Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Low Turnout in Louisiana Worries Obama Camp

By Anne E. Kornblut
Reports of low turnout in Louisiana caused a wave of concern in the Obama campaign on an otherwise smooth primary and caucus day in four states on Saturday. Although Sen. Barack Obama is expected to fare well in Louisiana, where about 45 percent of registered Democrats are African American, low turnout could drive down his numbers. The state has 66 delegates for the Democratic nomination.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton skipped Louisiana, even though it has become a symbolic touchstone for Democrats following the government response to Hurricane Katrina. Instead she sent her husband to campaign for her there while chasing better bets in Maine, which holds its caucus on Sunday, and Virginia.

By Washington Post editors  |  February 9, 2008; 5:09 PM ET
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Huckabee Draws Large Crowd at Univ. of Maryland
Next: A Parting Gift for Romney


"Again, most African-Americans voted only on the basis of skin color. 86% of African-American voters supported Barack Hussein Obama in Louisiana"

Perhaps, I should point out as someone who has spent 2 years in post-Katrina New Orleans, you might consider the fact that Obama (and Edwards) has made campaign promises regarding the rebuilding of LA. Clinton has completely ignored the fact ("skipped Louisiana") that the current administration has done little to help rebuild after the worst natural disaster in American history. Unless you have seen New Orleans since, which I doubt based on that comment, you can't begin to understand what this city has been through and the obstacles it continues to face right now. For those of us who have seen the Ninth Ward, Gentilly, Slidell, and other areas that still look like war zones, it would be unthinkable to vote for a candidate who will do nothing to help us bring back our beloved city.

Posted by: fierydragonfli | February 11, 2008 5:07 AM | Report abuse

@blueboat "Hillary Clinton has broad appeal to all ethnic groups except for racist African-Americans"

and moderate Republicans and independents of all races except sexist women.

Posted by: croaker69 | February 10, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

MSNBC has published the demographic distribution of the votes in Louisiana. Read .

Again, most African-Americans voted only on the basis of skin color. 86% of African-American voters supported Barack Hussein Obama in Louisiana.

What we are witnessing is the presidential version of the senatorial race in Connecticut in 2006. In that race, Ned Lemont won the Democratic nomination for the Senate seat occupied by Joseph Lieberman. Like Obama, Lemont appealed to a very narrow portion of the general electorate, but that narrow portion is actually a large portion of the Democratic party. After Lieberman ran for his Senate seat as an Independent, he won. Lieberman has broad appeal across all segments of the American electorate.

Like Lieberman, Hillary Clinton has broad appeal to all ethnic groups except for racist African-Americans. However, Obama may win the Democratic nomination because the narrow portion (of American voters) who supports him is a large portion of the Democratic party.

Posted by: blueboat | February 10, 2008 12:38 AM | Report abuse

You are an embarrassment to Clinton supporters everywhere.

I lived in Japan for 2 years. Does that make me a Shinto?
I lived in England for 2 years. Does that make me an Anglican?
My father was a Catholic. Does that make me a Catholic?
My mother is a Lutheran. Does that make me a Lutheran?

If a person is a dummy, she bases her decisions on ugly slurs and xenophobia.

Posted by: jbutterfield1 | February 9, 2008 11:18 PM | Report abuse

75% of adults between 18 and 24 (inclusively) years of age do not know that most people in Indonesia are Muslim. (Visit .) The ignorance of young adults is disturbing.

Yet, the workers in the campaign for Barack Hussein Obama claim that the youthful voters correctly pick the "best candidate". Obama certainly attracts the youth vote.

If a person is a dummy, he bases his decisions on emotion. He is drawn to the inspirational speeches -- of Barack Hussein Obama.

Posted by: blueboat | February 9, 2008 11:02 PM | Report abuse

I am a 55 yr old white woman, not one of those supposed uninformed young voters. One of the reasons Mr Obama appeals to young people is partly because of their lack of cynicism...Thank Goodness for that!!! Obama, himself, may be younger than Ms. Clinton, but he is hardly a youngster. In fact, just 4 more years and he can get his AARP card...(smile). As kevinmurphy stated above, if you want to get some policy details, you can look on his website. If you want to know either of their voting records, you can find them online at Everything that I have read until now, informs me that Obama has averaged at least 1/4 of the overall White vote in addition to the largest percentage of the Black vote. Your math is, of course skewed....leave the stats to the experts! If your assertions were correct, I would expect you to be one of Barack Obama's most ardent supporters. But because it is obvious you're assertions are not correct, just vote for your choice. That's what is great about democracy...the will of the people will prevail, with or without you! Obama 08 for the good of the country!!

Posted by: rbccsmith | February 9, 2008 10:34 PM | Report abuse

So bosslady1, what are your facts?

Posted by: jbutterfield1 | February 9, 2008 10:26 PM | Report abuse

This campaign clearly shows that there are still many people out there who will vote for any man over a woman, no matter what the circumstances are. Obama is a charismatic individual who's most experienced at promoting himself. While I think he has a lot of promise, he is not yet in a place to rule this country. He doesn't have enough experience or exposure to national and international politics to succeed at the highest level. And, yes, he says all the wonderful things he wants to do, but HE DOESN'T SAY HOW HE'S GOING TO DO THEM! While I may not agree with everything Hillary Clinton says, she has clearly outlined how she hopes to accomplish some of the goals she's set for her presidency. The accountability that offers to the voters is enough to make me support her. When Obama figures out HOW he's going to "change" this country, and is willing to put his plan of action in front of the voters for their review, maybe then people like me will listen to him. But not until.........Talk is cheap and I'm not easy!

Posted by: jasbrsmks | February 9, 2008 10:20 PM | Report abuse

Let's keep it straight. I don't have a problem with Clinton's fundraising. I do have a problem with a candidate who says one thing and does another,

Obama says he's anti-special interest. I know for a fact its not true.

Posted by: bosslady1 | February 9, 2008 10:16 PM | Report abuse


Regarding campaign finance reform and lobbying, Sen. Clinton leads all of the candidates in lobbyist money, and she has 11 registered lobbyists (to Obama's 0) on her staff:

Moreover, she's on the record as an opponent of the McCain-Feingold bill. ("You're not living in the real world, Russ.") And Sen. Feingold has previously numbered her among the top 5-6 Dems working to undermine campaign finance reform:

Regarding ethics reform, she voted to weaken the Obama-Feingold ethics bill (She voted against an Office of Public Integrity.) Of course, she later deemed the bill too weak.

So, on these issues, Sen. Obama is clearly the better candidate.

Posted by: kevincmurphy | February 9, 2008 10:12 PM | Report abuse


And I am voting for Hillary because of her commitment to children and Universal Healthcare.

I understand that Senator Obama has plans on his website, which I have visited previously. However, he generally does not articulate these in detail at his rallies or in his ads, e.g. Superbowl.

I also wish that people wouldn't vote for him just because he is the Anti-Hillary. Isn't that what all this "Change" message is about? It subtly alludes to the fact that there has already been a Clinton in office.

Personally, I want to vote for someone who stands FOR something; and not someone who runs as the Anti-someone else. Hillary speaks her mind and isn't afraid to take unpopular positions. She went before wealthy voters in San Francisco and told them that she would take their Bush tax cuts if she were elected president. I admire that about her.

And just as a funny anecdote, when a reporter asked a woman after a rally what she thought of Senator Obama's transparency bill, she replied "Oh, I know what is going on, you're trying to trick me. This election is going to be about the ISSUES."

This of course could happen with voters from either camp.

