads.

It hasn't been working out.

Posted by: svreader | February 8, 2008 10:33 PM | Report abuse

AMERICA'S TIME FOR RECONCILIATION HAS COME:

Here's a place to start:

cslang.blogspot.com

PASS IT ON

Posted by: charlessamuellang | February 8, 2008 10:16 PM | Report abuse

just like Hillary's endorsement from former MD lieutenant governor Kathleen Kennedy Townsend was equally worthless.

Posted by: meldupree | February 8, 2008 10:11 PM | Report abuse

It is worth noting that Washington's Governor was elected to the Office in 2004 after three (3) ballot counts. Her margin of victory was a whopping 129 votes.

In other words, Gregoire's endorsement of any candidate is as meaningless as an endorsement from Ted Kennedy, AC [After Chappaquiddick].

Gregoire's opponent did not concede until June 2005 [see Wikipedia]. Gregoire should have had sense enough to avoid damaging Obama's chances, and he should have had sense enough to decline the endorsement.

Posted by: maxbyte | February 8, 2008 10:09 PM | Report abuse



Obama has forgotten how much his black brothers and sisters suffered during the Reagan years. He is the beneficiary of black racism to begin his political career with in IL, yet he praises REAGAN AND THE REPUBLICAN'S IDEAS FOR THE LAST 15 YEARS. We just don't know whom Hillary is running against, a Republican or a Democrat a honorable man or a hypocrite.

Posted by: sunrise41510 | February 8, 2008 10:08 PM | Report abuse

andronomous:

You spoke of the woman at Hillary's rally that came early and had a megaphone.

For some reason, probably aggressive rowdiness, she was ejected from the rally.

Picture such a woman, an Obama operative, and you can picture how Obama is able to play dirty tricks and turn the table on Hillary with his dirty tricks.

Now, you are saying it is Hillary's fault because the police took her out of the rally. I don't know what happened, I wasn't there, but I doubt if the Police took her out of there for no good reason. gw

Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 8, 2008 10:07 PM | Report abuse

btw svreader and iowatreasure, for all of HRC political juggernaut, name brand, "experience", Dem establishment support and political acumen, Hillary only has seventy more delegates than Obama, an upstart nobody from Illinois (1076 to 1006). What $100M-plus get you with the Clinton machine? The dog fight you'd never expect!

Posted by: meldupree | February 8, 2008 10:06 PM | Report abuse

The so called INDEPENDENT VOTERS have literately kidnaped the Dem primery. This is how Obama got here today.

Posted by: sunrise41510 | February 8, 2008 10:06 PM | Report abuse

steve --

Welcome to Silicon Valley.

Posted by: svreader | February 8, 2008 10:05 PM | Report abuse

american1:

Now I have heard it all.

You say that because Obama did drugs, he will help to legalize drug use and the drug dealers will be let out of prison.

All I have to say now - is . . . OMG . gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 8, 2008 10:04 PM | Report abuse

We just can't trust a rookie (If not worst) with the most important job in the free world just because he is a great SPEAKER.


Talk is cheap, We need substance. People who are greedy for money and power usually are good speakers, like Reagan, who managed to fool the entire nation into believing that he had done a lot, while he was the laziest president ever. Reagan and his wife had literately turned the WH into a circus Hollywood style, with them being the clown and actors for 8 years. Many woman, children, and minority people are still suffering financially today because of Reagan.

Posted by: sunrise41510 | February 8, 2008 10:04 PM | Report abuse

terrishay:

You say it sounds hollow that Bill Clinton tried marijuana but didn't inhale.

It sounds just as hollow that Obama ingested pot and cocaine and now doesn't.

I wouldn't bet the farm that he doesn't still do cocaine. People who did cocaine, do cocaine. gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 8, 2008 10:02 PM | Report abuse

As a life long Democrat and liberal I have never been more excited or proud of my party and the outstanding choices we ofter for the world,s future! I believe Hillary is the past and Obama Hussein is the future and the leader of the Democrat Party! I think he can bring many more under the Democrat tent and make it the party of the future in the USA . His experience & knowledge of Islam and Muslins ( both his dad & step dad were Muslins and he attended an Islam school as a boy) can bring the Arab Islam Muslins into the Party as well as the Black Muslin Islam Nation and expand the Democrat party. Already we can see Islam Nations around the world are excited & embracing his candidacy. The only that can derail Obama is if Blacks discover he belongs to a different tribe than they do and that could cause serious problems.

Our parties strong stand against the Constitution and Rule of Law for Illegal Immigration should bring the Illegal Immigrants into our camp. Indeed, all immigrants from around the world that want to immigrate to the USA but do not want to go thought. the hassle of legal Immigration will support us. Finally American can live up to its creed under the Democrats and Citizens of the world irregardless of Religion, Race, Tribe, Nationally, Education, Diseases or Skills can come to American and be citizens of this great Nation and the Democrat party while slopping at the trough of public welfare! Our growing and expanding population with our teeming masses from sea to polluted sea will allow to us compete with China, India, and other third world countries and end outsourcing of our jobs.

It may require a balancing act having both the Blacks and Latinos under the same tent with Latino hater of Blacks while Blacks are very upset over Latinos Hi-Jacking their civil rights by equating walking across a border to the nearest welfare office, as the same as blacks experienced with slavery. The Ethic cleansing of Blacks in LA by Illegal Hispanics will also make his task harder, but if anyone can ofter them welfare haven then Obama is the Man.

