Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama's Texas Test


A volunteer prepares a poster in advance of the opening of Barack Obama's Austin, Texas, office. Friday, Feb. 15, 2008. (AP.)

By Dan Balz
AUSTIN -- Barack Obama has gathered valuable momentum over the past 10 days with his string of post-Super Tuesday victories. But he still has yet to prove he can significantly dent Hillary Clinton's solid advantage in the Hispanic community. Texas offers the next great test for his campaign.

The Latino community is a critical piece of any Democratic candidate's general election calculations. Against John McCain, who has championed comprehensive immigration reform to his detriment in the Republican primaries, the Democratic nominee will face an opponent who begins the general election with a credible chance of holding a solid minority of the Hispanic vote.

President Bush made significant inroads in the Latino community in his reelection campaign four years ago, and while there is evidence that the immigration debate has hurt Republicans with Latino voters, McCain may be able to escape the fallout from some of the angriest anti-illegal immigration rhetoric and compete for those voters.

Much has been made about McCain's struggle to gain a greater share of the conservative vote as he has moved closer to wrapping up the Republican nomination. Far less has been made of Obama's continuing struggle to significantly increase his share of the Hispanic vote in his battle against Clinton.

Their first test came in Nevada in mid-January, and Clinton carried Hispanics by more than 2 to 1. On Super Tuesday, despite greater efforts by the Obama campaign, Clinton still dominated the Hispanic vote. There were eight states with significant Latino populations, and she had sizable leads in six of them.

In California, despite the energetic efforts of Ted Kennedy, Obama once again lost by an overwhelming margin of roughly 2 to 1. He may have had the Kennedy mantle, but Clinton had the support of Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who has been tireless throughout the primary season in his efforts.

Even in Obama's home state of Illinois, Obama did little better than a split among Hispanics. He carried Hispanic men, and Clinton carried Hispanic women there. While he won the state by a significant margin, the resistance in the Hispanic community was notable.

Obama's campaign points to Arizona, where he won roughly 40 percent of the Hispanic vote, as evidence that he is gaining ground. In Maryland and Virginia, he roughly split the Hispanic vote, according to exit polls. But neither of those states has been seen as a true bellwether of Hispanic support.

Some analysts have blamed Obama's struggle as a black-brown conflict, although the Illinois senator has resisted embracing that idea for obvious reasons. Others rightly point to the fact that Clinton is far better known to the Hispanic community and therefore has built-in advantages that will last throughout the nomination battle.

The question is whether there will be any lack of enthusiasm within the Hispanic community in the general election if Obama rather than Clinton is the Democratic nominee. In the same way McCain needs an energized conservative base, the Democratic nominee must have enthusiastic support from the Hispanic community.

A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll tested McCain against both Clinton and Obama in hypothetical general election match-ups. In both cases, McCain was competitive with both candidates -- he did slightly better against Clinton than against Obama -- and one reason was his solid support among Hispanic voters.

The Post-ABC News survey suggested that, if Obama is the Democratic nominee, he may do as well among Hispanic voters as would Clinton, that Hispanics would rally around either one. But the poll also showed that McCain begins the race with what appears to be somewhat outsized support among Hispanics -- and no Democrat can afford to allow that to hold throughout a tough general election campaign.

In the Potomac primaries, Obama showed signs of chipping into Clinton's core constituencies. Texas affords the opportunity to demonstrate that he can do that with what has been, next to women, her most important source of support. He has picked off some younger Hispanic politicians, but she has a larger network and deeper roots.

On Friday, the Texas Credit Union League released a poll conducted by the Republican firm of Public Opinion Strategies and the Democratic firm of Hamilton Campaigns. It showed that, overall, Clinton leads Obama in the state by 49 percent to 41 percent. Among Hispanics, she led as she has in other key states by a margin of 2 to 1. Among Hispanic women, the lead was more than 3 to 1.

The Obama campaign is seeking to make Texas and Ohio tests of whether Clinton can rack up sizable overall percentages. Winning, say Obama officials, won't be enough because of her deficit in the delegate count. But they may underestimate the effect Clinton victories in two big states -- regardless of the delegate split -- may have on the seesawing psychology of the Democratic race.

One way for Obama to put that to rest would be to win the states outright, and in Texas he could do that if he manages to cut into Clinton's Hispanic support. For all his success in the past few weeks, his weakness in the Latino community is an obvious hole in his coalition. The Obama campaign may believe he can wait to address this, but rather than avoiding the problem, he should be trying to figure out how to solve it -- beginning in the Lone Star State.

By Web Politics Editor  |  February 15, 2008; 1:40 PM ET
Categories:  Barack Obama , Dan Balz's Take , John McCain  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama Waiting to Hear From Lewis
Next: McCain Takes on Obama Over Public Financing

Comments

Posted by: Anonymous | August 21, 2008 1:02 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Anonymous | August 21, 2008 1:02 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Anonymous | August 18, 2008 9:57 AM | Report abuse

opqd qwxy sjkw avrnc
effexor missed periods

Posted by: Anonymous | August 17, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

opqd qwxy sjkw avrnc
effexor missed periods

Posted by: Anonymous | August 17, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

ytgliw ouietay wtzb lqoztmk
levitra blindness

Posted by: Anonymous | August 16, 2008 10:18 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Anonymous | August 16, 2008 9:10 PM | Report abuse

yqznjsv
buspar alcohol

Posted by: Anonymous | August 16, 2008 7:34 PM | Report abuse

yqznjsv
buspar alcohol

Posted by: Anonymous | August 16, 2008 7:32 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Anonymous | August 16, 2008 7:15 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Anonymous | August 16, 2008 7:14 AM | Report abuse

wpqlmne
kamagra achat

Posted by: Anonymous | August 15, 2008 9:24 PM | Report abuse

maokzx liefgou mipfxe xmnbjrw
long term side effects from cymbalta

Posted by: Anonymous | August 15, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

bxgsd fpyaqcl
bupropion cymbalta

Posted by: Anonymous | August 15, 2008 9:12 AM | Report abuse

ybhz afuz oedc
effexor anticholinergic

Posted by: Anonymous | August 15, 2008 8:53 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Anonymous | August 15, 2008 6:41 AM | Report abuse

tcgwhpm bxwaseh uykjph
propecia effects

Posted by: Anonymous | May 12, 2008 10:24 AM | Report abuse

tcgwhpm bxwaseh uykjph
propecia effects

Posted by: Anonymous | May 12, 2008 10:23 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Anonymous | May 11, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Anonymous | May 11, 2008 1:28 PM | Report abuse

xqfjit jvqx mypzucw nfghi
drug medication ultram

Posted by: Anonymous | May 11, 2008 11:12 AM | Report abuse

bxzso uvtp liny
is ultram addictive

Posted by: Anonymous | May 11, 2008 8:02 AM | Report abuse

ctlj thkfn
ultram line

Posted by: Anonymous | May 11, 2008 6:40 AM | Report abuse

ctlj thkfn
ultram line

Posted by: Anonymous | May 11, 2008 6:39 AM | Report abuse

fhcy dnhapi vlrge gnwrtqmse khwjtdxr pzyhmo dnsir jcwo irukdsefx

Posted by: Anonymous | April 16, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

qkbirulwm mrdquaf actogfhmi tqsek miwt qgzdvy jmwvq

Posted by: Anonymous | April 16, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

qkbirulwm mrdquaf actogfhmi tqsek miwt qgzdvy jmwvq

Posted by: Anonymous | April 16, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

qkbirulwm mrdquaf actogfhmi tqsek miwt qgzdvy jmwvq

Posted by: Anonymous | April 16, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Obama has support in the Amish communities of PA and Ohio because he is seen as someone who will not rush to war and a peacemaker. There is nothing wrong with a candidate who's message is built on hope.The message not the man or woman will deliver the votes. Obama has a stronger message. Hillary needs to beef up the message and centralize on a theme as Obama has done or will not be remembered at the polls.

Posted by: eaclark717 | February 25, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

AS A LATINO, I AM OFFENDED WHEN I HEAR OBAMA SPEAK.

As a Latino, I am offended when I hear Obama's empty promises and pre-fabricated, fake speeches. he says he wants to unite Blacks and Whites in our country, well, he does not even mention the word Latinos unless he is talking about dominating the Latino vote.

As a senator of Illinois, my home state, he has done absolutely nothing. Why doesn't he use his power to help improve our state?

He is wrong for our country not only because of his unexperience but also because he does not deliver what he promises.

We hear in the news, which is more like propaganda for Obama, that the people who are voting for him are educated people, well, I'm yet to meet one of them. They're either dumb white kids or black, which are voting for him for the simple reason he is black.

I wish that all my Latino Hermanos would unite and come out to vote in big numbers this November and elect the man or woman who better represents the strong values of our nation--that person is certainly not Obama.

Sincerely,

A concerned Latino

Posted by: joseroosevelt | February 22, 2008 3:11 AM | Report abuse

why he wins:
the 2 dem parties - the elite & the blue collar - always contest the primaries; usually, the "blue collar" wins with a union and ethnic coalition.
this time it's the same, except that the elite also gets the blacks who otherwise vote with the blue collars.
it's simple math
it's worked before
it will work again.
obama is winning because he's black
good for him
bad for the rest of black politicians who are now irrelevant as "elected black officials".

Posted by: shmaryahoopizzaman | February 18, 2008 6:08 AM | Report abuse

Latinos,

Obaman is not a cause - He has done nothing significant to improve the lives of Latinos in his own state. He was trained as a community organizer, trained to divide and conquer for his black liberation agenda. Organize your own agenda within your Latino community and leverage your power. If you vote for Obama you vote against your self-interest.

Don't drink the kool-aid. Vote for Hilary she can win and Latinos will win. Obama will not win he will be decimenated by the Republicans and when that happens the Latino community will be diminished.

Latinos Unidas Siempre

Posted by: truthteller52 | February 18, 2008 5:05 AM | Report abuse

We were strong Clinton supporters in the 1990s, but they fail to inspire any longer. Hillary is a flawed candidate in terms of being able to create a unified approach to complex issues. While we would support the democratic standard bearer in November, we believe that Barack Obama is, by far, the better candidate. While Clinton has said she would not run again if she were not the nominee, the same may be true of Obama. So, it's not now or never, as Clintonites assert.

Posted by: bsmith | February 17, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

If you ignore the folks who are completely focused on either Hillary or Obama, we are down to a few basic facts:
1) Texas, with its complex primary/Caucus strcuture is not likely to give anyone a significant delegate lead. This is more about bragging rights,and Psychology.
2) While the hispanic vote is significant, Texas is the last of the real hispanics. After this it won't matter in any primary later.
3) Ohio is far more important than Texas and is really the place Hillary can gain many delegates. Again, with the backing f SEIU and other key unions for Obama, this will not be a blow out for Clinton. Again a moral victory, but these do matter.
4) No one is talking about RI and VT, but those delgates count too, especailly if one candidate wins by a huge margin. I think Hillary ahs the advantage here, although VT can surprise people.
5) It is very convenient to forget WI and HI, but Hillary is probably hoping they don't add to Obama's lead.
6) After the dust settles from March 4, unless Hillary wins all four states, and by good margins, Obama will very likely carry Wyoming and Mississippi by huge margins, before it gets interesting in PA.
7) Just to round it out, I am going to call PA for Hillary by a small margin, Indiana and North Carolina to Obama, with NC by a large margin, and WV for Hillary, again by a moderate margin. Kentucky is tough to call this early -they probably have not yet realizeed they matter. Oregon, Montana and South Dakota will all likely go heavily for Obama.

So, in summary, James Carville is right. Hillary needs to win Ohio and Texas or she is out.
If she loses OH or Texas, or she wins by big margins, PA will not matter.

Posted by: syam_new | February 17, 2008 10:17 AM | Report abuse

Crenza,

The Rasmussen poll has Clinton leading by double digits in Texas.

Robert,
George Bush ran a great campaign. Are you comparing Obama to Bush?

For a candidate that inspires people, Obama supporters come across as hateful and divisive. You talk out of both sides of your mouth. Obama is going to bring us together. His inspiration sure hasn't touched your spirits.

Posted by: EWard2 | February 17, 2008 1:34 AM | Report abuse

I think that most Hispanics are looking at Obama's color, more than listening to what he has to say. In my opinion, this is just as bad as the Republicans are thinking in their solutions to the immigration problems. I can not imagine any significant change occurring with the possibility of 28 years of Clinton and Bush Inc. That is right, if Hillary wins, we will have had the same "2" families in the White house for 28 years. How can we achieve real change if this happens? Obama has a real way of bringing people together and will bring the country together. Hillary will lead to more of the same and will be a polarizing figure, just as Bush is now.

Posted by: cpebach1714 | February 16, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Think for a moment about Hillary's claim that she's ready to serve on "Day One" and then think again about how she's managed her campaign: it's a mess, riddled with firings, defections, and personnel (and personal) problems. It's searching for a voice, an identity, one that it never had and never will.

Doesn't this tell us something about what Day One (and beyond) in the White House under the Clintons would look like?

Posted by: robert_buxbaum | February 16, 2008 9:34 AM | Report abuse

Think for a moment about Hillary's claim that she's ready to serve on "Day One" and then think again about how she's managed her campaign: it's a mess, riddled with firings, defections, and personnel (and personal) problems. It's searching for a voice, and identity, one that it never had and never will.

Doesn't this tell us something about what Day One (and beyond) in the White House under the Clintons would look like?

Posted by: robert_buxbaum | February 16, 2008 9:33 AM | Report abuse

Houston Chronicle just endorsed Obama: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/5546874.html

Posted by: JohnHa | February 16, 2008 8:45 AM | Report abuse

I believe the real rational among many of the repubs voting Obama is they figure this cycle is ripe for the dems and coupled with a weak and uninspiring candidate like McCain they will lose to the dem nominee. That being the case, they cannot stomach a Hillary presidency, but don't mind laying low and riding out 4 or 8 years of Obama, who many of them genuinely like anyway.

Posted by: mcgish | February 16, 2008 5:02 AM | Report abuse

Obama is our modern Robin Hood, he robbed the poor and gave to the riches . My vote for him.
"Barack Obama angered fellow Democrats in the Illinois Senate when he voted to strip millions of dollars from a child welfare office on Chicago's West Side. But Obama had a ready explanation: He goofed."

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obamavotes24jan24,1,4287705.story

I hope he doesn't goof on red button of the " Nuclear codes" once he became president . There won't be a second chance.

Posted by: sanclemete_2000 | February 16, 2008 4:50 AM | Report abuse

I heard from an Indian astrologer in 2002 that if America enters into war with Iraq there will be never be able to get out of it for next 10 years and during this 10 year their country will be ruined financially and economically, loose status as Super power (Times have changed today one who is economically and financially powerful is considered as Super Power not one with nucelar weapons). Since its not 10 years yet since the war started and still the country is not completely ruined financially, the politician who can carry Bush policies will have to win i.e John McCain (He is ready to wage a 100 year war). This implies Obama will loose the primary to Hillary Clinton, because Hillary cannot make strong argument against the war, she will loose to John McCain.