Posted by: dc210 | February 9, 2008 10:01 PM | Report abuse

The Presidency has nowhere near the power to effect the changes voters want on either side. This is misplaced belief in the executives power has led to disillusionment for the past 40 years. It is Congress which has abdicated it's function in the pursuit of re-election funds at best and outright corruption at worst. Quit voting for representatives who are beholden to lobbyists and who funnel money to your district and/or industry. These two influences are at the root of most of this countries problems and there are no laws that can be passed to fix it. Each of us as citizens has to educate ourselves and vote for the greater good.

Posted by: croaker69 | February 9, 2008 9:57 PM | Report abuse

It is astounding that Democratic voters have been so easily divided by identifiable groups. As a Democrat, I am accustomed to believing that we are the party who sees issues more than race, sex, religion, ethnicity, etc. But this historic election is about more than political issues, isn't it? I will support the Democratic nominee, but I can't wait for the books that will examine just what did happen here.

Posted by: epperlytrudel | February 9, 2008 9:56 PM | Report abuse

Someone said that obama is better on campaign reform...well I know for a fact that lobbyists were having fundraisers for him left and right - even after he was elected to the Senate. And he's got former lobbyists working for him. I know this for a fact.

I'm so sick of this hypocrisy. Candidates do whatever it takes to get into a position of power. Then they wanna change the rules for everyone else.

Obama's a nice guy and all but took lobbyist and special interest money to get to the Senate -- when it was convenient for him. How is that consistent with his current message?

Posted by: bosslady1 | February 9, 2008 9:56 PM | Report abuse

"The data for the group of below-30-years-old White voters is clear. As their educational level decreases, their support for Obama increases."

It is? Could you link to this data, please? Or are you just making it up as you go along.

Posted by: kevincmurphy | February 9, 2008 9:52 PM | Report abuse


I agree with you that informed/uninformed isn't a particularly helpful way of looking at people.

I posted the link to respond to a point by blueboat, who wrote: "The youth vote is the uninformed vote...When you are dumb, you tend to base your decisions on emotions. Hence, many young adults gravitate toward inspirational speeches -- by Barack Hussein Obama. An uninformed vote by an ignorant voter damages our nation."

Blueboat's remark was incorrect -- In fact, it was exactly backward. Hence, the reason for my link.

Also, the education issue aside, Sen. Obama is offering a good deal more than "Hope." His stances on issues are just as detailed and policy-specific as Senator Clinton's. (If you're curious, check out his website,

For example, I'm voting for Obama not because of "hope," but because he's far and away the better candidate on campaign finance reform and ethics reform.

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

Earlier in this discussion, an inquisitive person asked about the correlation between education and voting. The issue is not about education per se. The issue is whether a person knows relevant facts about the world: e.g., the location of China on the map. A 60-year-old voter tends to know more than a 25-year-old voter. A college graduate tends to know more than a person without a college education. However, how does a 60-year-old voter without a college education compare to a 25-year-old voter with a college education?

The answer to that question is unknown since all the recent surveys do not address that angle of the issue. So, when we look at the educational level of a voter, we should look at a specific age group. For example, consider white voters under 30 years of age. The primary in South Carolina provides insight into the under-30 White voter.

"Half of white voters [in South Carolina] younger than 30 voted for Obama, as did about one-third of those with at least a college degree." (Read "Black Vote Was Vital, But Not the Whole Story" at .)

Also, note that about 60% of Americans under the age of 30 have a college degree. (Read "Reality weighs down dreams of college" at .)

Taking these two facts and using some simple arithmetic yields the following observation about White voters under the age of 30 (in South Carolina). In this group, 33% of those with a college degree supports Obama. A startling 75% of those without a college degree supports Obama. In other words, as the educational level of under-30 White voters decreases, support for Obama actually increases.

There may be national surveys indicating that X% of college-educated voters choose candidate ABC and Y% of non-college-educated voters choose candidate DEF. However, we cannot draw any conclusion from these surveys because they do not partition their X, Y percentages by age-group. That a candidate receives 70% of non-college-educated folks indicates nothing since some of those folks may be 60+ years old, grew up in an age when college was not viewed as necessary, but still may be widely read -- and know the location of China on a map.

The only valid approach at determining whether dummies are preferring Obama is to (1) pick an age group and (2) look at the preferences among the college-educated folks and the non-college-educated folks in that age group. The data for the group of below-30-years-old White voters is clear. As their educational level decreases, their support for Obama increases.

Posted by: blueboat | February 9, 2008 9:44 PM | Report abuse

Isn't it interesting that the committed propeller-heads are encouraging GOPers to register Dem and vote for Hillary in the primary. Now what do you think their motivation would be for doing that?

Posted by: elroy1 | February 9, 2008 9:37 PM | Report abuse

Our best presidents were inexperienced: Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Clinton.

Buchanan, Hoover, Nixon, and Bush1 were our most experienced presidents. Look where that got us!

Posted by: scharb | February 9, 2008 9:35 PM | Report abuse


Aside from sexism and racism, there's also elitism in this country.

Senator Obama seems to get voters that are young and upper middle class (yes, the educated) - both groups that have scant idea of how people in this country live. They are the groups that can afford to "Hope."

The lower classes like Hillary because she provides them details on what she will do. They simply do not have the luxury to "Hope." Inspiration will not feed their families.

I personally "hope" that people see how elitest it is to say that the "informed" are voting for Obama and the "uninformed" are voting for Clinton. The priorities of the two groups of simply different.

Sometimes people are uneducated not because of lack of ability, but due to circumstances of birth.

I for one am proud that Hillary attracts these voters because these people are at the heart of the democratic party. These are the ones who are most often taken advantage of in society - and these are the ones that we most have to look after.

Posted by: dc210 | February 9, 2008 9:34 PM | Report abuse

What I see on these boards is that the Clintons and Hillary haven't accomplished anything. (well that's not true)

I keep seeing Obama repeal how much people HATE HRC.

I keep hearing how ONLY Obama can accomplish anything and bring people together.

I feel that his message is only about doing something new. well, what about finishing what we started before Obama came around?

Honestly, I keep hearing Obama supporters say that they'd support McCain. And I find that sickening.

I am and will continue to be loyal to the democratic party. I don't feel that Obama supporters share the sense of loyalty i feel. And its partly why I will not vote for him at this time. I don't believe the Obama message is as unifying as they say it is.

Posted by: bosslady1 | February 9, 2008 9:31 PM | Report abuse

Sen. Obama has said that he would bring all of the troops out of Iraq in 16 months.

He has also stated that he would;

1. leave a small force to protect the embassy and the diplomats.
2. secure the Iraqi borders.
3. run combat Ops against al-Qaida.
4. support the reconciliation among Iraq's
sectarian groups.

How is he going to do all of this with no troops?

Posted by: sam51 | February 9, 2008 9:27 PM | Report abuse

I confused why everyone says that Senator Obama is a "Uniter." He seems to get a certain demographic - the blacks, the young, the upper middle class white vote while Hillary tends to get a larger portion of the women, the Latino, Asian, and older, and slightly poorer white voters.

How is that uniting people?

To me, it seems like Hillary is the candidate of the future. She has gained the support of the Latinos whose populations are growing in the future. This country is becoming increasingly multicultural. Yet, Obama seems to only get white and black votes.

Am I missing something?

Posted by: dc210 | February 9, 2008 9:23 PM | Report abuse

Actually, blueboat, as a new Gallup poll shows today, the more uninformed tend to vote for Clinton. In fact, education level is a better predictor of vote than gender.

Posted by: kevincmurphy | February 9, 2008 9:23 PM | Report abuse

jhawkerfan, you said to correct you if you were wrong that Clinton's health care plan died because the Republicans controlled Congress.

Well, stand corrected: Democrats were the majority party in 1993 and 1994, and the health care plan still never made it to a vote. Actually, the health care debacle was a significant part of why the Republicans took the majority in the 1994 elections.