I think as a seasoned, & experienced drug user Obama and as he says in his book , knowing how to score some blow, he will address how backward, unfair and punitive our drug laws are and legalize drugs. This would release millions of Drug users and drug dealers from prison. They, with their knowledge and experience could go into selling, distribution and expanding the legal drug trade and help our economy and the Black & Hispanic communities. In addition to saving tax payers Tens of Billions now spend in incarceration, prevention and drug fighting cost. Of course, all drugs would have a high tax but still be much cheaper than Illegal drugs. We could earmark the tax receipts from drugs to the millions of Uneducated Immigrants we gave American citizenship to help offset the net cost of 20k per year each cost in public welfare. This would reduced the price of drugs to where the average American citizen could afford good coke, just like the elites and Politicians, This will also reduce the price of creak for our poorer citizens, and make their life more enjoyable. But I fear legalizing drugs will be beyond even Obama. The drugs lords have so many Billions due to high prices , to share with our Politicians to keep our borders open for drugs, illegal immigrants, and terrorist to pour across, that the special interests will never let him legalize drugs. I know Obama, you will do your best and that is all we can ask!

Posted by: american1 | February 8, 2008 10:01 PM | Report abuse

iowatreasure, I have read the various stories of the Rekzo thing with Obama. It will be interesting to hear Mr. Rezko's story in two weeks on the stand. I'll be listening for the truth. If I am wrong, then I will tell you that I am. I promise.

Posted by: meldupree | February 8, 2008 9:55 PM | Report abuse

svreader, I wouldn't trust Obama if he said he HADN'T done drugs as a teenager.

Those of us under 50 grew up in a drug saturated culture. All the stories of hardcore drug use in the 60's had the effect of normalizing it for us. So we had to learn the hard way. The "brown acid" of Woodstock as a joke. Cheech and Chong. Steve Martin. John Belushi. Look at pop culture before 1985 and you'll see drugs everywhere. What do you think was the point of the freaking "war on drugs?"

That may be offensive to some people who live in small towns or rural areas, but it's the truth for urban dwellers. Drug use was "normal" in the 70's and 80's. If you didn't use drugs, you knew someone who did. It isn't pretty, it isn't smart, but it's the truth.

Remember how hollow it sounded when Bill Clinton said he smoked pot but didn't inhale? Yeah right. We believe that.

Obama's bald faced confession of drug use, to those of us who grew up in the same time and culture, is not a Scarlet Letter. It's a Red Badge of Courage. The fact that he has faced and accepted a very dark time in his life, and grown from it, and moved on to become something remarkable, should be, and is, a point of pride.

Obama is not a coke head. He's one of many survivors of a toxic culture. You don't have to like it, but you should at least accept it and stop spreading malicious mistruth.

Posted by: terri_shea | February 8, 2008 9:51 PM | Report abuse

iowatreasure, I am not a "Mac" fan (I love my Mac computer and iPod), and the conservatives hate McCain, but they hate the Clintons more. The Clintons are so divisive and so controversial, they will drive independents and conservatives to McCain. If the varying groups of people who are "fired up" and "ready to go" sit out or not vote for HRC in the general election, then the DNC will have itself to blame for yet another white house loss.

Posted by: meldupree | February 8, 2008 9:49 PM | Report abuse

meldupree:

I have told you before about the author who was on CSPAN2, who wrote a book, the sub-title was "Why Obama can't win."

That author knew Obama in the Harvard days, and he said that Obama would talk to the conservatives saying what they wanted to hear and talk to the liberals saying what they wanted to hear.

Obama wasn't appointed to the position for good deeds or good works or good marks on his exams, Obamawon the election for President of the Harvard Law Review by pandering - by saying whatever it took to get elected.

As soon as Obama got out of school, and I am hearing lately, even before he got out of Harvard, he became friends/associates of Tony Rezko.

You know who he is. Even though Obama was tight friends with Rezko for 17 years, Obama lied during a recent debate and said he "only did about five hours worth of work for Rezko."

What was bothersome about that response was how quickly Obama conjured up that lie and spit it out as though he believed that lie.

Obama wrote letters when he was an Illinois State Senator, on his Illinois State Senate Letterhead on behalf of Rezko that netted Rezko fourteen million dollars in taxpayer funds paid to Rezko.

Obama also sat in on REzko business meetings to influence potential investors.

Now, you can draw your own conclusions about Obama's current astronomical campaign contributions ability after you know this:

Rezko was picked up by the FBI recently and is being confined, pending trial on Feb. 25th on "influence peddling" and other charges.

Rezko heads the Arab American association in Illinois.

Rezko is from Syria.

Rezko receives huge amounts of money from people in the middle east.

Rezko being from Syria isn't the issue, and Rezko being head of the Arab American association in Illinois isn't a big issue, but those things along with the rest of the story does make it all an issue.

McCain will have all the blanks filled in if Obama ever becomes our nominee for the Democratic Party.

When are the people ever going to get smart and not fall into the devious plans of the Republicans.

Obama can't beat McCain - Hillary can, and the Republicans know it. gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 8, 2008 9:49 PM | Report abuse

For all you truth sekers about Obama's true record, whether his supporters or hillary's please view the following.

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

Posted by: rayacop | February 8, 2008 9:47 PM | Report abuse

looks like the paid hillary posters are out in full force tonight. The worst things dems could do would be to nominate her. Time poll out today: McCain/Hillary even, Obama beats him by 7.

Posted by: gkroehm | February 8, 2008 9:43 PM | Report abuse

iowatreasure, I have been married for nearly twenty years to a wonderful woman. I know one thing: if I ever cheated, I know the marriage will be done. How do I know? We had the conversation prior to getting married.

HRC's choice to remain married to someone with a zipper problem, yet she coordinates (according to former Atlanta mayor Andrew Young) the "defense team" to suppress the "bimbo eruptions." In clinical-speak, that is called enabling behavior. Bill has a problem with marital fidelity; HRC tolerates the foolishness. Not a sign of a strong woman to me.