Posted by: rchenna | February 16, 2008 2:09 AM | Report abuse

Just a few reasons latinos should resist supporting Obama:

Feb. 15 (Bloomberg) -- Hillary Clinton questions whether Barack Obama would be able to withstand what she calls the ``Republican attack machine.'' If Obama does become the Democratic presidential nominee, his Chicago ties might provide the fuel.
While the Illinois senator has never been accused of wrongdoing, some of the associations he formed as a community organizer and politician in Chicago may provide fodder for attacks, Democratic and Republican political experts say.
Besides his relationship with indicted businessman Antoin Rezko, Obama might face Republican criticism over contacts with a former leader of the Weather Underground, a banker with ties to a convicted felon and even his church.
``He has had relationships with individuals who are controversial, he has had relationships with individuals who are in trouble,'' said Cindi Canary, director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform.
Canary says that ``there has been no link whatsoever that ties him to their troubles.'' Even so, that may not immunize him from attack. In 2004, Massachusetts Democratic Senator John Kerry, the presidential nominee, was subjected to unfounded criticism about his service in the Vietnam War.
`Inevitable'
``I think that it is inevitable that the media and Republicans will try to resort to these tactics,'' said Julian Epstein, a Democratic strategist. Epstein says he isn't affiliated with any campaign, though he has raised money for Clinton, given advice to Clinton and former candidate Bill Richardson, and would advise Obama if asked.
Alex Conant, the Republican National Committee press secretary, said that if Obama ``wants to be commander-in-chief, he's going to have to answer to his record in Illinois.''
Nothing in Obama's 11 years in public office rises to the level of the scandal that embroiled the likely Republican nominee, Senator John McCain of Arizona, in the 1980s. McCain, 71, was among five senators who took contributions from savings- and-loan executive Charles Keating and were then accused of seeking favors from regulators for him. The Senate Ethics Committee reprimanded McCain, though it cleared him of wrongdoing.
Still, Obama's past endorsements and donors may give opponents material to work with. One target might be his 2006 backing of Democrat Alexi Giannoulias, who was elected Illinois state treasurer.
Loans to a Felon
During the campaign, the Democratic speaker of the state House and other party leaders criticized Giannoulias because of loans his family bank made to Michael ``Jaws'' Giorango, a convicted felon. Obama stuck with Giannoulias after the revelations, though he did call on him to explain the matter.
``I'm going to ask Alexi directly what is happening,'' Obama said in April 2006, according to the Chicago Tribune.
More recently, Obama has conceded it was ``boneheaded'' of him to buy a home in June 2005 for $1.65 million with the involvement of Rezko, who was under federal investigation at the time. Rezko was indicted 16 months later on unrelated corruption charges, and is awaiting trial in jail. Over the past year, Obama, 46, has returned about $85,000 in campaign contributions given or raised by Rezko.
When Obama bought the home in Chicago's Kenwood neighborhood, Rezko's wife, Rita, purchased, for $625,000, adjoining land that the house's owners insisted on selling at the same time. Seven months later, she sold the Obamas one-sixth of her lot, for $105,000, so they could expand their yard.
`Vetted'
New York Senator Clinton, 60, points to the Rezko controversy as evidence that Obama may be more vulnerable to criticism than she because her longer tenure in the spotlight means she has been ``vetted.''
``I understand exactly what is coming at me, and there isn't any new information,'' she said Feb. 11 in an interview with the Politico and an ABC-TV affiliate. ``I don't think we can say that about my opponent.'' Still, the Clinton campaign has had its own embarrassments: In September, it was forced to return about $800,000 raised by Norman Hsu, who was arrested on charges stemming from a 1991 fraud case.
Besides Rezko and Giannoulias, Obama could face questions about his relationship with William Ayers, a former member of the radical group the Weather Underground who is now a professor of education at the University of Illinois in Chicago. Ayers donated $200 in 2001 to Obama's Illinois state Senate campaign and served with him from 1999 to 2002 on the nine-member board of the Woods Fund, an anti-poverty group.
A Series of Bombings
The Weather Underground carried out a series of bombings in the early 1970s -- including the U.S. Capitol and the Pentagon. While Ayers was never prosecuted for those attacks, he told the New York Times in an interview published Sept. 11, 2001, that ``I don't regret setting bombs.''
Bill Burton, Obama's spokesman, said Ayers ``does not have a role on the campaign.'' Ayers said he had no comment on his relationship with Obama.
Even the candidate's church, the Trinity United Church of Christ, and its pastor, Jeremiah Wright, have come under scrutiny. Last month, Obama ``strongly'' condemned anti-Semitic comments made by Louis Farrakhan after the church's magazine published an article praising the leader of the Chicago-based Nation of Islam.
In what may be a preview of the attention to come, the church has been barraged with so many questions about its association with Obama that it now responds with an automated e- mail that describes the candidate as a member ``for nearly two decades.''
To contact the reporter on this story: Timothy J. Burger in Washington at Tburger2@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: February 15, 2008 14:14 EST

Posted by: truthteller52 | February 16, 2008 1:39 AM | Report abuse

It's 1980 all over again.

George Bush = Jimmy Carter (ineffective, reviled presidency)
Iraq War = Iran Hostages (foreign policy fiasco)
Dems = Repubs (party out of power)
Hillary Clinton = George HW Bush (establishment, "experienced" candidate)
Barack Obama = Ronald Reagan (politician cum movement leader, gives great speeches, light on wonkishness, Teflon quality)
John McCain = Jimmy Carter (defending last four years of ineffective, reviled presidency)

Posted by: gbooksdc | February 16, 2008 12:55 AM | Report abuse

"Republicans who have little to decide in their primaries are crossing over to vote for Obama and thus eliminate Hillary, who they fear most in the general."

Simply not true. As the internal polls of GOP politicos have repeatedly shown since Christmas, Republican insiders fear Obama as the opposition candidate far more than Hillary. Check the facts.

Posted by: dlopata | February 16, 2008 12:05 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton is very Republican compared to Obama. She voted for most of what Bush wanted: Tax cuts for the rich, No Child Left Behind (a total disaster), War in Iraq (she has blood on her hands), the Patriot Act (voted for by traitors) and more.

Do NOT elect her. Barack Obama represents true hope for all Americans, including Hispanics and even conservatives. Everyone will benefit under his leadership. I am a white middle class man, and I fully support Barack Obama for president.

Posted by: michaelfairbanks | February 15, 2008 11:50 PM | Report abuse

Obama keeps preaching "change" and wants to get rid of the old politics in Washington. He hired some of Hillary's advisors, and he couldn't have been more pleased with Ted Kennedy's endorsement. Does it make sense that he is using the old politics to help him get rid of the old politics?

Posted by: mafox1 | February 15, 2008 11:43 PM | Report abuse

Obama is a Trojan horse of Karl Rove placed in the middle of the Democratic Camp.Support Obama at your own risk and bar the consequences, Democrats!

Posted by: johnycheng1 | February 15, 2008 11:27 PM | Report abuse

There seems to be a lot of attention put on the latinos in Texas.

The last I checked white men and white women were the majority in Texas!

The Great White Conspiracy Theory of voting for Obama, the weaker candidate, to eliminate Hillary, the stronger candidate, sounds like people think white people are so racist that they don't know that they are the majority and can simply elect whoever they want to be President! Nice try Cleotis! ...that dog don't hunt!

Truth be told, Obama's strategy of bringing whites & blacks together seems like a better winning strategy than Hillary's strategy of pitting white women & latinos against them.

In the end, white men and white women will realize that Obama wants to bring the country together and give it back to us, the majority, while the other candidates are ole' hat!

Posted by: ohioanglo3 | February 15, 2008 11:17 PM | Report abuse

junkmail speaks truth.

Posted by: staxnet | February 15, 2008 10:40 PM | Report abuse

If I were McCain, I'd much, much rather have Hillary as opponent than Obama. Firstly, a sizable chunk of the polled population already has stated it will not vote for her no matter what. That's a bad starting point.

Second, she's on his playing field. She's a known quantity, a classic democrat without great oratory gifts. A much easier target than an inspirational wonder which makes polls jump apparently by his very presence. I'm not surprised if republicans will cross borderlines and vote Obama - but I don't think they do it to get rid of Clinton. THAT part sounds too incredible to me, and is probably just disinformation.

See also RealClearPolitics polls on this:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_clinton-224.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

This shows a very clear trend that Obama (already) would beat McCain, while Clinton would lose.

I honestly don't think McCain wants to be compared against Obama in the massive media coverage before the election - the difference between them is too brutal.

Posted by: JohnHa | February 15, 2008 10:34 PM | Report abuse

Anyone still trying to make up their mind between Clinton and Obama who thinks that Hillary lines up better against McCain hasn't seen the spate of polls that have come out in recent weeks. Obama consistently beats McCain by around 5%, while Clinton is about tied with McCain.

McCain and Clinton both voted for the war that the vast majority of America now realizes was a HUGE MISTAKE IN JUDGMENT. Obama voted against it and vociferously opposed it during a time when that took a fair bit of courage and integrity to do so. The American people recognize a leader when they see one. Plain and simple.

Posted by: B2O2 | February 15, 2008 10:15 PM | Report abuse

I'm from Michigan and I don't like the way the party dissed me in the primaries but you can be very sure that if Obama is the nominee, Michigan will show up on November 4th and vote him in. We would, less enthusiastically, show up and vote for Hillary if she is the nominee as well. After eight years of Bush, we know how important this election is and won't let it got to More War Same Old Same Old McCain. What was it he told Michigan when asked about our jobs leaving the country? Tough. It will be tough for him.

Posted by: SarahBB | February 15, 2008 10:04 PM | Report abuse

Luckoftheirish

Make sure to mention the word muslim at least a dozen times to suggest by innuendo that Senator Obama is a muslim when he isn't. By the way, the last time I checked the U.S. Constitution, it didn't mention being muslim was a crime but nice try with the innueendo and the mention of his middle name was a real nice touch.

Who are you kidding? You're a McCain supporter and a religious bigot.

Posted by: jovitman | February 15, 2008 10:01 PM | Report abuse

Adairskat:

I see. The reason Senator Obama is ahead in pledged delegates and ahead in the popular vote and ahead in states won is because there has been a writers strike for the past 3 months. Wow, I'm convinced. That's compelling reasoning.

Posted by: jovitman | February 15, 2008 9:44 PM | Report abuse

Dick Morris has been saying in Texas Republicans will cross over to vote for Obama to hurt Hillary. Isn't it possible they'd vote in their own contest to support Huckabee because of discomfort with Magoo? They face a conundrum, no doubt about it. Huckabee needs all the help he can get given the Republicans' grossly undemocratic winner-take-all-system, an institutional "fix" even worse than the Democrats' super delegates and the Hillarist scheme to throw the game through Florida and Michigan, both of which can be fought.

Posted by: filoporquequilo | February 15, 2008 9:42 PM | Report abuse

Dani8464:

I can only conclude by your incoherent comments about Senator Obama that you must have a drinking problem. Your thought process is indeed inebriated. When did Senator Obama ever propose something as silly as putting a ban on talk radio or TV? What on earth are you blabbering about. Have another drink. It might make you sober.

Posted by: jovitman | February 15, 2008 9:40 PM | Report abuse

Jovitman,

I think Svreader has many very valid points, and doesn't appear to be childish at all. Maybe you just don't have any good arguments for your own beliefs or the candidate whom you back. At least some people are trying to help the Obidiots to pay attention.

Posted by: adairslat | February 15, 2008 9:35 PM | Report abuse

Hey SVreader:

Give it up. Your opinions are so sophmoric and childish that you betray whatever semblance of intelligence you claim to have. Your desperation and nonsense mirrors the desperation of your candidate.

Posted by: jovitman | February 15, 2008 9:19 PM | Report abuse

Being a Texan, I plan to vote for Hillary Clinton. Obama has a lot to be desired, and a lot to be discussed regarding how he would manage to pay for all of his policy changes $857-billion etc. Not to mention what he calls "universal" healthcare, which it really isn't. Censorship is another issue, and the guy is just plain weak in debates. If he can't stand up and debate issues without stuttering and stammering with another candidate, how will he ever manage to stand up to any threat our nation faces. He has built a huge wave of emotional expectation that I personally feel he will fall miserably short of delivering on, and all of his Obidiots would be shaking their heads wondering what happened if he were elected. I really don't want him to become the nominee for the Democratic party, I would prefer to see Hillary Clinton grab that, so I'll do my part and keep contributing and go vote for her here in Texas in March. If it comes down to him being the nominee in November, I won't vote for McCain, I probably just won't vote at all.

Posted by: adairslat | February 15, 2008 9:08 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is like a fart in a mitten. She is past her prime, she is losing power, she stinks and she doesn't know where to go.

Posted by: majorteddy | February 15, 2008 8:58 PM | Report abuse

Ah, well--it's the media, stupid. Their appetite for pumping up the surprising candidate's surge will not only carry the day but also promote the so-called "underdog." This was until recently, Senator Obama. But now, as Senator Clinton is in this role,, the rock star type of candidate continues to be the toast of the conventional media at the expense of the previously hyped favorite Hillary Clinton. So much for balanced reporting.
So much to give female candidates equal opportunities.
http://www.reflectivepundit.com

Posted by: bn1123 | February 15, 2008 8:58 PM | Report abuse

shhhhhhh dont mention the networking among every republican vote group in texas to dump,hillery, the "vote Obama" movement is massive as it is in other staes,,what better way to rid us of the clintons then the easy win by mccain.

Posted by: gonville1 | February 15, 2008 8:51 PM | Report abuse

GRANTISBACK (from where?):

The best evidence tells us that 7.5 million Hispanics voted in 2004 -- an impressive 27% increase over 2000 figures -- wanna bet that McCain gets more of those votes in November than either of the Democrats?

http://thehill.com/op-eds/prescription-for-dr.-dean-a-hispanic-center-2005-05-10.html

Posted by: JakeD | February 15, 2008 8:43 PM | Report abuse

I just heard Speaker of the House Pelosi say that Florida and Michigan delegates should not be seated if those delegates would decide the nomination -- so much for COUNT EVERY VOTE!!!

Posted by: JakeD | February 15, 2008 8:40 PM | Report abuse

Obama has gotte a "free ride" from the mainstream press, and equally important has benefited from the fact that there's been a writers strike.

If the comedy writers hadn't been on strike, Obama would never have gotten this far.

Someone would have pricked his bubble.

If he does get elected, it will be great for all the stand-up comics.

He's going to be a great source for comedy routines.