Posted by: davestickler | February 9, 2008 9:21 PM | Report abuse

I've gotta go, but I want to leave you with this:

We are all (well, most of us, not counting blueboat) Democrats. If anyone is being divisive, it's US. We can't blame our candidates for the nastiness going on. When it comes down to it, democracy will prevail, and unless it's the end of the world, a Democrat will be president. In order to be sure that happens, we have to work together. Our votes will choose the nominee. It's not going to be a landslide. It's up to use to rally behind our nominee whoever he or she may be. The Republicans are laughing their asses off at how we are attacking each other, and they're betting on us being divided come November. Don't let that happen.


Posted by: visionmw | February 9, 2008 9:05 PM | Report abuse

The youth vote is the uninformed vote. Numerous studies have shown that the under-30 voter lacks knowledge of the world: for example, most young adults cannot locate China on a map.

When you are dumb, you tend to base your decisions on emotions. Hence, many young adults gravitate toward inspirational speeches -- by Barack Hussein Obama.

An uninformed vote by an ignorant voter damages our nation.

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

One more note, bosslady1. Where do you get the idea that people are getting discriminated against based on their age? Sure, Obama is attracting record numbers of young people, but he's also winning the older white male vote, as well as a lot of the older female vote. I don't think Obama's camp would be so foolish as to discriminate against anyone. They need those votes. It just wouldn't be smart politics.

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


I have to disagree that Obama supporters are more virulent than HRC supporters. I've been all over the blogs and discussion boards, and I've never seen so many racist bigots in my life as I have today in the HRC camp. I know she doesn't condone this...but let's face it. Obama is a prime target for racists. His ability to motivate the African-American population scares the crapola out of racists and clost-racists. So they have to blame that enthusiasm simply on the fact the Obama is black.

When anyone stoops to play the race card, it's a sure sign they're running out of better arguments.

Posted by: visionmw | February 9, 2008 8:59 PM | Report abuse


You have to loyalty to a party, just to your race, which I'm guessing is white. Am I right? You're obviously a troll. Barack Obama is about the least divisive candidate out there.

By the way, he's winning in Washington state and Nebraska, and my bet is he'll win in Louisiana, too. Hmmm. I guess Washington state and Nebraska are just BRIMMING with African-Americans, right? As were Delaware and Minnesota. Interesting.

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

I support Clinton but what I notice is that many of the Obama supporters are down right nasty.

They HATE HRC. And if you don't support Barack and his message you're labeled racist or you're a sell out. And let's not forget that his movement is quietly discriminates against ppl bc of their age.

So much for bringing people together. I personally don't want to be a part of this kind of liberalism. These people have replaced conservative dogma with liberal dogma. No thank you.

BTW I'm a black woman. So there.

Posted by: bosslady1 | February 9, 2008 8:54 PM | Report abuse

Barack Hussein Obama is very smart in that he knows how to play the political game. He deliberately used divisive racial politics to win several primaries and caucuses. Of course, he has catered to the African-American community.

Look at the electoral math. Obama won many states that have large African-American populations because more than 81% of African-Americans voted on the basis of skin color. Obama acted wisely in playing the race card. He has significantly enhanced his chance at becoming the Democratic nominee.

If you are Republican and if you prefer Hillary Clinton over Barack Hussein Obama to be president, then you must register as a Democratic and vote in the upcoming Democratic primaries and caucuses.

Do not listen to the propaganda of either the Republican operatives or Democratic operatives in this forum. Whoever becomes the Democratic nominee will become president. The 2 main reasons are the Iraq War and the 2008 recession.

If you prefer Clinton, then you must vote in the Democratic primary for Clinton. If you do nothing, then there is a 40% chance that Obama -- with his racially divisive politics that caters to African-American voters -- will become the Democratic nominee.

Think carefully about what I just told you. I am an independent and have no particular bias toward either the Democrats or the Republicans.

Posted by: blueboat | February 9, 2008 8:52 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama's education plans:

Barack Obama's Plan
Early Childhood Education

* Zero to Five Plan: Obama's comprehensive "Zero to Five" plan will provide critical support to young children and their parents. Unlike other early childhood education plans, Obama's plan places key emphasis at early care and education for infants, which is essential for children to be ready to enter kindergarten. Obama will create Early Learning Challenge Grants to promote state "zero to five" efforts and help states move toward voluntary, universal pre-school.
* Expand Early Head Start and Head Start: Obama will quadruple Early Head Start, increase Head Start funding and improve quality for both.
* Affordable, High-Quality Child Care: Obama will also provide affordable and high-quality child care to ease the burden on working families.
o Reform No Child Left Behind: Obama will reform NCLB, which starts by funding the law. Obama believes teachers should not be forced to spend the academic year preparing students to fill in bubbles on standardized tests. He will improve the assessments used to track student progress to measure readiness for college and the workplace and improve student learning in a timely, individualized manner. Obama will also improve NCLB's accountability system so that we are supporting schools that need improvement, rather than punishing them.
o Make Math and Science Education a National Priority: Obama will recruit math and science degree graduates to the teaching profession and will support efforts to help these teachers learn from professionals in the field. He will also work to ensure that all children have access to a strong science curriculum at all grade levels.
o Address the Dropout Crisis: Obama will address the dropout crisis by passing his legislation to provide funding to school districts to invest in intervention strategies in middle school - strategies such as personal academic plans, teaching teams, parent involvement, mentoring, intensive reading and math instruction, and extended learning time.
o Expand High-Quality Afterschool Opportunities: Obama will double funding for the main federal support for afterschool programs, the 21st Century Learning Centers program, to serve one million more children.
o Expand Summer Learning Opportunities: Obama's "STEP UP" plan addresses the achievement gap by supporting summer learning opportunities for disadvantaged children through partnerships between local schools and community organizations.
o Support College Outreach Programs: Obama supports outreach programs like GEAR UP, TRIO and Upward Bound to encourage more young people from low-income families to consider and prepare for college.
o Support English Language Learners: Obama supports transitional bilingual education and will help Limited English Proficient students get ahead by holding schools accountable for making sure these students complete school.

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


""Do I support the racial politics that the Obama campaign has been pursuing? Do I support removing educational standards?"

Again with the racist commentary. So you're saying that holding African-Americans in as high a regard as whites is wrong? Take a look at Obama's've got people of every color there. He's not a racist. But I'm pretty sure YOU are.

Posted by: visionmw | February 9, 2008 8:39 PM | Report abuse

I am an independent and have no particular bias in favor of either Democrats or Republicans, but I can read the political currents readily. Last week, I told you that Asian-Americans would vote for Hillary Clinton. I was right. 75% of them voted for Clinton in California.

Here is how the presidential race will elapse. Whoever becomes the Democratic nominee will become president. The two principal reasons for this outcome are the Iraq War and the 2008 recession.

If you are Republican and if you support Clinton, then you must register as a Democrat in order to participate in the upcoming Democratic primaries (and caucuses). You must vote for Clinton.

If you do not vote in the Democratic primary, then there is a 40% probability that Obama will become the Democratic nominee -- and the president. Ask yourself, "Do I support the racial politics that the Obama campaign has been pursuing? Do I support removing educational standards?" (Obama has long opposed educational standards by demanding the cancellation of all exit exams for high-school students.)

The above analysis assumes that Michael Bloomberg does not join the race.

Posted by: blueboat | February 9, 2008 8:35 PM | Report abuse

The campaign that seems hung up on the demographics of their voters is the Clinton campaign.

I rarely see Obama or his supporters yelling that her voters do it only because they are one color or one sex or one age group. When comments are made, it is usually of the nature: "we really would like to attract more ....".

The Clinton surrogates who talk more along the line of "those people voted for Obama only because they are ...." do more themselves.

The Clintons will learn that when you blatantly attempt to marginalize large swaths of the voters in your party, you tend to lose votes.