I can completely understand Mrs. Obama not being willing to support HRC/Bill. Remember the Rovian wedge politics employed by Bill? Remember how Bill attacked Obama in New Hampshire? Remember how the various surrogates, tokens, lackeys, stooges, henches, hatchet people and toadies attacked Obama and the Clintons stood on stages and platforms and failed to disavow the attacks? It's like someone just urinated on me and tries to tell me "it's raining." I don't support the Clintons either. The Clintons seem to have the brand name, the political juggernaut, the money (until lately), and the Democratic establishment support to win without Obama and the Obamanuts. Why do they need Obama?

I like Michelle Obama, she'd be a fine First Lady!

Posted by: meldupree | February 8, 2008 9:42 PM | Report abuse

So svreader, you are a multimillionaire who has helped to lead large firms, deals with the highest-paid lawyers around the country, and have been a big mover and shaker in the Democratic Party for a long time?

But yet you spend 24/7 posting on the internet? Color me skeptical.

Posted by: steveboyington | February 8, 2008 9:38 PM | Report abuse

Gov. Christine Gregoire, barely beat her Republican opponent in a hotly contested race that ended up in the courts. It was determined she won by only 133 votes, in a mostly Demo state. I don't think her endorsement will impress anyone, except those who are already Obama supporters.

Posted by: autowx | February 8, 2008 9:36 PM | Report abuse

steveboyington:

Just because Obama wrote about his cocaine use in his book, and he didn't lie about it, doesn't mean it wasn't a crime when he was sniffing that cocaine, and it doesn't mean he didn't set a very, very bad example for young people.

Just because he wasn't caught doing cocaine, doesn't mean he wasn't commiting a crime while he was doing it. It just shows he got away with a serious crime. gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 8, 2008 9:34 PM | Report abuse

Iowatreasure cracks me up. Does he/she actually read what he/she posts? Who would think they were credible at all?

Anyone should root for their candidate. I root for Obama. I'd like to think I find good things to say about him and criticisms of HRC without lying and distortion.

People, go out and vote this weekend and on Tuesday. Vote because you think one candidate is better than the other. Don't be foolish enough to take 99% of the crap posted on these boards seriously.

Posted by: steveboyington | February 8, 2008 9:32 PM | Report abuse

Meldupree:

The voters are not interested in what you are talking about.

The voters are interested in not having a war president, McCain.

The voters are interested in not having someone who lies, such as Obama.

The voters want someone who has a steady hand and will bring health care for all Americans, as well as investing in science to cure human ills, and trust around the world, and most of all ending the war in Iraq.

Sorry, guy, I like it better when you write things that make me chuckle. gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 8, 2008 9:31 PM | Report abuse

marmac5:

You sound as arrogant and pompous and self-serving as Barack and Michelle Obama.

Michelle had the audacity of criticizing Hillary's marriage to Bill Clinton.

Michelle had the audacity of saying she would not support Hillary if she won the nomination.

Barack Obama said his supporters would never vote for Hillary, but Hillary's supporters would vote for him.

That is arrogance at its highest level.

The person you were criticizing was trying to make a legitimate point about this election. Your chastizing of that individual reminds me of when Michelle Obama speaks.

She leans forward at the lecturn with a deep worried look, chastizing her audience. It is unpleasant and uncomfortable to watch.

Your criticisms on a low level are unpleasant to watch. gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 8, 2008 9:28 PM | Report abuse

iowatreasure, I am aware that you dislike Obama, second only to my disdain for Hillary and Bill. This couple is no the paradigm of virtue or character or integrity. Bill hung Lani Guinier out to dry when Congress balked at confirming her as the No. 3 at Justice (despite the facts this accomplished woman was a Yale Law School classmate and was a bridesmaid at the Clinton wedding). The Clintons will throw friends under the bus if it suits their needs and purposes. Billed lied about the draft-dodging letter (google it and read it; it shows how the man's mind works). The White House scandals, not created by the so-called "vast right-wing conspiracy" but of the Clintons' overweening ambition and quest for power. Can't have another four years of that!

Posted by: meldupree | February 8, 2008 9:28 PM | Report abuse

meld --

I have nothing against Obama accomplishments. I'm just not impressed. Obama supporters seem to think Obama's the only guy who ever went to Harvard Law or was on the Law Review. Lots of people were. The fact that Obama is Black has nothing to do with anything. The question is who can do a better job running the country.

Lots of people get impressed by Obama because they've never seen a top-end sales guy. I have. I've worked with them, hired them and fired them.

Most of them are nothing but hot air.

Obama is a human souflee

He's going to droop and Democrats can't afford to lose.

I'm sorry, but that's just the way it is.

Hillary is a much stronger candidate.

She's a far better operating manager.

She's got both better vision and is more detail-oriented.

She's the best candidate by a country mile.

We need the best President we can get.

That's what we get with Hillary.

Posted by: svreader | February 8, 2008 9:26 PM | Report abuse

Ahhh svreader, never change. Though occasionally change your posts. The 500 or so a day you post for Hillary get pretty repetitive.

One big difference between Obama and HRC is that when Obama does something wrong, he tends to take the issue on, admit his mistake, and get it over with. Most of the time, it is not the initial misdeed but the coverup and the lying to avoid simply owning up to an error that does damage.

When people screech about his cocaine use as a teen it makes me laugh. Anyone who has followed the election knows about it. Obama told everyone about it in a book, for crying out loud! He does nothing to hide it or lie about it.

Has he lost votes? Probably. Has he shown guts in admitting his past drug use? Certainly. His honesty has made it a non-issue. He is inoculated against it... and HRC knows it.