Posted by: svreader | February 15, 2008 8:34 PM | Report abuse

The Republican Party's (ie McCain's) only hope in November is to have Hillary Clinton be nominated by the Democrats and they know it. Americans want to turn the page and get on with the future.

Posted by: rkhopkins1 | February 15, 2008 8:27 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Obama, if he is elected as the President of the United States of America in November, without any doubt he will be able to end the World crisis, especially in the Muslim countries. How and Why? Because he is respected by those people, not becasue of race or religion, but because of his right attitude with God.!!
God dwells in him and he dwells in God..!!chp.

Posted by: changhopark | February 15, 2008 8:25 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Obama, if he is elected as the President of the United States of America in November, without any doubt he will be able to end the World crisis, especially in the Muslim countries. How and Why? Because he is respected by those people, not becasue of race or religion, but because of his right attitude with God.!!
God dwells in him and he dwells in God..!!chp.

Posted by: changhopark | February 15, 2008 8:24 PM | Report abuse

Is there any truth to the rumor that the Republicans are doing a legal brief on whether they can challenge Hillary's election (if such comes about) in the Supreme Court -- on the basis that she is a surrogate for Bill or otherwise legally bound to him and since he is barred under the 22nd Amandment from becoming President, so is she? All they would need is the Supreme Court taking the case.

Posted by: vicado | February 15, 2008 8:18 PM | Report abuse

Go to both candidates web sites.

Read their proposals for yourself.

Especially their health care proposals.

Hillary's is great. Obama's is horrible.

Obama's health care proposal encourages people to go without health insurance to save money and then go to the emergency room and get charged through the nose for lousy care.

He admitted it himself during the debates.

Read everything you can about what the candidates are saying they'll actually do when the get into the office.

Read both web sites.

The more you know, the more you'll vote for Hillary Clinton.

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

WHO CARES ABOUT THE HISPANIC VOTE .. MOST DONT VOTE ANYWAY .. AND A GOOD AMOUNT OF THEM ARE ILLEGAL .. I'M HOPING THEY DIDNT FIND A WAY TO HAVE THEM VOTE TOO AMONG OTHER THINGS THEY ARE ILLEGALLY ABLE TO GET AWAY WITH HERE.

Posted by: GRANTISBACK | February 15, 2008 8:09 PM | Report abuse

"I find it interesting that Clinton and her campaign have NOT recognized that their divisive politics of the past are actually making people turn away given the current political zeitgeist"

Apparently questioning your opponent's policy positions is 'divisive' If anything Hillary has been overly gracious for a presidential campaign. Senator Paul Songus, Bob Kerry, Dick Ghephart do you think their campaigns were devisive? If Senator Obama's followers think it devisive to say Senator you are a wonderful person who I will be friends with after the primaries but disagree with your policies,what in the world will they do when Karl Rove and Bob Perry start attacking Senator Obama? Oh my gosh you can't do that it's devisive. Seriously

Posted by: iraleichtman | February 15, 2008 7:57 PM | Report abuse

We can't keep electing "Prom Kings"

Obama's health care proposal doesn't solve the health care problem.

It encourages people to go without insurance to save money and then go to the emergency room and get charged through the nose for substandard care.

Vote with both your heart and your mind.

Vote for Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: svreader | February 15, 2008 7:56 PM | Report abuse

I am an independent, who intend to vote for Obama in general election. But I need to emphasize that Republicans are giving Democrats the lesson of party's unity, and integrity. Romney conceded to save McCain's energy and strength, but, obviolsly losing, Mrs. Clinton continues to produce smoke screens to accuse Obama of "stealing of her great ideas", again emphasizing her 35 plus years of experience always under the wing of her husband, who so obviously doesn't want her to win this nomination, and election. She is talking about solutions and implementations of hers, when she is really famous with only two issues: disastrous health plan, which caused the country and the democratic party the uncountable casualties, and the intensive bimbo control, which she was tirelessly applying to her husband up to his half-impeachment. Why can't this woman simply follow the example of Romney and gracefully step out of the battle, which she so obviously can't win.

Posted by: aepelbaum | February 15, 2008 7:54 PM | Report abuse

A McCain versus Hillary race would lead to a President John McCain.

Many people are unsatisfied with the policy on Iraq, but alone it's not enough to destroy McCain (with Hillary). McCain could say he's consistent on Iraq, while questioning Hillary's consistency, and subtly--or not so subtly--touting himself as being tough and unwavering on defense.

Posted by: lieb666 | February 15, 2008 7:52 PM | Report abuse

Hillary will not release her tax returns until after she is the Democratic nominee--if that actually happens.

Why does she want to withhold such information from her fellow Democrats?

It seems pretty risky for the Democratic Party to nominate someone who will not level with it.

Why should we trust her? The Clintons don't exactly have reputations as truth tellers.

Diogenes would have given both a wide berth.

MARTIN EDWIN "MICK" ANDERSEN

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | February 15, 2008 7:47 PM | Report abuse

I find it interesting that Clinton and her campaign have NOT recognized that their divisive politics of the past are actually making people turn away given the current political zeitgeist, but they continue to go down the road of attack and intentional distortion. Most people are more savvy than that. They don't seem to realize it.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 15, 2008 7:46 PM | Report abuse

Of course Hillary gets the Hispanic vote!
North American Union/NAFTA means OPEN
BORDERS! ALONG WITH WIRETAPS! I'd love
to cross some border and gain access to
whatever firearm--but wait-doesn't NAU
mean NEW Constitution? Tiajuana cops
tazing both U&I? Canadians lowering their
secured health care to US standards?
Stars and stripes replaced with wiretaps
and OPEN BORDERS! Isn't AZ proposing
gun legislation requiring serial #'s on
all ammo? And we're @ war-and the Pres
and Veep stay together AND borders
remain fully un-secured!

Posted by: josephjsalas | February 15, 2008 7:45 PM | Report abuse

Theres apparently a new generation of Hispanic/Latino voters who are turning away from the traditional Catholicism and towards Protestant sects. This is probably what made it possible for the GOP to make inroads with them--temporarily. The Republicans really shot themselves in the foot on immigration. There was a lot of hateful rhetoric against not just illegal immigrants, but also immigrants in general and a fair amount of anti-Mexican rhetoric. Even if not everyone in the Republican party is not completely hateful, the party didn't not distance themselves from the people making hateful statements.

Posted by: lieb666 | February 15, 2008 7:44 PM | Report abuse

Only Hillary Clinton can beat the liberal republican McCain in CA, NV, NY, NJ, FL, NM, and possibly even TX largely due to her loyal hispanic supports. Obama will likely to loose those states along with the Red States to McCain for the same reason, Hispanics prefer McCain over Obama.

Posted by: nguyenkthai | February 15, 2008 7:43 PM | Report abuse

you can slam Houston if that does something for you, but Yes We do have an energy problem, if you haven't noticed.
Senator Obama has chosen to be down the road chanting Change to screaming UT students while Hillary will be speaking and answering questions of CEOs of Shell, Exxon, Schlumberger, and Conoco speaking about what we need to do to fix our dependence on Middle East Oil. Our Houston economy depends on energy and our national security demands sollutions to dependence on Middle East Oil. Senator Obama claims he will travel to Syria and Iran to speak to their leaders but can't find time to speak to leaders of the energy industry 165 miles away. Its a big deal. Call us crazy, fat, whatever but not stupid. We understand the difference in campaigns and why it is important for Hillary to be busy finding answers to our energy and healthcare problems and why Texans will be supporting Hillary Clinton on March 4.

Posted by: iraleichtman | February 15, 2008 7:42 PM | Report abuse

0_freeman_0 says: "Not many blacks in Ohio and Texas."

In both Ohio and Texas about 11% of the residents are black (according to the Almanac of American Politics), just slightly below the national average of 12%.

Posted by: dc-native | February 15, 2008 7:37 PM | Report abuse

LeftwithNochoice
Dont knock Houston just because some of my neighbors are lunatics.

Posted by: Salty1 | February 15, 2008 7:30 PM | Report abuse

I voted for George W. Bush twice and I think he is a good person. On this election, if Barack Obama is the democratic nominee, I will vote for him. I am Hispanic.

Posted by: rene | February 15, 2008 04:15 PM
_____________________________________

So clearly you can see a good person doesn't necessarily make a good president... even if you judge Bush to be "good", surely you can see he's incompetent...

Posted by: Alan4 | February 15, 2008 7:28 PM | Report abuse

The problems with Obama's health care plan are "An Inconvenient Truth"

His plan encourages people, especially the poor, to go without health insurance to save money.

Obama isn't a "detail guy." He's said it himself multiple times.

His lack of attention to detail shows up in how incredibly bad his policy plans are.

The way his health plan works, people, especially the poor, would be tempted to go without health insurance in order to save money, and wind up going to the emergency room for care.

Obama said so himself in answer to a debate question, and then he said he'd charge a penalty to those same poor people.

It happened when Obama tried to "wing it", answering a debate question.

He's suprisingly bad at thinking on his feet.

Please remember that all those "inspiring "speeches you get excited about are actually written by someone else, although Obama does actually read them (from a teleprompter)

Maybe he is a rock star.

Just like that lip-syncer on SNL.

Posted by: svreader | February 15, 2008 7:26 PM | Report abuse

hi to all of you who meet the clinton when they was in the white house. was in love with them ,well i tell you that you only know one side of them for me i knew them before they was in washington see i live in Arkansas so i no what kind of people they are i voted for bill each time he ran for Gov. at that time hillary was his wife and the only thing we seem her to do is bake cookie and vist the children hospital like all other gov. and wifes do so i do not no of all this experince she has. and the only reason she won the sen. seat is because of the name clinton, Bill was our president not hillary but everyone to think she has his experince but she do not. so now we have her runing for president for the same reason for name sake and people once again thinks she is Bill, next we have Bush other son runing next time and once his term is up they will have chelsa runing next can you see this is the Bush and Clinton country. when will we wake up and smell the coffee i lve in Ark. one of the poor county we look like another country it is so poor no jobs and we was like this when Bill clinton was in office so i do not see anything change.

Posted by: mrsrichardson | February 15, 2008 7:25 PM | Report abuse

I refer you to the latest Texas Poll by American Research Group which shows Barak Obama ahead at 48% to Clinton's 42%. This was reported also today on Drudge Report.

http://americanresearchgroup.com/

YES HE CAN!!!

Posted by: crenza | February 15, 2008 7:23 PM | Report abuse

Let's be clear: no matter how a Democrat dominates a red state in the primaries, that has no bearing on the general election.

As I recall, John Kerry blasted through the primaries in 2004, winning red states by wide margins. Did he win any states Gore didn't win?

Winning red states in the primaries is irrelevent.

Posted by: Alan4 | February 15, 2008 7:20 PM | Report abuse

@ luck: You are making an important point. Obama may very well be able to repair some old rifts both at home and abroad that none of the other candidates of either party could. Much will depend on the kind of cabinet he selects, whether or not he will be able to put through his ambitious program.

Posted by: dunnhaupt | February 15, 2008 7:13 PM | Report abuse

Doesn't matter what anybody says. Obama is for a "different" kind of government. He is for extreme censorship wanting to put a ban on talk radio, spilling over into the movies and television as well. I don't think that this is right at all. I thought this was a free country. Limiting what we can view or listen to doesn't represent freedom to me. That is a change though, but not a good one. I'm still voting for Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: Fobamaman | February 15, 2008 7:12 PM | Report abuse

Thus, the phrase:

"Houston, we have a problem."

.

Posted by: LeftwithNochoice | February 15, 2008 7:11 PM | Report abuse

Absolute,

I couldn't find anything specific on affirmative action on Hillary's site either.

It's a non-issue. I guess no surprises there.

Mainly its about the war and healthcare.

It's an important historical issue, whether the government should try to even things out among gender or race, but it's not on the radar.

Posted by: camasca | February 15, 2008 7:10 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, Houston is a very important city.

It ranks Number One in pollution

and ...

Number One in Obesity.

Sounds like a wonderful place. Energy Capital? Of the World? In what way? The World's Energy Capital? Houston?

Never heard about that...must be a Houston thing.

Posted by: LeftwithNochoice | February 15, 2008 7:09 PM | Report abuse

On the Energy conference, again I do not know so I will offer no theory. He has a record on energy legislation. I doubt that he's "ducking" any issues.

Posted by: Absolute_0-K | February 15, 2008 7:03 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: iraleichtman |
quote:
So what you are saying was that his campaigning in New Hampshire was more important than casting that vote. Convenient, Hillary could find the time to cast her vote Senator Obama thought it was more important to campaign.
end quote:

No that is NOT what I said. I said with only one hour notification there was no way for him to get from N.H. back to D.C. to make the roll call. Certainly Hillary voted, and she voted the wrong way in my opinion. No vote was better than a 'Yea'
vote in my book.

There is a pattern here from Senator Obama of missiing controversial votes and then attacking his opponent's vote. He did the same thing after missing controversial votes in the Illinois Senate. Its troubling.
Just so you might know, Houston is the Energy Capital of the world and this energy conference next week is a really big deal to Houston voters. My theory: Senator Obama could easily find time to travel 165 miles from Austin to Houston and answer questions about our energy security but decided to play it safe. It may not be a big deal to you or Senator Obama but there are 4 1/2 million residents in Houston, more than the whole state of Virginia, and Senator Obama's refusal to appear is a big deal here that Houston voters won't forget on March 4 as energy is Houston's economic lifeblood. Its a slap at every voter in Texas and 4 1/2 million Houstonians.

Posted by: Absolute_0-K | February 15, 2008 7:00 PM | Report abuse

Yep, La Clintonista Viva! Y Como Dijo La Gringa!

Hillary has done Soooooo Much for the Hispanic community over the years.

For Example... um, well... uh. uh...er um...uh... pues, es que...aaa... pues, no se...

Well, can't think of anything right now, but, heck, I'm sure she was about to.

That's why they back her; not for "reasons I don't care to mention" as some dimwit suggested.

Get real. They back her because they are TOLD to back her by statements like, "Hillary Clinton, como siempre, tiene la vota latina."

Plus, for some reason, many Hispanics are racist and just don't like black people.

Why? Good question, I wonder that myself.

Posted by: LeftwithNochoice | February 15, 2008 6:58 PM | Report abuse

frank, Yes I was impressed by Pennsylvanians willingness to give Lynn Swann a fair "hearing" on his ideas and proposals. He just wasn't ready period. Racism had nothing to do with it. I thought it was especially worth noting that 95% of African Americans in Philly voted for Rendell. After his shameful race-baiting comment, I doubt that he'll enjoy that much support in the future. I certainly hope the State will go for Obama. I'll be working to make it happen.