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

Only 5% of non whites makes up the Democratic part is LA. Why have all the whites abandoned the party?

Posted by: wm_douglas | February 9, 2008 8:30 PM | Report abuse


"Hillary's Health Care Plan includes mandates that everyone be covered. For that reason it is better than Obama's which will not work because it doesn't cover everyone."

You don't seem to understand the use of the word "mandate" in this context. It's not a mandate that everyone be covered. It's a mandate that you have to PURCHASE the insurance offered, whether you want it or will use it.

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

I urge anyone to read about Obamas health care plan on his website.

After you read the details, reread the posts by svreader that claim low-income african americans will be hit severely by it.

After comparing the veracity of svreader's claim on healthcare, you can then figure out how truthful the other claims likely are.

Posted by: steveboyington | February 9, 2008 8:27 PM | Report abuse

blueboat, I don't see anything in your article about the funding of these remedial programs. I'd like to know more. However, your barely-concealed racism is disgusting, and it doesn't surprise me that you'd vote for Hillary for this reason.

On another tack, did it ever occur to you that investing in education creates more brilliant minds to help in our scientific efforts in space and here on Earth? Five years is not a long time. Some Americans need to get their heads out of their own black holes and stop expecting instant gratification in areas as important as space exploration and the future of our children.

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

African Americans will do worse under Obama than the Clintons? Well, here we have another case of "Clinton myth intoxication".

The Clintons brag about household income increases for Blacks during their tenure. All incomes, including the top 1% increased. They have nothing to say about the welfare to work failure that took away welfare and never offered a livable wage, hence creating a demographic now called "the working poor" which are disproportionately Black female heads of households, the most vulnerable group in the Black community.

What about the Civil Rights Commission under Clinton? It lost its voice under the Clinton Administration. What about powerful posts in the White House? Where are the Blacks in Clinton's White House?

Obama has already done more for Blacks in America than the Clintons could ever achieve. Blacks see in Obama the best of what they have always known they could be. He reminds Blacks that no corridor of power is off limits. Black potential has finally caught up to "Black power". Is that the feeling Blacks had with "Billary"?

The Clintons don't offer hope, they offer more national division and drama. The Clintons can never embody the ideal of an Obama. Hillary is a wonk and a divider. Obama is a wonder and a uniter!

Posted by: unteal | February 9, 2008 8:24 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's Health Care Plan includes mandates that everyone be covered. For that reason it is better than Obama's which will not work because it doesn't cover everyone.
I have nothing against Obama, in fact, I hope he will be President some day, just not now. He is to new to federal politics and to weak on policy to be the best President.
Given the way he works and thinks, I fully expect that if he doesn't win this time, I will get a chance to vote for him in eight years.
I look forward to it. But my vote in the primary went to Hillary and will go to her in the General as well.

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

BATON ROUGE, LA-- The Obama campaign submitted an urgent request for assistance to the Secretary of State's Division of Elections today, after receiving widespread reports from Democrats across Louisiana who reported that they were not allowed to vote because their party affiliation had been switched. Hundreds of Louisiana democrats went to the polls to vote in today's presidential primary and found that they were now on registration lists as Independent or Unaffiliated voters.

What Louisiana voters need to know:

Democrats who are told at their polling places that they are now registered Independent or Unaffiliated voters and aren't eligible to vote - but never switched their party affiliation - can still vote in today's primary by requesting a provisional ballot. The Secretary of State has confirmed that all voters have the right to vote a provisional ballot if there is a problem with the registration lists.

The Obama campaign encourages votes to report all voter registration issues to the Secretary of State Elections division at 800-883-2805

Posted by: Joshua.L.Morrow | February 9, 2008 8:21 PM | Report abuse

blueboat = charter member of "Bigots for Billary"

I hope we can expedite your own personal spaceflight to Mars.

You're in the wrong party, @-hole.

Posted by: psyberdawg | February 9, 2008 8:21 PM | Report abuse

I support Obama, but I think his health care plan would be marginally stronger if it included a mandate.

That said, both plans offered by the Dems are weaker than I'd like to see, which is a true single-payer system. They both offer a good start, though, and would be a vast improvement over the current nightmare.

It's critical that we get more Democrats into Congress, where the details will be hashed out. We also need to make sure those new Dems are as free as possible from AMA, HMO and Big Pharma influences, our they will wreck it just like they did Hillary's old plan.

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

"[Barack Hussein Obama] says he would delay NASA's controversial moon-to-Mars program five years in order to fund education initiatives." (Visit .)

These education initiatives are merely remedial programs (costing billions of dollars) to fix the problem of African-American underperformance in education. Many states have implemented exit exams, which test knowledge at typically the 8th-grade level. A high-school student must pass the exit exam before receiving a diploma. A large percentage of African-Americans regularly fails such exams.

Who is responsible for African-American underperformance in education? These exams test a bare minimum of knowledge. The intellectual level of these exams is so low that failing them means only one thing: you deliberately and willfully refused to learn.

The average American is not responsible for African-Americans' refusal to learn.

If an African-American exits high-school without a diploma and without any knowledge beyond the 6th grade, that African-American should pay for the full cost of any remedial program. American society should not pay one penny for this kind of program.

Yet, Obama thinks that you and I should pay billions of dollars for this remedial program. Obama intends to gut both the military-defense program and the space program in order to pay for these so-called education initiatives.

These initiatives are not about installing Internet cables in all rural school districts. These initiatives are not about funding advanced science programs in the schools.

These initiatives are about funding remedial programs for people who mock and laugh at the concept of education.

Vote for Hillary Clinton? YES! WE! CAN!

Posted by: blueboat | February 9, 2008 8:11 PM | Report abuse

Not sure where people are getting their info, but according to this CNN article, Obama is beating McCain in the poll match-up.

I'm concerned about how vicious Dems are being to Dems right now. While I am a strong Obama supporter, I will still vote for Hil if she wins the nomination. I will not see another version of Bush, even it is "Bush Light" McCain, in the White House.

Posted by: visionmw | February 9, 2008 8:07 PM | Report abuse


I just want to say that you do not speak for me, or any other Obama supporters I know.

I hope you will go vote for a Republican, since they're the true Party of Hate. Oops, I forgot, John McCain is an old man. He's not a leech, though, despite his many other flaws, so maybe it'll work out anyway.

Seriously, your comments about elderly people show that you need professional help, pronto. TheDuffer sounds like an ignorant bigot (Afro-Americans! Sheesh.) But you sound like a sociopath.

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

Svreader, everybody would suffer under Hillary's health plan. She lies now, as usually through her teeth. And in any occasion, she with her dictatorial and sadistic personality would fail to implement it the same way she did in 1993. Your mistress is no presidential material. No way, no how!

Posted by: aepelbaum | February 9, 2008 7:55 PM | Report abuse

Actually, under Hillary's plan, people will have to buy insurance or risk having their paychecks garnished or worse. She has a mandate requiring people to get insurance...everyone, whether they want it or not. How does that sound to you? Maybe you should check it out. Do you really want the government deciding what you can and can't afford based on your yearly income? You won't be able to prioritize your own expenditures. I can do without that.

Obama has a mandate, but only for children. His plan will make healthcare much more affordable for everyone but will not require any adult to pay for insurance if they don't want it.

BOTH plans can potentially leave people out in the cold. Do your research.

Wall Street Journal
The Wages of HillaryCare
February 7, 2008; Page A18

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama agree on most policy issues, but that makes their rare differences all the more revealing. To wit, their running scrap over Mrs. Clinton's "individual mandate" for health care, which Mr. Obama has now had the nerve to expose for its inevitable government coercion.