Why doesn't SHE bring it up? Because it would make her seem desperate. Instead, she does the most dishonorable thing... she has her surrogates mention it, and her paid staffers post about it all over the internet.

I'd rather have someone lead my country that doesn't mind admitting a mistake, and who likes to take problems head-on, rather than rely on backchannel attacks.

Posted by: steveboyington | February 8, 2008 9:25 PM | Report abuse

Marie4:

Obama's past mistakes and poor choices of smoking pot and sniffing cocaine are not old news and nothing to worry about.

Obama wrote in his book about those days when he was a criminal sniffing cocaine.

Obama wrote a book entitled, "Audacity of Hope," which is a title of a sermon his pastor, Wright, and Obama was a member of that church for 20 years. Obama calls it a Christian Church. Wright calls it a pro-black church, and an anti-Israel church.

Obama is the one who went to a college in New Hampshire and spoke to the students there telling them about his drug ingestion days. The students thought Obama was "cool." It started a "youth movement" for Obama.

I don't think many adults thought Obama was "cool." I guess Obama's daughters will think their daddy is a "cool" President if he ever gets in the White House.

And, then, how are Barack and Michelle going to convince their daughters that smoking pot and snuffing cocaine isn't "cool?"

Just asking . . . gw

Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 8, 2008 9:22 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps you should check your facts, as in fact it is President, not editor, of HLR.

And clearly, you just don't get it and never will. Hillary Clinton is a fine candidate and there are many reasons to vote for her. Demonizing the person millions of people cite as the reason they are being inspired to be active in politics is a bad move and detracts from her positives.

Posted by: jmijin | February 8, 2008 9:22 PM | Report abuse

Shailagh Murray wrote the following sentence: "The Obama campaign views
Washington as an ideal playing field, well stocked with the progressives, professionals and youg voters who have gflocked to the Illinois senator in previous contents." Poor sentence construction. Washington voters have never been able to vote in Illinois elections. If Ms. Murray is referring to some of those who voted for Senator Obama in others states, she should have said so. I thought that reporter should have some command of the English language.

Posted by: marmac5 | February 8, 2008 9:20 PM | Report abuse

svreader, stop the Clintonian distortion! Shame on you! Obama graduated from Harvard Law, and was elected president of its Law Review. Do you have any idea what it takes to make a university's law review, never mind its head? Obama's ticket was punched and he could have gone anywhere to make a serious six-figure salary. Obama goes to Chicago and becomes a community activist with serious credentials. Don't minimize the man's accomplishments; if this was HRC with the credentials, you'd post them in gold. So stop hating on Obama and his accomplishments.

Posted by: meldupree | February 8, 2008 9:19 PM | Report abuse

The arena where Obama spoke today was at max capacity 2 or 3 hours beforehand; thousands of early arrivers discovered that they were too late to get in and left. Pretty amazing to see the excitement he generates.
Meanwhile, a protester was tossed out of Hillary's Seattle event last night at the request of the Hillary's campaign staff before Hillary got there. Get this: the woman brought a megaphone! But even after she offered to give up her cheerleader's prop, the Seattle Police ejected her, handed her over to the Secret Servic for ID check and then tossed her not only outside, but completely off the property!
This was a FREE POLITICAL RALLY, not a fundraiser, where people pay money to get in the door. Seems that Hillary, like Bush, doesn't tolerate diverse opinions being aired near her message. I remember when Hillary billed her campaign as the beginning of a conversation between her and the American people. That lasted a news cycle or two. Now, it's all stagecraft.
She didn't take any questions either, especially from un-adoring voters.
Her message out in Seattle and Tacoma is that we need to elect her because she will bring Universal Healthcare. That ssems to be her 24/7 message here. She and her supporters run the risk of becoming a one-issue candidacy. She was the last candidate lsst year to offer her health care plan, and a watered down version of her 1993 plan at that. Since there is nothing really innovative in her plan when it is compared to Obama's or other Democrats I suggest Democrats nominate Obama for president so Hillary can focus on developing a healthcare proposal to propose to President Obama. McCain and the GOP are going to tear herl up over ethics and money raising, over her war vote, the divisiveness of politics when Bill was president.
Obama is much more difficult for the GOP to wtrap their hands around without alienating the moderate and independent voters that McCain needs.

Posted by: Anadromous2 | February 8, 2008 9:18 PM | Report abuse

meldupree:

You apparently didn't read any of my comments on Obama's shady dealing back ground.

Obama broke the rules of honesty and integrity in Iowa, just as he broke the rules of honesty and integrity in Florida.

Obama's out of state paid campaign workers half way filled out registration forms at the site of the caucus, the night of the caucus, upon entering the caucus site, with people in Iowa thinking that people who were registering were honest and could be trusted. But they were paid Obama operatives that left the state as soon as the caucus voting was over.

In Alaska, I read that 22 votes would equal one delegate. In California it takes 9,000 votes to get a delegate.

It doesn't take very many paid Obama operatives voting in the caucuses and then leaving the state again, to make Obama look very popular in the caucuses.

Some day, someone will put two and two together and find that Obama's beginning popularity was manufactured and the swooning media helped it along.

Obama doesn't care what dirty tricks he has to employ to win. It doesn't bother him at all.

Obama shows absolutely no inclination to be cooperative in any way.

It is Obama's way, or no way. Didn't I hear that somewhere before? Maybe Bush?

If the DNC lets Obama get away with anything, that will bother me. Because Obama "won" more states, most of which are caucus states, that will be the ruination of the Democratic party.

Obama and his wife say they won't support Hillary if she is the nominee, so why should any of Hillary supporters support Obama to be the V.P. nominee.