Posted by: Absolute_0-K | February 15, 2008 6:56 PM | Report abuse

So what you are saying was that his campaigning in New Hampshire was more important than casting that vote. Convenient, Hillary could find the time to cast her vote Senator Obama thought it was more important to campaign. There is a pattern here from Senator Obama of missiing controversial votes and then attacking his opponent's vote. He did the same thing after missing controversial votes in the Illinois Senate. Its troubling.
Just so you might know, Houston is the Energy Capital of the world and this energy conference next week is a really big deal to Houston voters. My theory: Senator Obama could easily find time to travel 165 miles from Austin to Houston and answer questions about our energy security but decided to play it safe. It may not be a big deal to you or Senator Obama but there are 4 1/2 million residents in Houston, more than the whole state of Virginia, and Senator Obama's refusal to appear is a big deal here that Houston voters won't forget on March 4 as energy is Houston's economic lifeblood. Its a slap at every voter in Texas and 4 1/2 million Houstonians.

Posted by: iraleichtman | February 15, 2008 6:51 PM | Report abuse

camasca, I can not find anything specifically addressing the issue of Affirmative Action. He as worked as a Civil Rights lawyer and seems more concerned with equal opportunity and equal protection under the law rather than Affirm Action.
You can find more information at http://www.barackobama.com/issues/civilrights/

Posted by: Absolute_0-K | February 15, 2008 6:51 PM | Report abuse

Absolute,

We know Obama is a politician too. More of the same.

You know he supported Todd Stroger for Cook County Commissioner? Not that he's a bad guy, but Stroger is part of the Democratic machine.

You don't have to defend his vote, if he cares enough, he'll vote.

Both he and Hillary didn't bother to vote against torture, doesn't that make you still a little ill? Torture is cruelty, cruelty is evil. They are supposed to be leaders, but they are too ambitious and egoistic to even take time to send a simple message to us and the world with their vote.

I am a Hillary supporter. I like Barack too, but am upset by his supporters being so into the "change" thing. He'll make a great president, but he isn't an agent of change.

He will make us feel good though. He's like a Democrat's Ronald Reagan.

Posted by: camasca | February 15, 2008 6:45 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: iraleichtman
quote:
What is his excuse for ducking the Iran vote or refusing to appear at an Energy Conference next week.
end quote:

Not too sure about the Energy Conference, perhaps there is a conflict with his schedule. I do not know, but as for the Iran Vote:

Reid told the Senate that there wouldn't be a vote on the Iran Bill that day, so Obama went to N.H. to campaign. Senator Obama was notified about 1 hour prior to the vote late on that same day that there had been some kind of break through and that the vote would be called. He simply could not get from N.H. to D.C. in the time he was given. McCain didn't make it back for the vote either and no one is accusing him of "ducking" the Iran vote. Obama immediately released a statement that he was opposed to the Iran Bill. His vote would not have killed it anyway. Hillary, btw, supported it proving once again that she doesn't admit or learn from her mistake of trusting Bush to do the right thing with power.

Posted by: Absolute_0-K | February 15, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

The naiveity of Obama supporters isn't just astounding, its harmful, dangerous, and perhaps even deadly.

The posts that say that Obama is going to "end politics" show a level of naiveity not seen since "The Childrens Crusade"

Obama = NO HEALTH INSURANCE FOR THE POOR

Why doesn't that bother Obama's supporters?

Obama isn't "Jesus". He's Barry Obama.

He's a very good salesman.

That's all.

Posted by: svreader | February 15, 2008 6:37 PM | Report abuse

Absolute,

But Obama is also the one talking "change", and never identifies it, so he lets his listeners fill in the blank.

But I agree with you.

So are Hillary supporters done with affirmative action?

Barack supporters?

He doesn't say anything about affirmative action, so I guess he's against it if we're going to "break with the past".

Hillary is more of the same. We know that.

I think Barack is very capable, smart, leader.

But he's dangerous with his speeches.

BTW, what is Barack's stance with affirmative action?

Posted by: camasca | February 15, 2008 6:36 PM | Report abuse

oliviajimenez711,

When you say other minorities do you mean black? I am black and will tell you straight up many not all, but many Latinos are weak! Many Latinos come to this nation illegally and want to demand stuff they are afraid to demand in their native lands. Many, not all, also come here with a strong hatred towards blacks. May question to you would be, why? We didn't come to your native lands and demand rights. Martin Luther King fought oppression here in America, not Mexico or El Salvador. So when you say, turn their backs, make sure you get it right because chances are you don't know one thing about blacks. Bill Clinton is a good man, noticed I said Bill. Hillary is not Bill nor is he running! Also if El Toro was running for office against Hillary, knowing her corrupt business as usual record for Washington, and El Toro was sincere, who would you vote for? Barack is bringing all people together and many are Hispanics, too bad you can't see that. So before you indirectly disrespect blacks of this nation, learn our REAL contributions and the foundation WE laid so many Hispanics, Africans, Carribeans, etc. could come to this nation to benefit. Last I checked Spanish wasn't enslaved here, it was BLACKS! You people have a real nerve to think you are so important while in the same breath hate, not all again, but many hate blacks for no other reason but JEALOUSLY! Next time you jam off of Jay-Z that's black, my culture, next time you listen to your car radio, that's a black invention, my culture, when you stop at a traffic light, that's a black invention! Learn before you post and get shot down over being ignorant. Many of YOUR people are being exploited by corporate America and Hillary is allowing this to happen as she is in corporate America's back pocket, yet you people are too blind to see this! So invest your energy into the real issues before you and many of YOUR people decide to be against Barack because he is black, educated, and about real issues, and not Hispanic! You people are the biggest HYPOCRITES in this nation and YOU know it as well as everyone else. I am with whites, blacks, Hispanics with good sense of real issues, Asians, Russians, Africans, etc. all for the purpose of real agenda, but those like you can float off into oblivion as far as I'm concerned! FEAR is a dangerous thing, which is why many of your people run in gangs! Amazing!

Posted by: hoganincharge | February 15, 2008 6:35 PM | Report abuse

Less face the truth Mexico has a official policy of offloading their Uneducated peons, criminals and other undesirables on the USA. They provide them documents and instruction in the form of funny papers (because many if not most cannot read) on how to avoid the border parole. How to get illegal documents and jobs in the USA. By off loading their uneducated peons, criminals and other undesirables on American taxpayers they avoid a revolution in Mexico and improve the standard of living while gaining billions in remittance back to Mexico. They play the race very effective and appeal to the Compassion of American citizens. In the long run maybe the most effective thing we could do for Mexico is deport every illegal Mexican in the USA. After having lived here and getting used to the standard of living here if we send back the 12 to 30 million back to Mexico they would demand a better, less corrupt government. It may require an revolution there but the end results hopefully would be a better country! Mexico as countries go is rich there is no reason they cannot do a better job in caring for their citizens.

To put it bluntly without being PC the problem with Mexico is Mexicans. In hundreds of years the only type of society they have been able to build is a Cesspool of Crime, Corruption, Poverty, Misery and Cruelly! Look at their sports, Bull fighting, Horse tripping, Dog Fighting, & of course rape is a great sport for the young men. Which you would think would hardly be necessary since sex is legal with 12 year old girls there. It would seem that would be enough like rape to satisfy even the most jaded! Not surprising as more Mexicans come to this country the more like Mexico we become! In the long run it is either good or desirable for us or the world to allow Mexico to turn this country into another Third World Country. If any more proof is required look at the Border cities, they are as different as night and day. Obviously the land is the same so how to explain the poverty on the Mexican side other than Mexican culture?

Posted by: american1 | February 15, 2008 6:34 PM | Report abuse

the media keeps repeating the mantra polarizing. Where, when. I just don't see it. To me its just talking points of Rush Limbaugh that gets repeated but has absolutely no foundation.She has been more than pleasant to Senator Obama in this campaign, and in fact it is that pleasantness that has hurt her campaign. I have never seen such politeness in a Presidential campaign. Is it polarizing to question Senator Obama's policy positions or are we just to lay down and say cumbaya Senator Obama we don't dare challenge your positions?

Posted by: iraleichtman | February 15, 2008 6:33 PM | Report abuse

If Mexico, being the poor country it is, has the sense to secure their borders, WHY AREN'T WE! If we the Americans get caught going on their side illegally, we get up to two years in prison (in THEIR PRISONS MIND YOU, WITH NO SAY SO FROM THE US). Not only does Mexico incarcerate U.S. citizens, but they also go after Guatemalans, El Salvadorans, Hondurans, and others who enter THEIR country illegally!
It doesn't seem to matter to the ignoramuses who want amnesty or open borders:


-How about the one in three, or 29% of our prisons being filled with illegal aliens?
-About 41 percent of Mexican illegals are on welfare, but only 2 percent pick the fruit!

-That 60 percent of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) FUNDS go to illegals!
-that our schools are increasingly being filled with children illiterate in two languages to a point that it dumbs down our education (California for example was fifth in the nation in terms of the efficacy of the public education, NOW, BECAUSE OF THIS ILLEGAL ALIEN INVASION, IT IS NOW 49TH!)
-Or the closing down of our hospitals when these people use our emergency rooms as their primary health care provider or the delivery of one in ten babies that are are born to illegals!
-About 730,000+ Americans that lose their jobs annually as a direct result of this illegal alien invasion due to the fact that it is becoming more and more difficult to compete with the unfair wages from the cheap labor glut! Or be told that you have to learn a foreign language to continue their endeavor of employment!
When the bill comes, it is USSSSSS THE TAXPAYERSSSSSS THAT HAS TO PAY THE BILL!
I personally have been affected by the open borders because I had my home ransacked by the illegal aliens where I lived in Royal City, Washington. Not only that,the unsanitary, third world conditions were a menace. These people had no idea of how to use a toilet and went on the ground. instead of stepping in dog _____________, you stepped in human_____________ (isn't that appealing?)!
Don't get me wrong, I AM NOT AGAINST LEGAL IMMIGRATION, IF and only if IT IS NOT EN MASSE AND IS WITHIN ASSIMILABLE NUMBERS; some of my best friends were Mexicans and they came LEGALLY. what angers me is that a lot of illegals now come here to freeload rather than for freedom AND BRING THEIR ANTI AMERICAN "we owe the U.S. to Mexico" PCBS. They seem to get away with crimes like the breaking of our immigration laws with impunity, but if we do the same, we get penalized! If we do something about it, it is US who are called the racists, xenophobes, rednecks, and whatever name they can come up with. WE are the ones who are screwed out of jobs with the unfair wages that result from the glut of cheap labor. How do you think it feels to be told that you have to learn a foreign language to continue your endeavor of employment?! WE, WE, are the ones with the rocks and bottles thrown at us when separatist hate groups like the Brown Berets de Aztlan come from the woodwork, WHILE OUR POLICE DO NOTHING. WE ARE THE ONES WHO HAVE TO WATCH THE ANTI AMERICAN THUGS BURN OUR FLAG AND FLY A FOREIGN FLAG ABOVE OURS, which is what happened May 5th, 2006 outside of Los Angeles, California!
So let me ask you, my pro amnesty friend, and all of your other cohorts: do you think me being poor is supposed to exempt me from having to obey the laws of my country? if I get caught driving without a license and I get pulled over, would it seem plausible to you for me to rant and rave about how poor I am in order to weasel my way out of the whopping ticket (or JAILTIME OR CAR IMPOUNDMENT). NO IT WOULDN'T. THE PUNISHMENT IS A CERTAINTY! So what makes it any different with illegal aliens who break federal laws when they come here illegally? Lets take it another way: how would you like it is I broke into your house and decided to stay? You Wouldn't like it, would you? Would you ask me to stay? You would say a resounding HELL NO after you have called the police and beat me up with a club! Common sense says that the polite thing to do is to knock. It's no different with the borders. Like the house, we are a nation with one set of rules that apply to us all, regardless of our positions in society or race. We can't let any tom dick and harry just waltz into this country unless they "knocked" and we gave them permission to enter.
To end, we need to protect our borders now and enforce the laws that are on the book as I speak. When we pass amnesty, it just tells others that we condone the breaking of our immigration laws and it no longer matters what kind of country our grandchildren will inherit. Our sovereignty as we know it is now a distant memory and we will have lost our identity of who we are as a country. We will have lost billions (trillions?) of taxpayer dollars on trying to take care of the whole world.
the truth is, Mexico is a beautiful country, but they need to get their priorities straight, maybe have another Father Hidalgo against their socialist government that lets them down. Still, that said, why should we become the third world like them, IMPORTING THEIR POVERTY? our priorities are simple: close our borders and protect the people of this country right here from this invasion!

AND REMEMBER,
AS EZOLA FOSTER SAID PLAINLY,
"ITS A SAD DAY IN AMERICA WHEN THE LAWBREAKERS SIDE WITH THE LAWMAKERS AGAINST THE LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.

Posted by: american1 | February 15, 2008 6:33 PM | Report abuse


McNut,s reasons for Amnesty
McCain's God,s Children Argument!
Then there is they are all God,s children argument(Another McCain favor) well isn't everyone God,s children? If so then guess McCain is saying everyone and anyone has the right to Invade this Nation, waving their flags, demand their rights, while feasting at the trough of public welfare and Kill, Rape and Rob thousands of American citizens each year!

McCain's Lettuce Argument!
There's the "lettuce" argument -- we'll be paying $50/head (or starving)( McCain really likes this argument) if we don't have illegal aliens working in the fields. As Phil Martin, ag economist at UC Davis shows, the field labor cost in a $1 head of lettuce is about 6 cents. Triple those wages and Americans will do the jobs. (They're not career positions. They're seasonal jobs for young people, starting in the world of work. I have did similarly menial jobs.) And you'll be paying 10% more for lettuce and other produce. Do you spend $1,000/year on produce? OK, you'll pay $100 more.

The lettuce argument also parallels that for the retention of slavery.

Immigrant Argument!
There's the "everyone's an immigrant except for the 'Native Americans'" argument. Well, the American Indians didn't sprout from the land, they came across the Bering land bridge from Asia. So if the criterion is "You're an immigrant if you had an ancestor who immigrated here," then American Indians are immigrants, too.

In that case, "immigrant" is no longer a useful word, since Everyone's an immigrant.

Stole Southwest Argument!
There's the "the U.S. stole the southwest" argument. Well, the land in dispute was "owned" by Spain for a couple of centuries. Then by Mexico for about 25 years. During these periods, there weren't more than a few thousand Spaniards or Mexicans in the entire territory. It's been owned by the U.S. for about 160 years now, much longer than Mexico's reign. And the U.S. has actually done something with the land, made it habitable for tens of millions. As Robert Kaplan has described, the difference between American and Mexican "twin cities" straddling the border is like night and day, yet the land is obviously the same. It's not the dirt that's important, it's the people. Put another way, if culture didn't matter, Mexico and Central America would be paradise.

Illegal pay taxes Argument!