Mrs. Clinton's proposal requires everyone to buy health insurance, along with more insurance regulation, a government insurance option for everyone and tax hikes. Mr. Obama likes all that but his mandate would only apply to children. He argues that the reason many people aren't insured is because it's too expensive, not because they don't want it. Mrs. Clinton counters that coverage can't be "universal" without a mandate.

But then Mr. Obama had the impudence to defend his views. His campaign distributed a mailer in key primary states that claimed the Clinton plan "forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can't afford it." It also featured an image of an anxious couple at a kitchen table. The Clinton apparat went apoplectic, claiming the flyer evokes the famous "Harry and Louise" commercials. A common article of liberal faith is that this "smear campaign" doomed HillaryCare in 1994 -- as opposed to, say, its huge cost and complexities. But never mind.

Yet if Mrs. Clinton's plan is better because it has a mandate, how does it work in the real world, where some people still won't be able to afford insurance, or would decline to acquire it? At a recent debate, the Illinois Senator drove the point home, asking Mrs. Clinton, "You can mandate it but there will still be people who can't afford it. And if they can't afford it, what are you going to fine them? Are you going to garnish their wages?" And in an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos on Sunday, Mrs. Clinton conceded that "we will have an enforcement mechanism" that might include "you know, going after people's wages."

Well, well. In other words, HillaryCare II isn't all about "choice," but would require financial penalties for people to pay attention, including garnishing wages. To put it more accurately, the individual mandate is really a government mandate that requires brute force plus huge subsidies to get anywhere near its goal of universal coverage.

Mitt Romney's mandate program in Massachusetts is already expected to reach $1.35 billion in annual costs by 2011, up from $158 million today. And that's with only half of the previously uninsured currently enrolled; no less than 20% didn't qualify for subsidies and were granted exemptions because the costs were too much of a hardship.

Most experts calculate that a national mandate with subsidies like Mrs. Clinton's would enroll about half to two-thirds of the uninsured, less for a voluntary plan and subsidies alone. But such guesswork is pointless without the basic enforcement assumptions, which Mrs. Clinton refuses to provide. She's more interested in wielding what she calls "a core Democratic principle" against Mr. Obama. "My opponent will not commit to universal health care," she said Saturday.

The logic of Mr. Obama's approach is that policy makers should target those who are priced out of coverage. The Census Bureau says 38% of the uninsured earned more than $50,000 in 2006, 19% above $75,000. They aren't a major public policy problem -- except that a big reason they lack coverage is because it is more expensive than it needs to be thanks to government market interference. And 29% earn under $25,000, which means they probably qualify for existing subsidy programs like Medicaid or Schip but haven't enrolled.

The news here is that all of this is being exposed now, and by a fellow Democrat. Many Americans are uncomfortable with the coercion of the mandate -- and not all of them are Republicans. The California health-care overhaul was recently done in by liberals concerned about its consequences for the working poor.

The political lesson that Mrs. Clinton learned in 1994 wasn't about compromise or market forces. It was that a government health-care takeover can only be achieved gradually and by stealth. Her individual mandate is an attempt to force everyone to buy into a highly regulated and price-controlled system where government redistributes income and dictates coverage. We assume the McCain campaign is paying attention.

Posted by: visionmw | February 9, 2008 7:54 PM | Report abuse

I agree with crd203. Obama in 2008! Visionmv, Hillary would be the disaster, as the president, if she is a good fighter or not. She is no presidential material. My vote goes to McCain, if, by any idiotic mistake, she would be nominated!

Posted by: aepelbaum | February 9, 2008 7:50 PM | Report abuse

Its too bad Obama supporters don't know any of his policy positions.

Low income African-Americans will suffer severely under Obama's health plan.

They'd go without insurance to save money, then wind up in the emergency room paying through the nose and lose everything when they're forced to pay for it.

Posted by: svreader | February 9, 2008 7:48 PM | Report abuse

The Obama camp may be worried about low turnout in Louisiana, but in Nebraska and Washington State, they're having a record turnout. Looks to be a serious blowout for Obama in Nebraska, and from what I've been reading from caucus goers in Washington, a blowout there too.

Posted by: vbalfour | February 9, 2008 7:38 PM | Report abuse


Thanks for making it easy for Clinton supporters to see the substantive evidence for Obama's superiority. It gets frustrating dealing with the ditto-heads endlessly repeating the "no experience"/"no substance" talking points. As tahoe20 says, "Bravo!"

Posted by: psyberdawg | February 9, 2008 7:35 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: visionmw | February 9, 2008 7:24 PM | Report abuse

Someone mentioned Hillary's campaigning experience (for her Senate campaign) as a "vetting." In contrast, detractors believe that Obama had an easy campaign and therefore doesn't have the grit to make it to the presidency...hello?

If his current campaign is any indication, I think you can add "grit" to the list, my friends. If this isn't a vetting, what is? Bill himself was quoted as telling Hillary that the primaries were more difficult than the presidential election itself.

I think Hillary is a good, tough fighter to have in the trenches...where she is now. But Obama has not only the spirit and the drive and the inspiration, he also has the capability and the markings of a true leader.

Posted by: visionmw | February 9, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

AnotherPerspective1: You are so wrong. How do you think they became senior citizens? They didn't do it just sitting on their duffs...they changed to survive. As for your comment about their being leeches...may I remind you that the majority of them served this country so you can say what you just did?

Posted by: jhawkerfan | February 9, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

Can we include in the article what qualifies as a low turnout? Maybe they are estimating the "expected" turnout wrong. What are they comparing the numbers to? If it's past elections, I'd like to remind the pollsters that we had a major democrat population decrease there somewhat recently, and with almost nothing rebuilt so far I think many have moved away. This seems almost too obvious, but can we include some more info?

Posted by: grimmix | February 9, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

What did Hillary do in the Senate? Run for office?

We know what Obama did.

He co-sponsored
**the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 (became law),
**The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, (became law),
**The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate,
**The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, (became law),
**The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, (In committee),
** STOP FRAUD ACT (before subprime became an issue)
In all since enter the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096. An impressive record, for someone who supposedly has no record according to the spin meisters and mindless twits.

Posted by: tchanta | February 9, 2008 7:21 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: tahoe20 | February 9, 2008 7:15 PM | Report abuse

The Duffer's comments illustrate exactly how far our country still needs to go. Because you are a senior citizen, I would never expect you to see past the race issue. After all, you grew up when schools were still segregated.

When you, and all other senior citizens who continue to milk this country for every dollar you can, finally pass on, then America will finally be able to start moving forward unburdened by the leeches of the elderly and boomers who just want to take as much as they can. Nobody would expect the seniors to vote for any sort of change. Seniors are largely afraid of change.

Posted by: AnotherPerspective1 | February 9, 2008 7:12 PM | Report abuse

I hate to say this, but it is the truth. No matter who the president is, unless you have a Congress that actually believes and acts like it REPRESENTS the people, nothing is going to get done. Candidates can make promises, give us hope, but it doesn't mean anything unless CONGRESS changes their attitude.

Posted by: jhawkerfan | February 9, 2008 7:12 PM | Report abuse

Naughty, naughty. Ms. Kornblut has corrected her faux pas. Not enough courage to leave her original thoughts.