I don't like Obama, at all, I don't want to see him and Michelle Obama on my t.v. set for the next four years, either as President or Vice President, and I will write my comments until hell freezes over to see that people really understand the guy they think is so wonderful - isn't. gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 8, 2008 9:15 PM | Report abuse

BTW, whoever said the post doesn't mention Marion Barry's endorsement is wrong. And, if you know DC, you know that (1) Barry is more than a drug-addict to the people there, he effected change for the poorest people; and (2)Obama also has the current mayor's endorsement.

Posted by: Marie4 | February 8, 2008 9:15 PM | Report abuse

I never voted for Bush, but I'd be glad to vote to Impeach him.

Lots of people have been editor of the Harvard law review. They have a new editor every year. Its "editor" not "president".

I have personal experience with Harvard Lawyers. They aren't any better or worse than any other lawyers I've dealt with.

A guy who was editor of the Harvard Law Review lost millions of my dollars in a case once so you'll excuse me if I'm not impressed.

We've got to stop electing coke-heads.

It hasn't been working out.


Posted by: svreader | February 8, 2008 9:14 PM | Report abuse

iowatreasure, you make me LOLLOL!! svreader can get quite surly and utilizes the personal low-blow route with the worst of us. You are quite free in your reading preferences, but please don't defend svreader into denial.

Posted by: meldupree | February 8, 2008 9:12 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's endorsements are front page news when they are significant people. For example, how can HRC supports say with a straight face that HRC being endorsed by Kathleen Kennedy-Towson (who? exactly.) deserved the same space as Obama being endorsed by the democratic powerhouse that is Ted Kennedy?

Earlier, the Washington Post had as one of its lead stories HRC's threatened protest of MSNBC. While the underlying story was unfortunate (Chelsea should not be criticized for helping her mom), the story itself was rather pro-Clinton, in the sense that, it pointed out how this journalist had unfairly (and unethically) attacked HRC.

Obama's drug use at 18 is a non-issue. And I am glad that he was forthcoming about it "that was the point" as opposed to "i didn't inhale."

As for California and Massachusetts -don't believe the spin. Obama started out down by double-digits in both places, and it was a great showing that he closed the gap in both states. Besides, though narrowly, he also managed to win the bellweather state (Missouri), and states all over the country.

(Related aside: I would hate for this thing to come down to superdelegates. It wouldn't be fair if he OR she were ahead and had the nomination taken from them by backroom politics)

I am a proud Obama supporter. I believe he shows the best judgment; has done more, in and out of elected office than HRC; and is a less divisive figure. I am not going to try to convince people who are die-hard HRC fans; I cannot be convinced that she is ethical, capable or experienced.

I will just donate everytime someone says something that is unfair or wreaks of bigotry, even if just a $1. That way, you don't win!

Obama '08

Posted by: Marie4 | February 8, 2008 9:10 PM | Report abuse

so the best thing he has going is that he's well dressed and well spoken? Not that he was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review? Or that he is an inspiration to millions of first generation Americans? People like you are outdated and will be the ones left behind. Maybe you should look in a mirror before you call Obama supporters the divisive ones.

And I believe our current President did more than a few lines of cocaine but people were all too happy to elect him- twice.

Posted by: jmijin | February 8, 2008 9:09 PM | Report abuse

And when Hillary gets beaten by McCain, I will make the following sticker: "DON'T BLAME ME, I SUPPORTED OBAMA!"

Posted by: meldupree | February 8, 2008 9:08 PM | Report abuse

meldupree: You aren't making me chuckle today. I don't like anyone picking on Sveader. Sveader has his/her own opinions and rightfully so. Sveader does not attack on a personal basis, and I like reading what he has to say.

gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 8, 2008 9:06 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is much more electable than "nose candy man"

Hillary will win.

Obama supporters will be on the outside looking in.

They could have been part of the team, but missed their chance.

They chose poorly.

Posted by: svreader | February 8, 2008 9:04 PM | Report abuse

MsRita: Your observation is fine, but I wanted to tell you of a like situation here in Iowa.

Obama had several thousand students at a rally in a larger Iowa city, and out of those thousands of students, nine signed up to join his campaign. gw.

yes, iowatreasure and I do recall Obama won Iowa, too. meldupree

Posted by: meldupree | February 8, 2008 9:03 PM | Report abuse

Gregoire's endorsement of Obama in Washington reminds me of something.

Massachusettes Jr. Senator Kerry, and Massachusettes Sr. Senator Ted Kennedy endorsed Obama, had a humongous crowd at the American University, traveled around and attended rallies with him, and what happened?

Obama lost Massachuttes.

Then, Oprah Winfrey, Maria Shriver, Caroline Kennedy, Michelle Obama campaigned for and/or endorsed Obama in California and what happened?

Obama lost California.

I was around when Obama won the caucus in Iowa and observed his shady way of winning it. His campaign workers that came from out of state to work for him, paid workers at that, signed the registration form the night of the caucus, entered the caucus and voted and encouraged other voters to vote for Obama.

Not exactly kosher - but he got away with it. I don't know how other state's caucuses work, but I am sure he does.

Obama said in Iowa, "I know how to win elections."

I didn't trust Obama then and I don't trust Obama now. McCain will make mincemeat of Obama and we will be stuck with another "war president" who says he will reinstitute the draft and we will be in Iraq for another hundred years.

How will McCain beat Obama? Because of the 17 year relationship of Obama/Rezko. If you don't know about all of that, you should. You can find out for yourself on Google/REzko, or the Chicago Tribune Jan. 27th issue of their newspaper.

If you don't learn about it now - you will learn about it when McCain gets hold of him.