There's the "illegal aliens pay tons of taxes" argument. Sure, they all pay real estate taxes (in rent) and sales taxes (most states). Those working on the books (typically using stolen Social Security numbers) pay FICA and, perhaps, income taxes. But they're mostly ill-educated and low-skilled and pay very low taxes connected to their working -- in fact, most claim the Earned Income Tax Credit, i.e. negative income tax! If a family with both parents working has two kids in school, that's at least $15k/year just for schooling, way more than the taxes on, say, $35k/year aggregate income.

Robert Rector at the Heritage Foundation has done the systematic accounting on all this. A typical household headed by a low-skilled illegal alien is a net drain of about $20k/year for the rest of us, year after year. (Low-skilled Americans are a similar burden, but they're part of the national family, not gate crashers from other societies.)

Illegal Bad..Amnesty good Argument!

There's the "illegal immigration is bad, but make them citizens and problem solved" argument. Nope. If that were the case, legalizing (i.e. amnestying) the illegal aliens would solve the problem. But they'd still be (on average) low-skilled workers whose burden on the rest of us would continue. In fact, once legal they'd be able to access more public benefits programs, so their cost to the rest of us would actually rise substantially. In short, most of the problems of mass illegal immigration are shared by mass amnestying them.

The flood of immigrants drives wages and living conditions in our central cities toward those of the Third World.

- The influx imposes both sprawl and gridlock on our metropolitan areas.

- Immigrant families needing services overwhelm our schools, taxpayer-funded health care facilities, and other public agencies.

- Those requiring services don't assimilate and, instead, expect to be served in their native languages.

- American civic culture frays as each ethnic group establishes its own grievance lobby and pushes for preferences.

- Communicable diseases such as tuberculosis (new, drug-resistant strains) return.

- Shortages of water and other resources loom, especially in immigration-blitzed Southwest.

Most that come across our open borders come from countries where, Crime, Corruption, Poverty, Misery, Anti-education, and hate for Americans has existed for centuries and is normal. Should anyone be surprised they bring those same family values across the border with them?

Posted by: american1 | February 15, 2008 6:32 PM | Report abuse

The naiveity of Obama supporters isn't just astounding, its harmful, dangerous, and perhaps even deadly.

The posts that say that Obama is going to "end politics" show a level of naiveity not seen since "The Childrens Crusade"

Obama = NO HEALTH INSURANCE FOR THE POOR

Why doesn't that bother Obama's supporters?

Obama isn't "Jesus". He's Barry Obama.

He's a very good salesman.

That's all.

Posted by: svreader | February 15, 2008 6:29 PM | Report abuse

3 More weeks and Clinton is done.She is not running against Obama , she is running against a Nation.

People are done with a House Divided and a do Nothing Congress , and thats what Clinton brings to the table.

Posted by: cakemanjb | February 15, 2008 6:27 PM | Report abuse

I am not nearly insane enough to argue that McCain is the change agent in this election; that is Obama; but if change is the pre-dominate mantra of the 2008 election he has a legitimate shot of taking the mantle in a McCain vs Hillary showdown. Hillary is polarizing just like George Bush; McCain is known as a moderate who works across the aisle (that would be a change); Hillary (until her presidential run) was supportive of staying the course in Iraq at the sametime McCain was railing against Rumsfeld and demanding a new strategy with more troops (he was the one for change there too); McCain has been fighting special interests like Boeing and fighting earmarks while Hillary is taking more money from lobbyists and dropping in earmarks like the Woodstock museum (McCain is the fighter of the status quo here as well), and Hillary represents Bill, who is the past, anything BUT change!...McCain is a Senate institution, and against Obama, going to be hard to steal the "change mantle"; but if done properly; he can take that from Hillary.

On experience, if that's the key again at any point in this election I point out the obvious: McCain is a decorated military commander, with decades of experience leading committees and working across partisan lines, neither Obama nor Hillary hold a candle here. This is a big reason why Obama is the tougher candidate for the GOP in November; he has never TRIED to be the "experience" candidate; he has always run as the change agent - so its authentic and probably vital in this election. Hillary has run on her "experience", which doesn't hold a candle to McCain's - her core argument of experience is much weaker than McCain's core argument on the same points. I think McCain can beat Hillary on change and experience; but only experience on Obama, and I think this election will be decided on change; thus Obama has the best Dem shot of beating McCain in the Fall.

Posted by: fredgrad2000 | February 15, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse

camasca

It is white women and their families who have benefited most from Affirmative Action. This is because of their larger numbers in most sectors covered by affirmative action interventions. When white women are as well educated and well employed as white men, then white husbands, and children also benefit.

So Affirmative Action is not really a white vs. black thing.

Maybe you should ask Hillary's supporters the same thing.

Posted by: Absolute_0-K | February 15, 2008 6:25 PM | Report abuse

Senator Obama not only voted present in the State Senate but has actually missed critical and cotroversial votes. I learned of that before deciding to support Hillary after reading the Audacity of Hope. What is his excuse for ducking the Iran vote or refusing to appear at an Energy Conference next week. The honorable Senator Obama would simply rather not cast difficult votes that might be used against him in a general election. But I certainly don't share the vitriol I have read from other bloggers here. After 7 years of disastrous policies this election for Dems is way too important. We are intelligently trying to select the next President.

Posted by: iraleichtman | February 15, 2008 6:22 PM | Report abuse

Hey Absolute ok,

Its good to hear that folks in your beautiful state can see through the old hate talk. Who would expect Lynn Swan to be a great option. It wasn't because he was black. I haven't heard Hillary denouncing that remark by Rendell. She hasn't seen any real fall-out so she just sits and waits, letting the hate seep into any dark heart that will respond. Weak!

Obama Baby!

Posted by: frank | February 15, 2008 6:22 PM | Report abuse

Ok, 1st; disagreeing with the battle in Iraq is fine, but let's stop the BS use of the "100 years" quote - that's beyond disingenuous as McCain has made clear that 100 years could refer to a status of forces and long-term military alliance relationship with the state of Iraq, not 100 years of the continuing war; McCain has made clear he wants the casualties to end; but that withdrawal just for the sake of saying we withdrew is insane if the "staying" we're talking about is in an allied arrangement similar to what we have with Kuwait, Qatar, Germany, Italy, Japan, S. Korea, etc. Having a strong alliance with Iraq and forces in the region of terror makes a lot of sense to deter the psycho mullahs in Iran and their proxies in Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad. Except for the looney left; anyone can see the logic of that - McCain never meant to imply that the current status quo would be acceptable for 100 more years....

As for the race for the White House, of course Obama is the stronger candidate; what Hillary fans don't want to admit is that if this general election comes down to experience; she is as "unarmed" to face McCain as Obama is!! She has no experience; she has ONE Senate term + 2 years; he has just less than ONE Senate term; that's it; first lady doesn't count - she wasn't in charge of anything in that time, didn't have security clearance, wasn't in Pentagon Situation room crises, didn't meet with foreign leaders in important meetings, only social ones, and wasn't in charge of any piece of the government. Experience as the criteria for the general = McCain win. Why Obama is the better choice is obvious; this election is about change and healing of the country; and either Obama or McCain, with their appeal to independents and moderates is far advantaged against the polarizing Hillary. This election will come down to, in my view, 6 "purple" states with 10 or more electoral college votes: PA, OH, FL, MI, MO, and VA - Hillary loses those to McCain due to her high negatives (except maybe MI), particularly if McCain selects a good running mate (Tom Ridge could help win PA for first time since 1988 for GOP) and lack of "purple" support. Obama, in a year naturally favorable to the Dems, probably takes most of those due to his appeal to the center. Its simple electoral math; Hillary might win CA or NY bigger than Obama, but Obama can win the states where 51% is good enough to win the WH; that's why the GOP would actually rather face Hillary. Why they vote for Obama in cross-over primaries is simple, because they know 2008 is so naturally advantaged (not least by the press) to the Dems, that they'd rather accept an Obama presidency and take the chance on the Evil Queen and her dirty hubby getting another stay in the Lincoln Bedroom - Bill in the White House with nothing to do but the new generation of interns? I don't think so....

Posted by: fredgrad2000 | February 15, 2008 6:12 PM | Report abuse

I'm trying to understand exactly what about abortion-on-demand will appeal to Hispanics, and I just don't think it will.

There may be gay Hispanic activists somewhere, but I don't think there are any Hispanic abortion mill doctors and nurses. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Posted by: DaTourist | February 15, 2008 6:10 PM | Report abuse

As a white male, I know other white males who support Obama and think, if he wins the Presidency, that race struggle is over. Anybody can become anything if they just work hard enough.

They'd go crazy if any type of affirmative action type plan were implemented by Obama. They hate affirmative action.

Do all Obama supporters agree to this? No race problems, and the end of affirmative action? Or any other "race based" struggle?

This is one the "changes" we're talking about. Right? A "new" America?

Posted by: camasca | February 15, 2008 6:09 PM | Report abuse

Will there be a Festival de Los Maricones in San Antonio when Hillary speaks at St. Mary's?

Will Archbishop Jose Gomez bless samesex marriages?

Posted by: DaTourist | February 15, 2008 6:04 PM | Report abuse

On the issue of voting "Present" in the Illinois State Legislature.

That is just another talking-head point of the Clinton campaign. It is a widely accepted, procedural norm in Illinois to vote present on a bill that you find something wrong with, but would otherwise support.

Here is what George Will had to say about the "Present" charge against Obama.

One of the Obama campaign's senior leaders, who must have dozed through the 1990s, has expressed astonishment at the Clintons' intellectual sociopathy, as when they audaciously charge that Obama is a tepid defender of abortion rights. Their evidence is that on an abortion-related vote in the Illinois Legislature, he voted "present." The Clintons certainly know, and just as certainly do not care, that Obama's vote was tactical, cast for procedural reasons at the behest of abortion-rights leaders in Illinois.
Source http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/21/AR2008012101862.html

Posted by: Absolute_0-K | February 15, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

The end game is that Obama keeps drawing larger and larger numbers of voters. He hasn't peaked. Bill Clinton only managed to draw 200 today in Texarkana.

I know Republicans who have changed their minds because of what Obama is all about, what he represents. Hispanic voters are already switching over to who they believe is going to be the winner. Gov. Richardson (Hispanic) refused to endorse Hillary during Bill Clinton's call. Richardson is likely to go with Obama and that could be an opening for VP, that is if the Hispanic vote is more important than the overall white female vote to Obama. If the white female is more important, Obama could go with a female governor as VP. Obama simply have more options than Hillary, cards he hasn't even played yet and she could not play or play effectively.

There is another poll that gives Obama a 6 point lead in Texas. Some Hispanic voters are not happy about Patti Doyle's stepdown as Hillary's campaign manager and don't believe it had anything to do with her six year old son telling her he prefers being with "daddy".

Regarding John McCain: He cannot be trusted. He will sell his soul for the right price. We saw him do a 360 on water boarding a few days after George Bush crowned him the nominee, the front runner: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocBAMcDotaM (McCain Flips & Flops to Now Support Torture). His flip flop was followed a day later with a press conference with Mitt Romney (VP candidate). Recall John McCain decapitating Romney for appearing to support water boarding during an earlier debate. As the "good book" states, "a double-minded man is unstable in all his ways" - that's John McCain. Obama would defeat him in landslide margins. Why? Because Americans don't want anymore liars. Americans want some of those billions used in Iraq used to promote physical sciences so that America can once again compete in the manufacture of goods instead of pushing paper and buying what other nations manufacture, made possible by the American Investor Class of "pure capitalists", i.e., economic predators.

Hillary's argument once was that NAFTA would reduce the flow of undocumented persons from Mexico into America. It did not reduce it, the numbers increased and NAFTA took away some key manufacturing jobs putting certain sectors out of work.

Hillary's mantra is UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE. Reducing the costs within healthcare must be the first objective. Her plan is DOA (Dead On Arrival) and Obama is right not to go along with it. The Republicans would have a field day with it. Costs entails a detail analysis of the system from top to bottom; from the trial attorneys to the corporations being sued. From the doctors and hospitals to the insurance companies that insure them. There is greed within the system and those who are hording must be ferreted out.
OBAMA 2008!!

Posted by: westthea | February 15, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

filmx your theory about Texas is totally off base. Hispanics make up 24% of our population and less than 3% in Virginia. Its just a matter of getting them to the polls. Additionally the older Hispanic voters turn out in the largest numbers. I am an anglo male working with quite a few males in the Texas Clinton campaign. Please don't lecture us here in Texas what your understanding is of Texas politics. I will politely say that you just don t know what you are talking about.

Posted by: iraleichtman | February 15, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

I'll repeat the same objection I have raised on this website over and over again.

Senator Obama has failed the "leadership" test on a number of fronts. I will certainly agree that he seems to resonate with 18-25 year olds (who, everyone will agree, have a great knowledge of things like paying mortagages, dealing with unemployment, etc.). But when given the chance to demonstrate sound judgment, Mr. Obama plays the part of a lecture-circuit speaker rather than a would-be president.

Mr. Obama is the same man who said, when asked how he would respond to a terrorist attack, that he would make sure ambulances responded in a timely fashion.

Mr. Obama is the same man who has been charged by friends, former classmates, work colleagues and peers with falsifying events in both of his published works.

Mr. Obama is the same man who was named by the National Journal as the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate - far to the left of Mrs. Boxer or Mrs. Murray. I note this only because we have suffered through eight years of an extremist president - why choose four more?

Mr. Obama is the same man who has said that the best way for America to regain its lost prestige is to sit down and negotiate with leaders like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a man who says that Israel should be wiped off of the map and denies the historical reality of the Holocaust.

Mr. Obama has said he will lift the embargo and aid Casto Cuba and would support an invasion of Pakistan.

I like that the man doesn't wear a tie and that he shoots hoops with Tyra Banks. And it's wonderful that Oprah thinks he is a fine man for the Oval Office. But, it ought to be clear, that these are not the bullet points of a man who OUGHT to be our Commander-in-Chief.

Posted by: emancipation65 | February 15, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: lndlouis | February 15, 2008 05:46 PM

perhaps there are gay Hispanic activists...somewhere....

Posted by: DaTourist | February 15, 2008 05:41 PM

indlois wrote:

What a purely homophobic remark!

DaTourist replied:

Since I'm not phobic about heterosexual, it may be homophobic or it may not be, but even a homophobic remark can be truthful.

I feel certain there could be gay Hispanic activists somewhere.

indlouis wrote:

A scientific experiment has proven that Homophobics like you are usually latent homosexuals.

DaTourist replied:

Was that scientific experiment conducted by the same gay guys who proved the samesex acts are caused by genes?

indlouis wrote:

It's all right, we can accept your gayness. But can you? All you have to do is come out of the closet with yourself and admit to yourself what we already know about your tendencies to be gay.

DaTourist replied:

Thanks for your kind offer to engage me in a samesex act, but no thanks.