Posted by: tharriso | February 9, 2008 7:11 PM | Report abuse

I repeatedly see on these chat boards that Obama has no position, no platform, no experience and nothing but "biased" positive press. This is preposterous. I cannot tell you how many pro-Hillary articles I have read that are really editorials, though they pass themselves off as "news briefs". For instance, look at the TIME magazine article on "Inspiration vs. Substance," which, aside from repeatedly making a case for the mutually exclusive existence of these two things (that is, if you are a skilled and eloquent orator, if you "inspire" people and are articulate- that's an indication that you have little else to offer but rhetoric. The real substance, apparently must come in a plodding, non-inspirational package), the article also inexplicably has a single photo of Barack Obama from high school in the 70's. Not only does he look young and inexperienced (as most high school students do), but gone is the polished, slender statesmen and instead the undecided voter stares at a very ethnic, large-afro-ed, youth. I will stop short of saying this is a deliberate attempt to appeal to voters uncomfortable with "youth" or his "blackness" (neither of which are things that are immediately apparent about him when one sees photos of the modern day Senator Obama). Why was a high school photo used in an article not about his youth or high school days, you ask? Because the media is slanted every-which-way during election year and that's just the nature of the beast.,8599,1710721,00.html

For what it's worth, there are many things I believe are to be admired about Hillary, and in a way I believe we have an embarassment of riches on the democratic side, but I also firmly believe that Obama is the better candidate to face down McCain, to inspire the country to roll up its sleeves, and to dispense with the bipartisan blood bath that has gone on so long. If you truly are interested in some facts about Obama's platform, here they are:

Here is a 59-page BRIEF example of the sort of information available for anyone interested in finding out the individual facts about this candidate. There are websites and cross references within it if you care:

While I agree that Barack is quite liberal, there is absolutely no denying that currently, he has more moderate and conservative support than Senator Clinton does. I personally find much to like in Clinton, and I actually understand why her supporters support her and find no fault with people who have done the research, read widely and fairly, and are civil when they campaign for and endorse their candidate. However, it is interesting to note that the things for which Obama is often criticized, e.g., "being too liberal" and having "too little experience," the government's OWN statistics refute:

Type in each candidate's last names and look at their voting records, the names and substance of bills drafted and supported, and basic biographical info .

Hillary is considered a "radical liberal" on the senate information website, while Obama is considered to be a bit right of that as a "rank and file" democrat. This designation is based upon their votes.

Although Obama has 11 years of legislative experience (5 more years than Hillary) his critics cry "no fair" only the national legislation counts. O.K., Obama has passed into law in 3 years (with bills that he authored or co-authored) 5 pieces of substantive legislation, while Hillary has passed into law in 6 years time, 6 substantive bills that she has authored or coauthored. He essentially has accomplished the same job in half the time. Although Hillary has about 26 bills that have become law, 20 of them are things like "name post office after Thurgood Marshall" and "Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship."

Here are the substantive legislation each has passed:


1. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11.
2. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11
3. Assist landmine victims in other countries.
4. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care.
5. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system.

Here is Obama's:

1. the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 (became law),
2. The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, (became law),
3.The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate,
4.The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, (became law),
5.The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, (In committee)

There is a wealth of information on both candidates to be found if you really are interested in the issues and not in ad hominems and emotional attacks on the candidate whom you do not support. Vote the way you want, support whom you admire for whatever reason you wish, emotions, nostalgia, etc., but stop being dishonest about the other party's platform and substance. If you want details, they can be found.

Posted by: ifnotwinter | February 9, 2008 7:10 PM | Report abuse


Have you read the Chicago Tribune lately? Obama cannot win the General Election against McCain.

Obama has negatives that have not been explored. Our swooning media won't explore them, but ruthless McCain will.

When McCain wins, we will have another "war president," who will draft our young high school graduates and young college students into his, "McCain army."

A vote for Obama now is a vote for McCain in the fall.

The Obama/Rezko 17 year relationship is "significant," according to John Kass, 1/27/ Chicago Tribune.

Rezko will be in the headlines soon, indicted by the Federal Government and arrested recently by the FBI, confined and awaiting trial for "influence peddling," among other things.

McCain won't let this Rezko/Obama association slide come fall. People should be looking now to not cast their vote for this loser - Obama. gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 9, 2008 7:09 PM | Report abuse

For all "you need more than two years" folks please see:

Lincoln, Abraham. 2 years Federal experience before being elected Presidnet of the United States and then having to hold a diverse coalition of radicals and centrists together while also ending a massive social injustice and holding the naiton together in THE toughest test it has ever faced.

We talk about "experience" in DC like it is some sort of magical process which suddenly makes a person more effective at government. I counter that the largest government majorities, the ones which have achieved lasting change on this country, were not done by looking for DC experience but rather riding a wave of groundswell support. At the end of the day the candidate who best captures the nation will have the inarguably powerful voice of its citizens backing the policy initiatives they bring forward.

While I would vote for Hillary over McCain I don't think she has the ability to truly build a world changing coalition. She wants to change the score in the game between Republicans and Democrats but Obama is looking to change the whole game and THAT is something I want to help him try.

Posted by: cmdrwilkens | February 9, 2008 7:09 PM | Report abuse

Ms. Kornblut wrote:

..Hillary...skipped Louisiana.... Instead she sent her husband to campaign for him there...

Please read the quote very carefully. For whom is her husband campaigning? Hmmm, Freudian Slip, or intentional wording? Either way, the statement is rather telling of Anne's POV.

Posted by: tharriso | February 9, 2008 7:08 PM | Report abuse

Sen. Obama's wife was also campaigning for him in another state. it is customary for spouses to split up and campaign just like Elizabeth Edwards and other spouses did.

This is a great democracy!

Posted by: LadyEagle | February 9, 2008 7:05 PM | Report abuse

Obama is related to Cheney - No more Cheneys, no more cheney's, no more cheney's


Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 9, 2008 7:01 PM | Report abuse

You know people, Clinton ran for Senate beuase she really wanted to be a leader, not just a 'first lady.' IN other words, she wanted to make changes on her abilities and criteria, not those of her husband's.

To say she was uncontested in her first election is simply untrue. The fact that she was not much contested in her second run for Senate was because she proved to her consituents that she actually gets out there and hustles in the job. She rolls up her sleeves, and wades in to the dirty water to see what can do to fix the plumbing. Nor did she complain about having to do the plumbing as a freshman Senator. That's a far cry beyond Senator Allen.

Frankly, Obama hasn't demosntrated that sort of grind or hustle. However, he has shown that he will not take so many lobby corporate donations, and he is making it clear- espcially to much generation that has seen all of its jobs sent away when the time came for it to move into the better paying jobs - that he is not going to play their fascist buy off games anymore. So he too, has earned some of his support. I WOULD like to see him put his money where his mouth is, and he didn't do it over this stupid package just passed, but I do give him for credit for showing that the days of corporatism are numbered.

So all of need to give both Obama, and HIllary credit where credit is due. And which ever wins, we need to show that we are not going to allow McCAin, who let Bush walk all over him , that he no longer has the respect of those of us who might have given him a shot in 2000. To dance in tune with a man who cast outright lies and used bigotry to marginalizer you demonstrates you no longer have what it takes.

Posted by: TortFeaser | February 9, 2008 7:01 PM | Report abuse

Washington29-Where did you get that Patricia Wald endorsement?

Posted by: tahoe20 | February 9, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Probably the media reports that Obama would win easily caused many to stay at home.

Posted by: zb95 | February 9, 2008 6:58 PM | Report abuse

Eight years as Bill's First Lady does not experience make. She wasn't in the Oval Office. She wasn't even in Bill's bedroom. BILL was president during the swingin' '90s, not Hillary. If you compare her record for the first few years of her senate office to Barack's first three years, he's got more done than she did, and I imagine he would continue to do so. No reason to believe he'd lose his momentum there anymore than he will now. Hillary can't decide if she's promising a Bill revival or a new deal. She has no identity. Barack Obama has shown huge promise in his career so far, and there's NO REASON to believe it won't continue in the Oval Office.

By the way, it takes more than just a president to get things done in Washington, including getting the troops home. If Hil gets elected, she's going to have a hard time. Can the men and women overseas afford to sit around and wait while she battles it out in dramatic fashion at the White House? I don't think so.

No more Bush-Clinton dynasty politics. I'm ready for new blood.