Hillary is the safe, steady, secure bet. McCain can't hurt Hillary. Any of her "negatives" aren't nearly as bad as his war mongering rhetoric. gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 8, 2008 9:03 PM | Report abuse

svreader, you amaze me, but I am not surprised. I know the story that displays Solomon's wisdom. However, your analogy is quite flawed in that none of the candidates possess Solomonic wisdom or virtue (none of them have seven hundred spouses or three hundred concubines, with possible exception to Bill Clinton on the concubines).

The truth of the matter is that according to the polls posted on realclearpolitics.com, Hillary will lose the election to McCain, despite his willingness to remain in Iraq for a century. Unfortunately, Hillary and Bill Clintons symbolize the divisiveness of politics. A Clinton nomination will galvanize and radicalize the conservative base around McCain (who hate him with a passion), and then you will witness McCain being "President-elect McCain". Then your hopes of universal healthcare goes buh-bye. So if the DNC and the Clintonistas care to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, then, as my late grandmother said, "help yourselves." Be my guests.

Hillary Clinton is unelectable. Period.

Posted by: meldupree | February 8, 2008 9:01 PM | Report abuse

jmijin --

I personally don't care what Obama's shoved up his nose and how recently he's done it, but middle America doesn't take kindly to cocaine use.

Obama underwhelms me.

I've read all his policy proposals and they universally miss the point.

His health care plan doesn't provide universal coverage or any cost savings.

The best thing he has going for him is that he dresses nicely and speaks well.

So does my realtor.

He isn't qualified to be President either.

Posted by: svreader | February 8, 2008 8:56 PM | Report abuse

MsRita: Your observation is fine, but I wanted to tell you of a like situation here in Iowa.

Obama had several thousand students at a rally in a larger Iowa city, and out of those thousands of students, nine signed up to join his campaign. gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 8, 2008 8:54 PM | Report abuse

svreader get over yourself. His drug use was when he was EIGHTEEN, by my count, almost 30 years ago. Do you want people to judge you by what you did 30 years ago? Or would you rather he lie and say he didn't inhale? get a grip.

Posted by: jmijin | February 8, 2008 8:52 PM | Report abuse

Obama is unelectable in a general election.

"Should I vote for the war hero or the coke-head?"

is too hard a hill to climb. Americans won't elect Obama once they find out the extent of his drug use.

It wasn't just once or twice.

It was a lot.

Posted by: svreader | February 8, 2008 8:43 PM | Report abuse

People need to get over the divisional politics. Its not women vs man, young vs old. Need a candidate who is sincere and trustworthy and will do good for America in the long run. Clintons and Bush families did get their chance. Now We need a candidate who can win the general election. Who can winover McCain. America is tired and bruised from the war. Save lives, Save America. Vote for change!
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/08/20008.matchups.schneider/

Posted by: pk_here | February 8, 2008 8:35 PM | Report abuse

godness888 --

Gong-shi fat-tai, shing-yen-qui-la!!!

Posted by: svreader | February 8, 2008 8:30 PM | Report abuse

Happy African Chinese American New Year History Month!!!

Posted by: JakeD | February 8, 2008 8:28 PM | Report abuse

Go ahead, Hillary, all American-born Chinese & other asian guys/gals wish you to succeed in the primary asap!!

Posted by: godness888 | February 8, 2008 8:18 PM | Report abuse

IT IS WAY OVER THE TIME LIMIT TO WORRY ABOUT B C AND HIS BODY FLUIDS, OR ARE YOU GUYS JUST SO FRUSTRATED!!!!!!!

HOW ABOUT CONCENTRATING ON THE 900 OR MORE LIES GWB HAS FED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THESE PAST YEARS AND MC CAIN WILL PICK UP THE TORCH AND GO FOR IT.

WE SHOULD REALLY LOOK INTO OBAMA'S $991,000 INCOME HE ADMITS TO. BUT YOU CAN BET PLENTY OVER AND ABOVE THAT AMOUNT WENT SOUTH. & WHO PAYS FOR THE HEAT IN HIS TWO MILLION DOLLAR COTTAGE. WHAT OTHER INEXPERIENCED POLITICAL ANIMAL CAN COME CLOSE. THE SENATE MUST BE LOUSY WITH MONEY IF HE IS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT A FIRST TIME SENATOR CAN RACK UP!

Posted by: LOONYBIN2000 | February 8, 2008 8:13 PM | Report abuse

I'll accept Obama as VP for the good of the party.

Obama supporters need to read the story of Solomon.

Then they'll understand why Clinton supporters want them on the ticket.

The baby is the Presidency and the future of the American people.

You want to "split the baby"

We want it to live and grow up to be strong.

We are Democrats.

You are Obama-nauts.

This is the Democratic Party.

Not the "cult of Obama!!!"

Posted by: svreader | February 8, 2008 8:11 PM | Report abuse

svreader, there you are! You keep flipping faster than I can flip pancakes! First you say "say no to Obama" then you want Obama on the veep with HRC. What do you want??? Make up your mind already!!!

My mind is clear: OBAMA in '08. NO MORE CLINTONS - EVER!

Posted by: meldupree | February 8, 2008 8:07 PM | Report abuse

MsRita --

Keep telling us how old and stupid we are.
Its a really great way to get people to vote for your candidate.

Say no to Cocaine. Say no to Obama!!!

Posted by: svreader | February 8, 2008 7:49 PM | Report abuse

when All Coulter tells me that Hillary is more conservative than John McCain I have to believe her. After all isn't she an expert on what a conservative is?

Is anyone wondering how someone who claims she has spent the last 35 years humbly serving the public has $5 million in cash sitting around to throw into her restoration campaign? It makes you wonder why she is sparing us the release of her tax returns until she sews up the nomination.