Posted by: DaTourist | February 15, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: johnL1
quote:
Obama claims to be the country's "uniter". Then he says that he is the one who is "truly", "all the way", against the Iraq war. A significant minority of the country support the war. How does having the extremist position on the war issue make him the "uniter"? Seems that being the one who is "totally" (except for voting to fund it) against it, will make it harder to unite the country on this difficult issue.
end quote:


Barack Obama, spoke out against the war in October of 2002, before it started. http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php

Hillary Clinton, voted to authorize that war only 8 days later.
http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=233783


We are in it now aren't we? Would you have him vote against funding the Troops who are in harm's way? Do not be ridiculous. The only winning move in Iraq was to not break it in the first place.

As many 64% or 2 in 3 of Americans recently polled are against the war in Iraq.

Since when does 64% represent an extremist position?

Posted by: Absolute_0-K | February 15, 2008 5:55 PM | Report abuse

I'm predicting Hillary will lose Texas.

1. Obama won Latinos in Virginia by 10 points, contrary to what this article says.

2. Obama has been winning the under-25 Latino vote in every state, regardless of the overall result.

50% of the Latino vote in Texas is under 30.

3. Although Latinos account for 25% of the population in Texas and African-Americans around 15%, in the 2004 Texas primary more African-Americans turned out to vote than Latinos, and that was with John Kerry at the top of the ticket!

4. NBC interviewed Wayne Slater, author of "Bush's Brain" and bureau chief of the Dallas Morning News along with the chief political reporter of the Austin American-Statesman, and both said white males in Texas have long had an extreme aversion to Hillary, so she was likely to lose that demographic as well.

Hillary won't win Texas just by carrying the white female vote.

Posted by: filmex | February 15, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

cute name calling kev

Hillary actually urged Bill not to support Nafta. I trust her Ohio supporters like Governor Ted Strickland and I believe Senator Brown who know a little bit more about trade policies and NAFTA. Understand that Senator Obama voted for the Peru Trade policy. Apparently he ocassionally has time to vote in the Senate, unfortunately the wrong way.

I like the vision of Senator Obama waiving present, that would make a great commercial.

Posted by: iraleichtman | February 15, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Am I to believe, muchacos, that Senor Obama would be FOR GAY MARRIAGE if he took a poll that showed gay marriage is socially acceptable to his important voting demographics?

Si! Si! Si! Si!

Senor Obama would never make a decision based on purely political calculation.

Posted by: DaTourist | February 15, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

perhaps there are gay Hispanic activists...somewhere....

Posted by: DaTourist | February 15, 2008 05:41 PM

What a purely homophobic remark!

A scientific experiment has proven that Homophobics like you are usually latent homosexuals.

It's all right, we can accept your gayness. But can you? All you have to do is come out of the closet with yourself and admit to yourself what we already know about your tendencies to be gay.

Posted by: kevinschmidt | February 15, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Obama has donated $694,000 and Clinton has donated $195,000 to the super delegates for their re-elections.

How do we trust the super delegates now.

Posted by: lndlouis | February 15, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

I think that many are in agreement that there are only minor differences in the campaign promises of Obama and Clinton. Yes, I have been to both candidates' websites and have read what's written there.

Why, then, do I support Clinton?

Because the things that give me confidence in her are things that came out before she was running for president. These things aren't campaign promises or policies (yes, I know Obama has good ones as well, but both candidates have crafted these policies in order to win voters in a primary election), but things I have learned over the years.

1)Hillary has worked on behalf of children and families for most of her professional life. I will not believe that she gave her entire career to such causes out of unmitigated self-interest. Working for these causes is Sen. Clinton's chosen career and, it seems, her passion.

2)Over the past 8 years Hillary has gained a reputation for being able to bring people in the senate together. I have heard it expressed with no small amount of surprise by the lawmakers themselves and by various pundits since she became NY senator, that she is easy to work with; that she is hard-working; that she is likable and politic (in the best sense of the word); that she expected no special treatment when she arrived in the senate as the former 1st Lady.

I support Hillary because of what she's promised during her campaign, but also because of what I've seen her doing OUT of the context of a campaign. She has my full support.

Posted by: VegetablesPlease | February 15, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Is Hillary more radical than Obama on gay rights?

Obama says he's against gay marriage.

Obama and his church both say that gay marriage is not immoral, and the United Church of Christ has endorsed gay marriage as a holy sacrament.

Yet Obama says the country's not ready for gay marriage, so he's not either.

Posted by: DaTourist | February 15, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

In case no one remembers, Bill Clinton fired missiles into Iraq during his last year or two in office. John McCain supports the Iraq war. Its going to be more of the same policies in the Middle East if either of these candidates get elected. Barack Obama is the only person that can win over the trust of muslim extremists and end the threat of terrorism towards America. I don't understand why Obama's muslim background is getting ignored by the media and democratic voters alike. His muslim roots will be a great asset to america if he is elected.

Posted by: luckoftheirish_23 | February 15, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: 0_freeman_0
quote:
Glen Beck say that he would not support Obama even if he became the democratic nominee.

We need real "Change" not empty words, from a man with a racial agenda like Obama.
end quote:

GLENN BECK??? The man is a CONSERVATIVE who until recently supported George Bush.

Beck supports the war in Iraq.

That alone would turn him against Obama.

Beck has often proclaimed himself pro-life

Beck has spoken supportively of "tough
interrogation methods" as a means of obtaining terrorist information in certain circumstances.

In other words, torture is O-tay.

He is critical of the entertainment industry, and is opposed to anti-smoking regulations. He describes himself as pro-capitalism and supports a free market.

Beck supports a conservative interpretation of the Second Amendment, and is against gun control legislation.

He may not be a Republican in name, but he has a republican agenda. Who needs his support? Hillary does, that's who.

Posted by: Absolute_0-K | February 15, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

The HillBillys continue to play the race card.

Plus they are now lying about Hillary's support of NAFTA the FREE Trade debacle that helped send most of our manufacturing jobs overseas, and created such horrific working conditions south of the border that the US is now overflowing with undocumented immigrants.

Why would any Latino want to vote for Hillary after all of that? She certainly has proven that she does not represent their best interests.

Posted by: kevinschmidt | February 15, 2008 5:43 PM | Report abuse

Obama speaks in the jargon of Lincoln. Garry Wills wrote the Pulitzer prize winning "Lincoln at Gettysgurg." subtitled "The Words That Remade America." He notes the value of speaking in platitudes, and Obama does this very well.....
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/02/15/lincoln-less-gettysburg/

Posted by: glclark4750 | February 15, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

Will Hispanics sign on to the gay rights creed subscribed to by both Obama and Hillary?

One wonders...but perhaps there are gay Hispanic activists...somewhere....

Posted by: DaTourist | February 15, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

I am a Texan and a Latino. My family lives in Austin, San Antonio, Corpus Christi, and Monterrey, Mexico.

Like a large, and rapidly growing, number of Latinos, I support Senator Barack Obama.

Senator Obama would be the better steward of our economy and has exhibited the most prudent judgment. But Senator Obama also represents a new form of democracy, one that breaks from the politics of the past, and offers hope and a voice to millions of Americans who would otherwise be silenced, including Latinos. Texans can choose the old version of democracy, one tainted with special interest influence, broken with political divisiveness. Or Texans can choose a revolutionary new form of democracy, one that unifies, inspires, and draws upon the civic republicanism within each of us, a new form of democracy founded on the notion that ordinary Americans can do extraordinary things--and that we are the ones that we have been waiting for. Democracy can be not only the means for how Americans vote for elected representatives, but the end that again inspires hope in America and the world to solve the greatest challenges.

That so many Latinos have supported the Clintons to this point has little to do with the much discussed black-brown divide. Rather, it has to do with the Clintons serving in Washington, D.C. for so many years and the fact that so many of our Democratic Latino leaders, who wield influence within the community, owe and must openly reciprocate support to the Clintons for their many political favors of the past.

But Latinos would fare better under Senator Obama as he would change the political discourse away from a politics of fear, and thereby shift unfair stereotypes of Latino immigrants, which in turn create negative stereotypes about the Latino community at large. Moreover, to the degree that Senator Obama can forge a new, wide political coalition that can actually deliver by investing in the American people and society, then all Americans, including Latinos, would be better off.

V.Quintanilla

Posted by: vicsilver | February 15, 2008 5:40 PM | Report abuse

I'm sure that Obama is there somewhere, Just look for some guy with his hand waving in the air crying ........."PRESENT"

like his voting history.

Hillary Clinton 2008

Posted by: 0_freeman_0 | February 15, 2008 5:40 PM | Report abuse

BethesdaMD

Fact: Obama did not vote against the war. He was in the Illinois Senate , not yet in Washinginton so he didn't have to take a stand. He spoke out against the war and is against the war but he did not vote against it. Even he said he might have voted for it if he were in the Senate and had the information that they Senate was being fed by George Bush (the real person responbile for misusing the Senates vote).

Since joining the Senate, Obama's voting record on Iraq has been identical to Hillary's. Both have continuously funded the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

FACTS

Change? Really?

BethesdaMD - I actually like Barak, and I don't need trash Hillary to like him. Like you, I am just stating facts. I want the democratic nominee fully vetted because
the republican attack machine is starting. Already John McCain is saying Barak has broken a pledge he made with mcCain on accepting money for the general election. So we are on the same side, lets just get our facts straight.

Posted by: lndlouis | February 15, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Will Hispanics follow the Pied Piper Obama to the Charnel House of Aborted Ninos?

One wonders why Hispanics would do that, but some might.

Posted by: DaTourist | February 15, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

BethesdaMD

Fact: Obama did not vote against the war. He was in the Illinois Senate , not yet in Washinginton so he didn't have to take a stand. He spoke out against the war and is against the war but he did not vote against it. Even he said he might have voted for it if he were in the Senate and had the information that they Senate was being fed by George Bush (the real person responbile for misusing the Senates vote).

Since joining the Senate, Obama's voting record on Iraq has been identical to Hillary's. Both have continuously funded the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

FACTS

Change? Really?

BethesdaMD - I actually like Barak, and I don't need to put him down to like him. Like you, I am just stating facts.

Posted by: lndlouis | February 15, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

john I have no problem with Obama's opposition to the war what I have a problem with is his opposition to the war was as a member of the Illinois state legislature not particularly brave as he claims. He has in fact ducked out when it comes to taking a stand on controversial issues. He has ducked votes on controversial gun legislation in the Illinois Legislature, avoided a vote on Iran in the US Senate and now refuses to appear at a very important Energy Conference important to our national security and local Houston economy. I just don't see Senator Obama as the visionary his movement supporters portray him as. I want a steady hand in the oval office after 7 years of incompitence. Its that steadiness and attention to economic policies that has turned me from an Edwards supporter to Hillary supporter.

Posted by: iraleichtman | February 15, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: iraleichtman
"Hillary will be speaking and answering questions at the Houston Partnership Energy Conference but Senator Obama is no where to be found."

First things first. Today you can find him in Greenbay, Oshkosh, and Milwaukee WISCONSIN.

He'll be in Texas soon. It sounds like you have already made up your mind, but just in case you want to know more about his energy policy proposals and legislative record, visit

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/

Posted by: Absolute_0-K | February 15, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

If you listened to NPR this morning, they interviewed a republican that will be voting for HRC in the Wisc primary in the hopes of ousting Obama. No doubt, some will meddle. But over thinking this point of who the republicans want to win is fruitless. The meddlers will likely cancel themselves out. In fact, this tickles them that democrats worry so much about it. Read Robinson's column in the post a few days back. Vote who you think is best supports your principles.

Posted by: casbasura | February 15, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

Once again:

Magic Johnson endorses Hillary Clinton.


WOW! WOW! WOW!

Way to go H.C.


Hillary Clinton 2008

Posted by: 0_freeman_0 | February 15, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Texas has an odd primary/caucus procedure that could mean that Clinton might receive the most votes in Texas but earn fewer delegates than Obama does. Check out this article from the Houston Chronicle: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/5528612.html. Ex-prez Bill is campaigning in East Texas today (my stomping grounds) which is heavily Republican. So they're looking under all the rocks for votes.

Posted by: hal89 | February 15, 2008 5:28 PM | Report abuse

If one removes fear as a basis for voting (be it fear of losing to Republicans, fear of race, a person's name, etc.) as well as ignorance (for example the notion that a good elect a president based on how many detailed policies they have crafted which is precisely the role of the legislative rather than the executive branch, or that a person of the feminine gender necessarily embraces or embodies feminine qualities) there is precious little reason to vote for Clinton. Therefore of necessity her supporters rely on fear or ignorance to make their case.

Those of us who wish to move beyond fear ignorance are inspired by Obama largely because he embodies the qualities of a great leader which, rather than a policymaker, is what the executive branch is all about.

It is a subtle testament to the quality of leadership Obama represents that his proponents are most able to support their candidate without relying on fearmongering or spreading ignorance.

Posted by: bgraham1 | February 15, 2008 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Glen Beck say that he would not support Oboma even if he became the democratic nominee.

We need real "Change" not empty words, from a man with a racial agenda like Obama.


Hillary Clinton 2008

Posted by: 0_freeman_0 | February 15, 2008 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Obama claims to be the country's "uniter". Then he says that he is the one who is "truly", "all the way", against the Iraq war. A significant minority of the country support the war. How does having the extremist position on the war issue make him the "uniter"? Seems that being the one who is "totally" (except for voting to fund it) against it, will make it harder to unite the country on this difficult issue.

Posted by: johnL1 | February 15, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said just recently that China is clearly on the edge of capitalist economy.

Yes You Can for FREE is definitely not any capitalist mantra.

Who knows (JUST MAY BE) America wants to cherish socialist economy by electing Obama to the WHITE House!

Everything is for FREE. Just suck to the rich. Not bad at all.

Yes You Can For "FREE".