Posted by: visionmw | February 9, 2008 6:57 PM | Report abuse

WOW...... I wonder when voters will focus on the right reasons to choose their candidate. Before I state my opinion I'll tell you I'm for Hillary. WHY? First, I'm a senior citizen democrat. Next, while the Clinton's were in office this country experienced peace and a healthy economy. In this contest, Obama preaches fantasies -- Hillary states facts on critical issues. No one can convince me that Obama's success is not based a great deal on racial lines and gender. Ask CNN. They report overwhelmingly Afro-Americans favor Obama as well as his carry the male vote. Wise up... Vote for the one you think qualified, not for personalities.

Posted by: TheDuffer | February 9, 2008 6:56 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:

"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 9, 2008 6:56 PM | Report abuse

cristoph2003 wrote:

He's going to fix the economy, the war, health care and every other problem in this country?
That's a good point. But you're telling me that Hillary will fix the economy, the war, health care and every other problem in this country? Why should anyone believe that, given how polarizing she is? And if Congress has enough Democrats for Clinton to pass legislation, then it has enough Democrats for Obama to pass legislation.

And the president doesn't have to personally know bureaucrats in Washington for things to get done. They tend to do their jobs considering the president is their boss.

Posted by: smc91 | February 9, 2008 6:54 PM | Report abuse

I am a left wing Democrat. I could easily vote for either Obama or Hillary. They are both qualified to be President, although I must say that I think Hillary has the much deeper portfolio. Are either of them perfect ? No. Will either of them completely alienate the middle right of American voters if they win the Presidency ? No, they have to govern after all, and that means that they would then be the President of ALL Americans, even those that did not vote for them.

Either way, one will run for President and the other will be the VP on the ticket. We need to get ready for that now.

Posted by: Barnes848 | February 9, 2008 6:54 PM | Report abuse

Judge Patricia M. Wald, former Chief Judge of the D.C. Circuit and recently a member of the Iraq Intelligence Commission writes:

I have spent more than 40 years of my near-80 in public service as a federal judge, international judge, Justice Department official, and public interest lawyer. A veteran of the woman's movement since its infancy in the 1960's, an ardent Democrat, and an equally ardent supporter of women's rights-to-choose, to work, to live as we see fit, and yes, one day to elect a woman President, I hail the advances in my life-time that have resulted in Senator Clinton's dramatic bid for our nation's highest office.

But legions of women my age have fought for the opportunity to be judged on our skills, talents and abilities, not on our gender. Perhaps we were naive, but we believed if we were allowed to enter the game alongside men, we would prove our worth. That is the standard by which, I believe, Senator Clinton's candidacy should now be judged.

Which is prelude to why I support Barack Obama and why, with a troop of wonderfully gritty older women, I spent 8 days on the icy streets of Cedar Rapids, Iowa - with a return to the hustings in Delaware last week -- campaigning for Senator Obama.

As someone who cares deeply about transformation of the country in which my grandchildren will live and flourish, I have carefully assayed the dueling claims of Senator Clinton and Senator Obama to lead the nation. Senator Clinton proclaims a decisive advantage in experience that notably embraces her days as First Lady in the Clinton Administration of the 90's as well as her more recent term in the Senate. While the Clinton administration had much to be proud of, it bore responsibility for troubling policies I encountered on the bench that contributed to overwhelming state and federal prison populations and streamlined the harmful process of committing youthful offenders to adult institutions.

Senator Clinton's Senate career has frequently shown political expedience. Her acceptance of the Bush Administration's rationale for going to war in Iraq without reading the National Intelligence Estimate, and her rejection of a modest proposal approved by the U.S. Sentencing Commission retroactively to reduce the harsh penalties for crack cocaine, hardly evidenced uniquely seasoned leadership qualities or demonstrated a bold force for change.

I find Senator Obama's record fully as impressive as Senator Clinton claims for hers. His years organizing and unifying poor communities in Chicago gave him on-the-ground knowledge of conditions that a new President will surely need in tackling the still intractable issues of race and poverty. He has been an unswerving supporter of women's rights to choose, despite the Clinton campaign's misrepresentation of that record. He fought in Illinois for children's health insurance and tax credits for working class families. As someone whose career has been in law enforcement; I admire especially his unremitting honesty and his respect for the law and its processes.

Senator Obama advocated ethics reform legislation, that was labeled by the Washington Post as "the strongest ethics legislation to emerge from Congress yet". His opposition to the Iraq War even as others fell into lock-step behind a flawed and deceptive strategy, testifies to his mature judgment.

Much has been written about the hope and inspiration that Senator Obama brings to the young, but his words resonate with older voters as well. For me, these are not vague and amorphous qualities. I recall a time in the not-too-distant-past when many of my generation passionately believed in an alliance of Government and the people for positive social change. We sought out visionary leaders who could appeal to our inner angels. When Robert Kennedy said in 1968, "I dream of things that never were and ask why not," he voiced our deepest longings, calling on us to go forth together -- black, white, Latino, poor, rich, young, old, male, female -- to challenge injustice and poverty.

Too often in the 40 years since, our political leaders have divided and polarized us. Our sights have been blurred and misdirected, our youth dispirited and politically apathetic. Today, Barack Obama offers us a road map to a common cause: "In the face of a politics that's shut you out, that's told you to settle, that's divided us for too long . . . [we] can be one people, reaching for what's possible."

My grandchildren and their peers need not be seared by our failures and our mixed memories. I want them to be stirred by the same idealism that once stirred my generation. We should not deny them that chance. For all Senator Clinton's talents, skills and accomplishments, Barack Obama provides the greater hope.

Posted by: washington29 | February 9, 2008 6:50 PM | Report abuse

I'm a big Barack Obama supporter and I pray he is voted into the White House as the next U.S. President. He is a good and decent man and brings hope not only to Americans but to the world. Clear sailing, Mr. Obama. May you have a fair wind at your back.

Posted by: jhhovey | February 9, 2008 6:48 PM | Report abuse

How can one say that Sen. Clinton had a failed health care policy when she was a FIRST LADY. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it a Republican Congress that turned their back on the health care issue?

Posted by: jhawkerfan | February 9, 2008 6:48 PM | Report abuse

I'm getting sick of the following comments that are repeated time and time again, and just aren't true: "too inexperienced," "snake-oil salesman," "don't really know who he is."

If you would look back to the press before the 1992 election, these same three comments could easily be levied against Bill Clinton. A governor of a small southern state (whose unofficial motto is "Thank God for Mississippi," meaning that they know they won't be ranked last in the nation for education, poverty, health care, etc.--google that) with NO NATIONAL level experience, young (younger than Obama), and spreading a message of hope was elected despite these superficial criticisms.

Why? Because he spoke of change and hope and spread that message when the country desperately wanted a new direction.

16 years later, that candidate is Obama. And this is why Bill is furious. He sees his own plays being used against him, because he has now aged into the realm of "the establishment."

Obama has more education, national level domestic and international experience, and years of motivating and leading people as a community organizer. He isn't selling snake oil---unless you think change and bipartisanship count. And if you don't know about his policies, LEARN. He has debated Hillary 18 times. He has a website, podcasts, and tons of written material. He is not an unknown.

Posted by: hillmannic | February 9, 2008 6:44 PM | Report abuse

pdandrews. your descriptions of obama's inexperience describe another president we had once, Abraham Lincoln. Experience alone does not make a good president or even someone who can get a lot accomplished.

Posted by: laveroomba | February 9, 2008 6:40 PM | Report abuse

It's always interesting how little reason the Clinton supporters come up with to back their candidate. It's almost always this "experience" argument, but they offer no evidence that their candidate is "experienced." Instead they simply state that Obama is not and leave it at that. I'm glad they're happy to vote against someone. I'll be voting FOR someone.