Posted by: dmooney | February 8, 2008 7:46 PM | Report abuse

Ha Ha Washinton State today rallies. Obama 17,000 in arena 3,000 outside. Hillary 3,000 Senior Citizens

Posted by: MsRita | February 8, 2008 7:46 PM | Report abuse

Haven't we learned from California that none of this matters? Every Democrat from JFK to John Kerry endorsed Mr. Gantry and he still lost by 10 points.


Just so you know independant votes have not been counted. Their was a box at the top of the ballot that they should have checked. Most didn't check it so their votes don't count.

150,000 Votes. THE BALLOT WAS FLAWED. MY BALLOT WAS MISSING MEASURE S. IT PASSED 58% FOR A TAX ON INTERNET ACCESS AND CELL PHONE BILLS.

Posted by: MsRita | February 8, 2008 7:44 PM | Report abuse

I live on the Idaho/Washington border and I can attest to Gregoire popularity and pull with Washington liberals. However, Obama had Washington long before this endorsement. Gregoire knows that by getting behind Obama, she's guaranteeing herself loyalty from her voters. By going for Clinton, she would be going against the grain of Washington State politics. I'm surprised Cantwell went for Clinton. Clinton is the opposite of progressive and optimistic, which is at the core of Northwest liberal politics. Obama is going to sweep the northwest, and he's already started with Idaho and Alaska.

Posted by: thecrisis | February 8, 2008 7:42 PM | Report abuse

APPARENTLY, THE WASH.POST HAS NEGLECTED TO MENTION ANOTHER "EXCITING" ENDORSEMENT BY FORMER MAYOR MARION BARRY OF WASHINGTON, D.C. FOR BARACK OBAMA. REMEMBER MAYOR MARION BARRY, ACCUSED AND CONVICTED OF USING ILLEGAL DRUGS AND OTHER ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES? HAD HE ENDORSED HILLARY CLINTON, I FEEL CONFIDENT IT WOULD BE FRONT-PAGE NEWS.

IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE NEWS MEDIA IS BIASED AND IN FAVOR OF OBAMA. I WILL NOT LET THE MEDIA INFLUENCE MY DECISION TO VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON. AND, IF OBAMA GETS THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION, I WILL BE VOTING FOR MCCAIN. It is that simple.

Posted by: jbh13 | February 8, 2008 7:40 PM | Report abuse

only complete fools can believe Clinton's promises of the universal health care. they had promised once, they had goten elected, they had failed more than miserable. So, you fooled me once, shame on you! But if you fooled me twice, it is SHAME ON ME. Why do Washington, Nebraska and other voters want to be ashamed? Who in right mind would believe ANY of Clinton's promises, especially those about health care? People, respect yourself, and do not vote these bloodthirsty version of Bonnie and Clyde back into White House. Obama in 2008!!!

Posted by: aepelbaum | February 8, 2008 7:39 PM | Report abuse

Haven't we learned from California that none of this matters? Every Democrat from JFK to John Kerry endorsed Mr. Gantry and he still lost by 10 points.

Posted by: lpeter59 | February 8, 2008 7:27 PM | Report abuse

WHY IS IT EVERY SINGLE ENDORSEMENT OBAMA GET GETS A NICE BIG HEADLINE ON TOP OF THE WASHINGTONPOST.COM SITE AND EVERY ENDORSEMENT HILLARY GETS IS IGNORED? ANSWER:BECAUSE THE EDITORS AT THE WASHINGTON POST ARE A BUNCH OF BIASED JOURNALISTS WHO DON'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT BEING FAIR TO BOTH SIDES. ALL THE CARE ABOUT IS IMPREESSING THEIR PREDOMINENTALY BLACK READERSHIP BASE. YOU GUYS ARE JOURNALISTIC SCUM BAGS!!!

Posted by: lounatick8 | February 8, 2008 7:23 PM | Report abuse

This is NOT for JackSmith1, who has never responded to my questions on his spam post whenever it pops up here:

For anyone actually interested in why it seems like the U.S. healthcare is so "poor", infant mortality rates are so "high" etc.:

http://www.ocregister.com/ocr/2005/03/16/sections/commentary/orange_grove/article_443950.php

Posted by: JakeD | February 8, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

Bottom Line:

Like all of you. I know that health care is the most critical, and important issue facing the American people. Now, and in the coming elections. And like the vast majority of the American people, I want HR 676 (Medicare For All) passed into law NOW! "Single payer, Tax Supported, Not For Profit, True Universal Health Care" free for all as a right. Like every other developed country in the world has. See: http://www.house.gov/conyers/news_hr676.htm

"HR 676:
For church goers: less money to insur. companies and more to the church- lots more.
Srs on Medicare: save way over $100/wk. Because no more medigap, long term care & dental insur. needed. No more drug bills."

But if we the American people fail to bring enough pressure on our current politicians to get HR 676 passed into law before the elections. We will have to identify, and replace all the politicians standing in the way of passage of HR 676. And, I think the best first place to start is with the politicians that blocked the bipartisan SCHIP bills for the kids. Passed by congress four times.

But what about the President. It was Bush after all that blocked the bipartisan SCHIP bill passed by congress to assure more health coverage for Americas kids. So which of the presidential hopefuls do I think will be most supportive of implementing the demand of the majority of the American people to have HR 676 (Medicare For All) passed into law immediately!

We have some very fine presidential candidates who would make good presidents. But none of the top Presidential candidates directly support HR 676, the only true Universal Health Care plan. So I am supporting Hillary Clinton. She is the only top candidate that has ever actually fought for universal health care before.