Posted by: kat7 | February 15, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: russ.armstrong
quote:
Wow. You can't even view Barack Obama's positions at his web site without "signing up."
end quote:

That is simply not true. There is a "Skip Sign Up" button on the http://www.barackobama.com page that will go directly to his home page

If clicking the button is too hard try going directly to either

http://www.barackobama.com/index.php

or

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

Posted by: Absolute_0-K | February 15, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse

I am a Native Texan, a former Edwards volunteer and impressed that Hillary has campaigned on substance and policy differences like the economy, home loan policies and comprehensive healthcare reform. As a boomer these issues and especially Comprehensive Healthcare Reform is why I have decided to support Hillary.I am just not impressed with movements and simplistic slogans, I believe many of us Democrats learned that lesson with the President Howard Dean campaign that collapsed like a lead baloon. Energy Independence and Energy Security are issues critical to our Houston economy and national security. Hillary will be speaking and answering questions at the Houston Partnership Energy Conference but Senator Obama is no where to be found.Is that the leadership and bold vision that we constantly here from the Obama supporters or just another example of ducking out when times require taking a stand on an important issue. I am a Texas Energy Democrat supporting our next President Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: iraleichtman | February 15, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

amadeus56
This is confusing - HRC has been "tested"... you are right, and has been tested and proven to be a typical NY-CA coastal candidate with no traction outside of traditional democrat strongholds. Even if I accept the argument that Obama has a major uphill battle against the republicans in Nov., you are smoking something legal only in California if you think HRC WOULDN'T face the same uphill battle. Do you really think "tested" means she would get votes Obama couldn't get? Where? Who? Who is this mysterious Clinton-or-GOP demographic that the Clinton supporters keep referring to? I cannot imagine ANY demographic who would vote for Clinton, but would vote GOP if Clinton were not on the ballot. On the other hand, maybe the "tested" cliche is used to deflate the argument that Obama might get the Obama-or-GOP demographic that Obama claims to have in states like Nevada. Suppose Clinton is right - there is no Obama-or-GOP demographic. Then what do we have? We have another John Kerry election ... Somewhere in her heart, I think Clinton believes that the best the Democrats can aspire to is a 271 electoral vote election in November. That is the message of deflated hope. If you are as downtrodden and without hope as she is, godspeed and good luck piecing together the magic 271 pieces. But there was a time when winning candidates won more than 271 electoral votes - Ronald Reagan's poorest showing was 489. I for one believe that 489 electoral vote presidents get more done than 271 electoral vote presidents - they have a broader mandate, broader support, etc. I for one long for the kind of candidate who can get 489 electoral votes again because another 4 years of this weak-mandate stalemate is untolerable. McCain can barely get the nomination of his own party. It is now impossible for Huckabee to win the nomination and he is still polling at 45% in the most recent TX poll!!! Clinton is the kind of candidate who, if she wins, will win with 271 Electoral Votes, and if she loses, will lose to McCain who will get 271 electoral votes. The only candidate left on the field who has any hope of breaking the deadlock is Obama - Obama can grab Nevada (Clinton got it in 1996). Obama can grab Virginia (not considered a Dem swing state until this year). Obama can grab Florida (Clinton got it in 1996). Obama can grab Iowa (Gore got it in 2000, Kerry lost it in 04), and I think Obama might even be able to get Kansas. I don't see HRC getting any of the aformentioned states without a lot of luck and a big struggle.

Posted by: Salty1 | February 15, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: hotjamatl
quote:
Why do we need to go to Osama's web site to know where he stands on the issues, He has make a lot of speeches but no one can truly saw where he is on the issues.
end quote:

He has fully participated in EIGHTEEN debates so far and has agreed to participate in two more. Hillary is pushing debates because it means free coverage to her cash-strapped campaign, and because she has slipped behind Obama in the number of pledged delegates. There are news paper articles comparing and contrasting Clinton and Obama all the time.
The information is out there if someone really wants to get to it.

Posted by: Absolute_0-K | February 15, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Wow. You can't even view Barack Obama's positions at his web site without "signing up."

Posted by: russ.armstrong | February 15, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

I've had it with this splitting up the voters into little groups like they all think the same. Clinton's camp already brought that filth into the air by suggesting "historically" that latinos are "reluctant" to vote for a black candidate. Like they're all a bunch of stupid racists that can't think for themselves.

Clinton has to learn that it is her trench-warfare campaign style that is losing these demographics (like the black vote, for instance) and not just assume everyone is racist. Most voters are not the mouth-breathing morons they are portrayed as in campaign focus groups.

Posted by: grimmix | February 15, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

bourassa1: It's called sexism.

Posted by: kathy_dave | February 15, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

It's all right to not support Obama, yet to believe that Hillary is on your side is simply, foolish.

Posted by: twofeathers50 | February 15, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

dani4864

I think the reasons you cite for voting for HRC are valid even though I don't agree with them.

But you lost me on the last comment- you won't vote for Obama because he is a closet Republican so you would rather have an out and out avowed Republican.

Posted by: rds748 | February 15, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

I am a lifelong resident of Texas, and a registered democrat. I think we democrats are overlooking a unique oppurtunity that Obama if elected could have to bring an end to the hostility and ill feelings that the citizens of most muslim countries have towards America. Obama lived in a muslim country between the ages of 2 and 10 I believe. He attended a muslim school while he was there. With the knowledge and understanding he has of the muslim culture I believe he could repair much of the damage that was inflicted on muslims by the Bush administration. I think he is the best candidate to deal with muslim extremists. I mean who are they more likely to negotiate with Hillary Clinton, John McCain, or Barack Hussein Obama. I feel strongly that Obama can end the threat of terrorism from muslim extremists which is why he'll get my vote in the primary.

Posted by: luckoftheirish_23 | February 15, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

to beingsensible who questions my authority to being informative on texas politics.i've lived in texas since 12/82 and by birth home is tennille,georgia which i use as my userid.i live in the most conservative district in texas sugarland/richmond whose congressman was tom delay.i've been active in harris county (houston)and fort bend politics (richmond,sugarland).upon first moving to this area i was heavily recruited by the republican party but chose to join the democratic party.i am familiar with what goes on politically in texas and follow the voting patterns.to "beingsensible" please send me a note on this blog after the texas primary and we'll see how well an authoritian i am.

Posted by: ronaldtennillegeorgia1 | February 15, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

I agree that Republicans are crossing over when they can, as they say in my state, to "make mischief." They prefer BO as the Democratic candidate. He's untested, inexperienced, and very far to the left. They believe they can take him down in the general election, and I agree with that. The Hispanic vote is loyal, and will stay with Hillary.

Posted by: amadeus56 | February 15, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

I am perplexed as to why HRC supporters think that by Hillary winning states that democrats win anyway that Obama would not win those same states. I thought Democrats would pick someone who could win states that were generally out of play such as Virginia or Idaho. Hillary knows how to fight the republicans but they know how to fight her too (remember the 90's?). People are tired of the same ole same old.

Posted by: scrappyc20001 | February 15, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, 0_freeman_0, for doing your part to divide Democrats by minimizing an important part of the coalition we will need to win in November, regardless of who is our nominee. There's no small number of my African American brothers and sisters in Texas, many of whom support Obama, and there's also me and many others of all shades who recognize that we need to get away from the zero sum politcs of fear and helplessness. I'll be working and voting for Obama, spurred on in no small part by ignorant, divisive posters like yourself.

Sincerely

Posted by: benjaminanderson | February 15, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Some say that Austin is not really in Texas but Texas is close by; but fact remains that over 300 folks came out to welcome the paid volunteers into Texas. As you Yankees know (I know you-all think you're from the south) we do the Texas two step. We do that in voting as well, we get to vote once in the primary and go back to vote again at night in the caucus. I plan to caucus for the first time in 36 years this year for Obama.

Posted by: bradcpa | February 15, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Why do we need to go to Osama's web site to know where he stands on the issues, He has make a lot of speeches but no one can truly saw where he is on the issues. What about the poor people, who really need CHANGE, they don't wave a computer to check his website.. Sure his speeches are inspiring but to me they are low on substance.

Posted by: hotjamatl | February 15, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Clinton and others (including at least one commenter above) continue to argue that Obama cannot carry big states because Clinton won California, New York and Massachusetts. This is simply ridiculous. All three are reliably Democratic states and Obama will handily win all three in the general election. Obama's proven ability to dominant the independent vote and bring significant numbers of Republicans on board will not only enable him to win, but transform the electoral map in the process.

Posted by: Republicus1 | February 15, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Dear Hillary,
Regarding your man in Pennsylvania, Governor Rendell, I know he is an OK dude, he would never think just because I am black, that I would be in anyway less qualified to be President.
But the problem is really those other dumb white folks that, god knows why, would hold such a view, and so to get their votes, he has endorsed you.
He must be right, because he did win last time with a 20% margin, and I am sure he must figured out that all the black folks voted against him because they vote against white all the time. (After all, there weren't any blacks around to vote against.)
I wish you the best of luck as we go forward, but, if by chance I should win
the nomination, can you please tell Gov. Rendell to tell those white folks that I do have a white mother? This way maybe half of them would vote for me?
Your Friend and Fellow Traveller,
Barack

Posted by: wwtt | February 15, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

0_freeman_0 says: "Not many blacks in Ohio and Texas."

I will not comment on the race-bait element of your post and just point out that I don't know about Ohio, but you are profoundly ignorant if you don't think there are African Americans in Texas. Texas was a slave state before the Civil War, fought on the confederate side, is still considered part of the South, and 1/4 of the population of Texas' two biggest cities (Houston and Dallas) is African American. Clearly, you don't know Texas.

Posted by: Salty1 | February 15, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

I hope when my fellow Texans are in the voting booth they will take a moment to reflect on the disproportionate number of their fellow Texans (and the disproportionate number of these who were hispanic) who have died in the unneccesary war in Iraq, and then remember those who voted to send them there out of obscene political calculation or reckless indifference. We need a change.

Posted by: benjaminanderson | February 15, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

frank posted:
quote:
Governor says some Pennsylvanians likely to vote against a black man
A Clinton supporter, Edward G. Rendell cites his huge win over Republican challenger and former Pittsburgh Steelers star Lynn Swann in 2006. A spokesman says he meant no offense.
From the Associated Press
February 13, 2008
end quote:

Lynn Swann no, zip, nada experience as an elected official. The GOP ran him against a generally popular Democratic incumbent because they had nothing to lose. They gambled that Swann's name recognition would be enough. Besides, it has worked in California. It was amazing that he did as well as he did against Rendell.

I voted for Rendell in 2006. He just lost my vote if he runs for re-election.

Here is an excerpt from a good article on this matter:

Rendell's Race Card Trashes Pennsylvanians

Governor Ed Rendell's chances of landing a top position in a future Democratic administration is slowly slipping away as the Hillary Clinton campaign locomotive is being surpassed by the Obama Express. Governor Rendell, hoping to land a top position in DC, endorsed Hillary Clinton shortly after her strong showing in the Nevada caucuses when the polls showed she was likely going capture the Democratic Presidential nomination. However, Rendell's grand plan seems to be unraveling as Barack Obama's recent string of victories has resulted in his pulling ahead of Hillary in the delegate count.

Like any desperate animal backed into a corner, and with his national political future in jeopardy, Rendell has gone on the attack. In the process, he has insulted the people of Pennsylvania and injected the race card into a campaign that has already seen its fair share of race baiting politics.

Rendell's recent statement that "many white conservatives won't vote for a black candidate" is not only a thinly veiled cynical attempt to galvanize the white vote in Pennsylvania's upcoming April primary for his candidate, but it is dead wrong. He errantly cites his own recent election as proof that "many conservative whites won't vote" for a black candidate.

However, what Rendell fails to do is actually look at the county-by-county results of the 2006 gubernatorial election where he soundly dispatched of Lynn Swann by a 20-point margin. If Rendell had bothered to actually look at the election results, he would find that the reason Swann lost was because Lynn Swann got absolutely crushed in the Philadelphia region by 80% to 20% ratio, losing the City of Philadelphia by a 90% - 10% margin. That accounts for about 45% of the total statewide vote.

It was with the mostly white, moderate-to-liberal Philadelphia suburban voters (those supposedly enlightened enough to vote for a black candidate) that Rendell racked up the big margin over Mr. Swann that propelled him to victory. Furthermore, in the most liberal part of the state, the "City of Brotherly Love," black voters voted 95% against the first black gubernatorial nominee in Pennsylvania of a major party

Source:
http://www.politicspa.com/Shafik%202%2014.htm

Posted by: Absolute_0-K | February 15, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

I forgot to add; it is perhaps more the female vote that Obama could really gain on. Just like in VA, this may be key. (Polls showed 58 percent of women favored Obama while 42 percent favored Clinton in Virgina.)

Posted by: davidmwe | February 15, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Not many blacks in Ohio and Texas. Obama is so toast!

Hillary Clinton 2008

Texas is Your's

Posted by: 0_freeman_0 | February 15, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Obama is a breath of fresh air, and if it is anything that Texans need right now, after the stink that has built up under the tutelage of George Bush, it's fresh air.

Hillary, even though she is a Democrat, is politics as usual. Hillary is more of the same.

For a breath of fresh, clean, air, in Texas, and elsewhere, VOTE OBAMA!!

Posted by: buzzm1 | February 15, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

As someone who supports neither candidate I will offer this nugget:

Neither of my parents has ever voted for a Democratic candidate in any election that I'm aware of. They will both be casting votes in the Wisconsin Primary for Obama and are seriously considering voting for Obama in November, which is something I never thought I'd live to see.

That he has been able to catch the eye of people like my parents is an amazing achievement for any Democrat.

Posted by: CoryRStinebrink | February 15, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Mexicans are reluctant to vote for a black man. There has been a lot of racial hostility over border and immigrations issues. Nevertheless I say "Arriba Obama"...

Posted by: expat2MEX | February 15, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is going nasty again. She keeps distorting Obama's quotes about Reagan. That negativity is going to hit her like a pie in the face.

Go Obama!!

Posted by: alarico | February 15, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

On the topic of this article:

The Latino vote is pro-Clinton, not anti-Obama
By Matt A. Barreto and Ricardo Ramírez
February 7, 2008

The claim, then, that her support is somehow evidence of Latino unwillingness to support African American candidates is wrong on its face. Latino voters have demonstrated strong support for African American candidates in the past, across a variety of circumstances...Obama himself has a strong record of winning Latino votes. In 2000, when Obama challenged incumbent Bobby Rush in the Democratic primary for 1st Congressional District in Illinois, he won more Latino votes than African American votes. In 2004, when he ran for the U.S. Senate Democratic nomination in Illinois, Obama received more Latino votes than Latino candidate Gerry Chico. Claims that Latinos will not vote for Obama are clearly false.

See the full article at:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-barreto7feb07,0,6253659.story

Posted by: Absolute_0-K | February 15, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

"ronaldtennillegeorgia1" you're from Georgia, a state that Obama won; so what makes you the authority on whether or not he can win Texas???

Posted by: Beingsensible | February 15, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

I voted for George W. Bush twice and I think he is a good person. On this election, if Barack Obama is the democratic nominee, I will vote for him. I am Hispanic.

Posted by: rene | February 15, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Oh yeah and if we can win through a real campaign based on what we will do for America and how we will heal our country we'll spread the old seeds of racial division and subliminally intimidate whites in PA, suggesting that their neighbors would never vote for some "colored" guy. Oh and the guy who posted the purple lip comment: Hillary needs your help. You might also find a more receptive audience on a FOX News thread. Check it you old school haters! Good night and good luck!

Governor says some Pennsylvanians likely to vote against a black man
A Clinton supporter, Edward G. Rendell cites his huge win over Republican challenger and former Pittsburgh Steelers star Lynn Swann in 2006. A spokesman says he meant no offense.
From the Associated Press
February 13, 2008

HARRISBURG, PA. -- Gov. Edward G. Rendell, one of Hillary Rodham Clinton's most visible supporters, said that some white Pennsylvanians are likely to vote against her rival, Barack Obama, because he is black.