I'd really love an answer where all this magical "experience" Mrs. Clinton has comes from. But that would mean talking about your candidate's strengths, which seems to be a problem for the Hillary folks.

Posted by: jjhare | February 9, 2008 6:40 PM | Report abuse

C'mon people, you should all know that a president can only get his/her ideas signed into law that are able to be passed by the Congress (House and Senate). While all this pandering is nice, who is going to be able to work across the aisles in Congress to get these ideas passed into law? I might add, there are not many ideologies that separate the two Dems. Who is more likely to bring together the two parties to get something done. I will accept the party will "try" Obama, but what will they do with Hillary, agree?

Posted by: barvettas | February 9, 2008 6:40 PM | Report abuse

How is it that seated legislators are able to show up nor do the job for which they were hired. Why are they receiving full pay and benefits while never showing up for work. What other industry can you openly look for a bigger job in full view of the boss and not be either terminated or out on LOA w/o pay.

Posted by: petekam | February 9, 2008 6:39 PM | Report abuse

I'm siding w/ Obama here. I think he's going to come out of this weekend with more momentum to build on his already strong Super Tuesday showing.

Posted by: crd203 | February 9, 2008 6:36 PM | Report abuse

Louisiana holds a primary just 4 days after Mardis Gras and people wonder why the turnout is low? Think about it . . . most of the residents are still trying to get beyond the hangover!

As a former resident of the Pelican state, I can tell you that nothing in Louisiana, including elections, is as important as Mardis Gras.

Posted by: suspence13 | February 9, 2008 6:34 PM | Report abuse

I think if Bill Clinton, with no experience other then being a governor, can run the country, Obama can too. Hillary is a good second choice. Her experience is rooted in the unpleasent past. She been there before and has been tested. If Clintons could not deliver before, let the fresh guy give it a try. We need change. Past is too painful, lets look to the future.

Posted by: mian | February 9, 2008 6:27 PM | Report abuse

Mixing Protestant revivalism, 1960s civil rights era emotion, JFK policy rhetoric, and the modern day inspirational speaker to subdue crowds is likely the type of mob frenzy the founders hoped would not become part of the political process. How can a one-term backseat senator still learning the ropes of the Senate occupy the highest office without showing a record of federal-level or gubernatorial accomplishment? Perhaps women support Sen. Clinton because they are used to rejecting opportunistic men with sweet lips. Sen. Obama is brilliant in his ability to sell himself and his record without anyone really knowing who he is or what he has done. He is a supremely confident man who gains the public's confidence by rhetorical twists and by tapping into our insecurities and desires. Dr. King wrote his own speaches. JFK was from a political family. Sen. Obama's speechwriters use the American historical conscience and Sen. Obama's voice to woo us. I'll vote for Sen. McCain if an inexperienced candidate is my other choice.

Posted by: pdandrews | February 9, 2008 6:22 PM | Report abuse

Last time I checked the "experienced" candidate has won ONE office where she actually had to win an election. Both times they were basically uncontested (Same office twice.) Also she only ran for the Senate in New York to make a run at the White House. So the experience is what? WalMart Board? First Lady? Failed Health Care Plan in the early 1990's? Should we talk about her law firm experience? That only led to her failing to comply with a court order to hand over files that she couldn't find in her OWN PRIVATE OFFICE. Over 700,000 people have donate to Obama. Why? We want change and a President we can be proud!! At least once in our life time. YES WE CAN.

Posted by: mory14 | February 9, 2008 6:20 PM | Report abuse

It's a sad joke that Obama is considered a viable candidate for the Presidency. Three years of Federal experience and much of that has been spent campaigning for the Presidency. He's going to fix the economy, the war, health care and every other problem in this country? Considering he barely knows the people who run things in Washington (the politicos and bureaucrats) or how everything works, it'll be a minor miracle if he gets much legislation passed. People, stop making this a high school popularity contest where you want to vote for the guy who promised you steaks for lunch every day in the cafeteria and vote for someone who can actually get something done fast. I'm a military Democrat and I'm damn scared for the troops if Obama is voted in to lead our exit from the war. A lot of good people will die. Clinton will fix our country and the war. Obama won't.

Posted by: cristoph2003 | February 9, 2008 6:17 PM | Report abuse

I forgot to mention Harvard Law.

Racist ding dongs styling nothing but "snake oil" between Barak's ears...have you ever,

ever in your lives met anyone who just sold snake oil to the Harvard Law people?

He is smarter than me and he is smarter than you. Can you handle that?

Thought so.

Posted by: shrink2 | February 9, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Yes, every vote counts. In an election this close, where people are comparing everything from the percentage to the total number of votes nationally, everything counts. Obama may hold an advantage the next few weeks, but his camp cannot afford to make one mistake from here on out. Low voter turn out ANY WHERE is a problem.

Posted by: shuang | February 9, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: akafir | February 9, 2008 05:38 PM

May God have mercy on you for mocking in such a way.

Posted by: IllinoisDemo | February 9, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Whether one is for Obama, Clinton, or whomever, there is simply no excuse for not voting in an election as important as this one. Any eligible voter who does not vote in 2008 deserves to be horsewhipped.

Posted by: meades | February 9, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

I've heard from a couple friends inside the caucuses in both states. In NE it looks like Obama will take it while WA looks significantly closer. And yes, given that AR borders LA and I'm sure Clinton supporters will turn out big in northern LA, this is going to be close.

Posted by: Nissl | February 9, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Do the Clintons have percieved character?
Oh sorry, of course not. You were saying Obama might have character. We call it personal integrity.

Competent bureaucrat. Just like jumbo shrimp. So how would you know if she were competent? Has she worked in the Dilbert world?

Posted by: shrink2 | February 9, 2008 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Wow akafir, you're pretty loony. Glad you're not an Obama supporter but rather a troll. Good job!

I don't see how a low turnout in LA could be bad for Obama. How could you suggest that Clinton's supporters, angry that she didn't even both to come to the state, would show up any more reliably than Obama's? I think a low turnout, in this state only, would affect Clinton worse than Obama.

Posted by: thecrisis | February 9, 2008 5:44 PM | Report abuse

"Instead she sent her husband to campaign for him there while chasing better bets ..."

Yeah, that's a Freudian slip -- Bill does tend to talk more about himself at his campaign events. Then, almost as an afterthought, "Oh, yeah. Vote fer Hill! It's aaall about her, Yep. Don't mind me. I'll just be over there in the East Wing, just mindin' mah business... prolly watch QVC or sumpin'..."



Don't worry about Obama -- he knows what he's doing. Thanks for your concern, though.

Posted by: psyberdawg | February 9, 2008 5:43 PM | Report abuse

"Instead she sent her husband to campaign for HIM there while chasing better bets in Maine, which holds its caucus on Sunday, and Virginia."
I think that error says a lot. Hillary would do a fine job but this country has more talent than just two families, the Clintons and Bushes. Obama has done a fantastic job with his campaign and has inspired the country again. Go Obama!

Posted by: jferrigan | February 9, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

A low turnout could indeed be bad news for Obama. He needs the young voters to get out on a Saturday and do their civil duty.

Posted by: davidmwe | February 9, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Come join the Church of Obama!!

Obama will take us to the promised land!!

Obama will defeat the wicked witch of the north!!


Lead us to the Promised Land, O, Obama!!

Posted by: AKafir | February 9, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

At this point in our history, I would rather have a competent bureaucrat(however uncharismatic) in the White House than another president elected on the basis of his perceived character.

Posted by: VegetablesPlease | February 9, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: jsteph23 | February 9, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

It's becoming glaringly clear that the clintons, with two previous presidential campaigns and two people to campaign on the trail, are gonna out match obama.

too bad. It feels like we are destined to always have mediocre leadership in this country.

Posted by: tmcproductions2004 | February 9, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company