I have enormous admiration, and respect for Hillary Clinton. She fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds back in 1993. To prevent this disastrous health care crisis that is now devastating the American people, and America. She fought so hard for the American people that she risk almost completely destroying her husbands presidency. I haven't forgotten her heroic effort. If any Presidential hopeful for universal health care deserves my support, it's her.

Also, if we the American people fail to bring enough pressure on our government to give us HR 676 which we all so desperately need NOW! Then we will need the most skilled politician we can get on our side to broker the best health care plan for the American people that we can get. Though it will be less than we need, and less than we deserve. The politician I think to best do this is Hillary Clinton. The Clinton's are probably the most skilled politicians in American history.

The insurance industry, and medical industry that has been ripping you off, and killing you has given Hillary Clinton so much money because they fear her. They have also given Barack Obama so much money because they fear Hillary Clinton. They think they can manipulate Barack Obama against the best interest of the American people better than they can manipulate Hillary Clinton. There is no race issue with Hillary Clinton. The Clinton's are the poster family for how African Americans want white people to be towards African Americans.

As always, African Americans are suffering, and dieing in this health care crisis at a much higher rate than any other group in America. The last time there was any significant drop in the African American death rate was when Bill Clinton was president.

My fellow Americans, you are dieing needlessly at an astounding rate. In higher numbers than any other people in the developed world. Rich, and poor a like. Insured, and uninsured. Young, and old. Men, women, children, and babies. And we the American people must stop it. And fix it NOW! Keep Fighting!!! Never! give up hope. There are millions of lives at stake. Bless you all... You are doing great!

Posted by: JackSmith1 | February 8, 2008 7:14 PM | Report abuse

Bottom Line:

Like all of you. I know that health care is the most critical, and important issue facing the American people. Now, and in the coming elections. And like the vast majority of the American people, I want HR 676 (Medicare For All) passed into law NOW! "Single payer, Tax Supported, Not For Profit, True Universal Health Care" free for all as a right. Like every other developed country in the world has. See: http://www.house.gov/conyers/news_hr676.htm

"HR 676:
For church goers: less money to insur. companies and more to the church- lots more.
Srs on Medicare: save way over $100/wk. Because no more medigap, long term care & dental insur. needed. No more drug bills."

But if we the American people fail to bring enough pressure on our current politicians to get HR 676 passed into law before the elections. We will have to identify, and replace all the politicians standing in the way of passage of HR 676. And, I think the best first place to start is with the politicians that blocked the bipartisan SCHIP bills for the kids. Passed by congress four times.

But what about the President. It was Bush after all that blocked the bipartisan SCHIP bill passed by congress to assure more health coverage for Americas kids. So which of the presidential hopefuls do I think will be most supportive of implementing the demand of the majority of the American people to have HR 676 (Medicare For All) passed into law immediately!

We have some very fine presidential candidates who would make good presidents. But none of the top Presidential candidates directly support HR 676, the only true Universal Health Care plan. So I am supporting Hillary Clinton. She is the only top candidate that has ever actually fought for universal health care before.

I have enormous admiration, and respect for Hillary Clinton. She fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds back in 1993. To prevent this disastrous health care crisis that is now devastating the American people, and America. She fought so hard for the American people that she risk almost completely destroying her husbands presidency. I haven't forgotten her heroic effort. If any Presidential hopeful for universal health care deserves my support, it's her.

Also, if we the American people fail to bring enough pressure on our government to give us HR 676 which we all so desperately need NOW! Then we will need the most skilled politician we can get on our side to broker the best health care plan for the American people that we can get. Though it will be less than we need, and less than we deserve. The politician I think to best do this is Hillary Clinton. The Clinton's are probably the most skilled politicians in American history.

The insurance industry, and medical industry that has been ripping you off, and killing you has given Hillary Clinton so much money because they fear her. They have also given Barack Obama so much money because they fear Hillary Clinton. They think they can manipulate Barack Obama against the best interest of the American people better than they can manipulate Hillary Clinton. There is no race issue with Hillary Clinton. The Clinton's are the poster family for how African Americans want white people to be towards African Americans.

As always, African Americans are suffering, and dieing in this health care crisis at a much higher rate than any other group in America. The last time there was any significant drop in the African American death rate was when Bill Clinton was president.

My fellow Americans, you are dieing needlessly at an astounding rate. In higher numbers than any other people in the developed world. Rich, and poor a like. Insured, and uninsured. Young, and old. Men, women, children, and babies. And we the American people must stop it. And fix it NOW! Keep Fighting!!! Never! give up hope. There are millions of lives at stake. Bless you all... You are doing great!

Posted by: JackSmith1 | February 8, 2008 7:12 PM | Report abuse

Let's harness the excitement we're seeing among Democrats for BOTH amazing candidates. Sign the petition to Howard Dean and the DNC at http://www.16yearplan.com

Posted by: steven4 | February 8, 2008 7:06 PM | Report abuse

Not to worry, we still have Super Delegates and these could allow us to enjoy four more years of the Bill and Hillary Show.

The accomplished insincerity, Bill wagging his finger in our faces and the Media reporting every out of wedlock emission of his bodily fluids.

What's not to like?

Forget about the Special Interest Fluffing, continued devaluation of the American Dollar (aka New World Peso), no organic growth or jobs and the fact your great-great grandchildren will be born in debt.

Don't question the non-representative Agenda, just sit back and enjoy four more years of the Bill and Hillary Show.

Posted by: x32792 | February 8, 2008 7:02 PM | Report abuse

As long as neither Obama nor Clinton get 2,025 delegates too soon before the Convention, I'm happy as a clam.

Posted by: JakeD | February 8, 2008 5:33 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company