"You've got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African American candidate," Rendell told the editorial board of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in remarks that appeared in Tuesday's paper.

To buttress his point, Rendell cited his 2006 reelection campaign, in which he defeated Republican challenger Lynn Swann, the former Pittsburgh Steelers star, by a margin of 20 percentage points.

Rendell, chairman of the Democratic National Committee in 2000 and previously Philadelphia's mayor, endorsed Clinton on Jan. 23.

Pennsylvania holds its primary April 22.

Later Tuesday, Rendell's spokesman said the governor did not mean to offend anyone.


Posted by: frank | February 15, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Oh yeah and if we can win through a real campaign based on what we will do for America and how we will heal our country we'll spread the old seeds of racial division and subliminally intimidate whites in PA, suggesting that their neighbors would never vote for some "colored" guy. Oh and the guy who posted the purple lip comment: Hillary needs your help. You might also might find a more receptive audience on FOX News thread. Check it you old school haters! Good night and good luck!

Posted by: frank | February 15, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

:::: jnmancini: Why are you spreading lies? Actualy Obama has done quite well with voters across the entire age spectrum. In the recent elecion, he actually won a majority of the SENIOR votes! One demographic he needs to improve on is the uneducated electorate.

And why are you disparaging young voters? Aren't they not US citizens? is their opinion not good enough for you? If the young voters are old enough to enlist in the military and die for our freedom, their vote and voice carries as much weight as yours or mine. It is despicable for someone to put down our young generation and belittle their vote. Coming from a Hillary Clinton supporter, I am not at all surprised.

With Hillary Clinton's supporters, they are loosing because of someone else's fult. Never has it occurred to them that they are losing because they have a vindictive candidate that offers no solutions other than vindictive, divisive, and selfish politics. This is my opinion and I am a Maryland Democrat. Good luck to us all if she runs in the general election because if she has turned me off so much, I have no idea how she plans to appeal to people in the middle.

Like I said earlier, all of Her Majesty's minions are on here spreading lies and misinformation.

Posted by: BethesdaMD | February 15, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: jnmancini
quote:
...who America is ready to vote for? An African American with an Islamic/Muslem name? or a tuff old broad who actually has some experience? You know the answer!! Lets face it, a vote for Obama is a vote for McCain......."
end quote:

Someone who is too bigoted to vote for Obama...and that is what you are saying...would most likely be too sexist to vote for a "tuff old broad". It is the same mindset, so your argument applies to your own candidate as well. A vote for Hillary is a vote for McCain. Especially in view of the fact that many conservatives absolutely hate the name 'Clinton'.

"There is, perhaps, one large American politcal figure who could cause depressed, fractious Republicans to bind their wounds, downplay their divisions, renew their purpose, and join hands in blissful unity at the Minneaplis-St. Paul Republican convention. And that figure is Hillary Clinton" Michael Gerson, former Bush speechwriter.


Posted by: Absolute_0-K | February 15, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

bdfroms:

Sorry about the confusion. I did misread your comments. Your GOP friend is 100% correct. The GOP would love to see Hillary win the nomination because it would mean another improbable election steal.

Posted by: areid45 | February 15, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Can you smell what Barack is cookin'?

Razorback and Elephant.

Did anyone read about Obama's face-to-face words to cousin Cheney? Classic! The Clintons wish they were that good. Come on out. The fresh air feels great!

From today's LA Times:

Standing not far from Dick Cheney -- who had accidentally shot a lawyer friend on a hunting trip -- Obama told the vice president, "I know you came here expecting to be a target, which, it turns out, may prove easier for you than shooting at one."

Then he thanked the Democratic nemesis, saying: "For years we Democrats have succeeded in doing little more than shooting ourselves in the foot. You taught us a valuable lesson: Aim higher."

Posted by: frank | February 15, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Regarding the following comment:

Ok let me also put somthing out there that no Dems. seem to be talking about. If you are supporting the american idol-ish Obama. And you have your fan club card and a poster. Think about this.....your rock star who is btw doing a great job of getting the millions of 18 to 25 yr olds to vote, has no chance of winning against John McCain. Look, you can't tell me that you and your friends have not debated who America is ready to vote for? An African American with an Islamic/Muslem name? or a tuff old broad who actually has some experience? You know the answer!! Lets face it, a vote for Obama is a vote for McCain.......you know I am right! It sucks but we as a nation have not progress far enough yet. So go ahead keep the republicans in the white house. Rock on Obama fans!!

Posted by: jnmancini | February 15, 2008 03:57 PM


Funny you would mention this. I havent seen any racist hecklers or posters at any Obama event; however, i have seen multiple events where posters read "iron my shirt" directed at Clinton. Any racist backlash to Obama will be cancelled out by sexist backlash to Clinton. Furthermore, read the previous comment from TexasCorvette. He stated he will vote for McCain if Clinton is the Democratic nominee. No Presidential candidate with such a high % of citizens with a negative attitude towards them has and/or will win!

Posted by: areid45 | February 15, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Trying to diminsh the other side when you are trailing is not a good strategy. It simply makes yourself look that much weaker. Sure, the other side has nothing to show, so why is it that they are kicking your butt.
C'mon, Hillary, show us that you CAN be an executive and do something about your (still) inept and incompetent team.

Posted by: wwtt | February 15, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Heron writes:
"I am curious about why Hispanics feel so loyal to Hillary. Is it because they liked having Bill as President? What exactly has Hillary done for Hispanics?"

Here is my respuesta:
"Es nuestro secreto sucio" (It's our dirty secret).


Posted by: Salty1 | February 15, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton had an opportunity to sign legislation to eliminate the disparity in powder and crack cocaine offenses. A disparity which has decimated may minority communities, and he refused to do so.

Hillary Clinton now opposes retroactive adjustments on a case-by-case basis, now that the Sentencing Commission (USSC) has eliminated the disparity.

And, after agreeing with the original stand taken by Gov. Eliot Spitzer of N.Y., she now says that she does not agree with drivers' licenses for undocumented workers.

Some minority champions, huh?

Posted by: wchever | February 15, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

It's not hard to grasp why the Latino/Hispanic vote is generally gravitating toward the 100% Anglo candidate. Not hard at all.

Posted by: imshore | February 15, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: GSWAGNER
quote:
I am concerned that Obama is picking up states that vote republican. He does not seem to win in the large states that are needed for a winning coalition in November.
end quote:

That is a common theme of the Clinton Campaign and of her supporters. For one thing it assumes that democrats who voted for Clinton in the Primaries will not support Obama in the General Election if he wins the nomination. Also You overlooked Colorado as a possible swing state. It was won decisively by Obama 67% to 32%. The State voted for Clinton in 1992, but it went red in 1996.

Hillary, simply dismisses Louisiana as another example of the "a proud electorate". In other words, Obama only beat her there because of the African-American vote. That is a dismissive, divisive, oversimplification of the turnout for Obama. Louisiana is another swing state that voted for Clinton in 1992 and 1996, but has voted for Bush in 2000 and in 2004

Clinton won Tennessee, which could be a swing State. However, if Obama were the democratic nominee, most of those same moderate democrats who voted for HRC might vote for Obama in the General Election.

HRC won Arizona, but they are going to vote for their Senator, just as Arkansas would probably go for their former First-Lady. Arkansas is a state that Clinton would probably swing that Obama most likely would not. It has six electoral votes.

I think Obama would have a good shot at swinging Colorado, Louisiana, Missouri, Virginia and Nevada where Obama won more delegates in more counties.

There is one important swing state that remains unresolved, and that would be Florida. Michigan may also be so turned off by the primary mess their Democratic Party created that many of the Dems take a pass in the General. Maybe they will have a caucus redo before Denver. In my opinion that would be the only fair way.

The point is the argument that Obama has only won deep red GOP states doesn't hold up to close scrutiny.


Posted by: Absolute_0-K | February 15, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

It seems as though Democrats are being played by the Republicans. Why else would rumors of republicans going out in large numbers to vote for Obama because they would rather have the so-called "weaker" democratic candidate in the general election be so rampantly beleived. Why, I'll tell you why. So that more democrats will vote for Clinton to ensure that she is the candidate in the general election. If you think Obama has been able to galvanize a record number of people to the polls. Wait until November. if Clinton is the nominee. The GOP would like nothing better. They KNOW, they can beat her - hands down. They are not too sure about Obama.

Please stop with the "experience" crap. I don't know of any President who had "experience" in the white house before they got to the white house. Furthermore, look at what all of this "experience" has netted the USA. Claiming your husband's experience as your own doesn't count. I for one am tired of the same ole crap- Democrats can't get anything done because of the Republicans; Republicans can't get anything done because of the Democrats. Enough already. What about the citizens of the USA? Can we get anything done? Heck yeah. We can vote the same ole games outta there.

Posted by: republicrat | February 15, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

areid45, I think you misread my post regarding the electability of Obama or Clinton v. McCain. Here is the post:

"Regarding electability in the Fall, I asked a Republican friend in Texas, a Bush supporter long active in Texas politics, who he thought would be harder for McCain to beat. Obama or Clinton? His answer" "Hillary, without a doubt!" I'm a lifelong Democrat, but on this point, I agree with my Republican friend."

In sum, he was saying that Hillary would be easier for McCain to beat. Hope this clears up your confusion.

Posted by: bdfroms | February 15, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton Pretends She Never Praised NAFTA


In response to Barack Obama's attack on NAFTA, the Hillary Clinton campaign has gone into meltdown mode. Here's Dow Jones' Marketwatch:
"Clinton's campaign fired back at Obama, charging the Illinois senator with misrepresenting Clinton's position on trade...'Recently [Obama] falsely claimed that Hillary said that NAFTA was a 'boon' to the economy. Now, Obama is resting his argument on a single paraphrase from an article written twelve years ago,' Clinton's campaign said in an emailed statement."

The Huffington Post has followed along with a laugh-out-loud piece in which the chief architects of NAFTA (many who are now wealthy corporate lawyers and lobbyists) are now saying, no, no, Hillary Clinton was really opposed to it. These are the same people, of course, who are looking for jobs in the Hillary Clinton White House.
What a total joke, really. This campaign clearly thinks we are all just a bunch of fools.
Hillary Clinton has made statements unequivocally trumpeting NAFTA as the greatest thing since sliced bread. The Buffalo News reports that back in 1998, Clinton attended the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, and thanked praised corporations for mounting "a very effective business effort in the U.S. on behalf of NAFTA." Yes, you read that right: She traveled to Davos to thank corporate interests for their campaign ramming NAFTA through Congress.

Posted by: diksagev | February 15, 2008 3:58 PM | Report abuse

Because of the structure of the Texas delegate allocation system, Obama is, even today, favored to take the most delegates.

Like most states three weeks out from the primary, Hillary is still ahead in the polls attempting to measure the popular vote, with Obama closing (despite the fact that he won't campaign here until after the WI primary). There is no reason to believe that the strong-closing Obama campaign cannot overtake Clinton in Texas just as in other states. Texas Hispanic voters are likely to behave more like their closest neighbors in NM (54-44 for Hillary) than the 2-1 margin that the Hillary stategists understand is rapidly fading on her.

Posted by: Stonecreek | February 15, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Ok let me also put somthing out there that no Dems. seem to be talking about. If you are supporting the american idol-ish Obama. And you have your fan club card and a poster. Think about this.....your rock star who is btw doing a great job of getting the millions of 18 to 25 yr olds to vote, has no chance of winning against John McCain. Look, you can't tell me that you and your friends have not debated who America is ready to vote for? An African American with an Islamic/Muslem name? or a tuff old broad who actually has some experience? You know the answer!! Lets face it, a vote for Obama is a vote for McCain.......you know I am right! It sucks but we as a nation have not progress far enough yet. So go ahead keep the republicans in the white house. Rock on Obama fans!!

Posted by: jnmancini | February 15, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

"Since joining the Senate, Obama's voting record on Iraq has been identical to Hillary's."

:::: lndlouis: Yikes! HMS Clinton must be sinking pretty badly for Her Majesty to dispatch all her minions to spread lies all over the blogs.

FACT: Hillary Clinton votes for the war in Iraq.

FACT: Hillary Clinton thought voting for the Iraq war would be good for he career. You can always count on Her Majesty to do what is best for her personally.

FACT: Hillary Clinton has yet to apologize or admit it was a mistake to vote for the war in Iraq.

FACT: Obama voted AGAINST the war in Iraq

FACT: Obama correctly predicted EXACTLY what would happen if the Iraq war were to be executed as it was planned.

BOTTOM LINE: Obama showed leadership and stood up for what is right while Hillary Clinton made a (mis)calculated political decision based on what she thought is best for her.

REALTY: Hilly Clinton lost because we now know her for the disingenuous person she is.

Posted by: BethesdaMD | February 15, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Ok let me also put somthing out there that no Dems. seem to be talking about. If you are supporting the american idol-ish Obama. And you have your fan club card and a poster. Think about this.....your rock star who is btw doing a great job of getting the millions of 18 to 25 yr olds to vote, has no chance of winning against John McCain. Look, you can't tell me that you and your friends have not debated who America is ready to vote for? An African American with an Islamic/Muslem name? or a tuff old broad who actually has some experience? You know the answer!! Lets face it, a vote for Obama is a vote for McCain.......you know I am right! It sucks but we as a nation have not progress far enough yet. So go ahead keep the republicans in the white house. Rock on Obama fans!!

Posted by: jnmancini | February 15, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Ms. Truthteller:

How many latinos and latinas are coming back from Iraq in body bags and have been maimed and injured as a result of Senator Clinton's decision to vote for war in 2002?

That vote alone, that has disproportionately impacted the latino and latina community is reason enough that Senator Clinton has forfeited her claim that she cares about your community. While Chelsea Clinton takes a job as a hedge fund manager on Wall Street, young latinos and latinas her age are coming back in body bags and maimed and scarred for life. Give me a break.

Senator Obama had the best interests of the latino and latina community when he spoke out against the Iraq War. Case closed.

Posted by: jovitman | February 15, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

I'm just not sure that there are all that many older, white, under-educated female democrats left in Texas. Aren't they all Rs now? HRC has nothing to offer the youth of this country. Vote HRC if you're interested in 8 more years of an R in the White House.

Posted by: rmead | February 15, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Dan Balz:

Could you find a "smart friend" to help you with these issues? For instance, that "smart friend" might point out that a majority of native-born Hispanics support immigration status checks before giving DLs (source: Pew).

I realize the WaPo explicitly supports illegal immigration (source: WaPo editorial on MMP in VA), but that doesn't mean that you should let that drag down your "reporting".

Posted by: LonewackoDotCom | February 15, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Obama's chances of winning Florida and Michigan in the general election have greatly diminished since he became such a strident advocate for disenfranchising Democratic voters in both states. Michigan is a must win state, and Florida is the largest swing state. This is not about rules. Obama was the ONLY candidate to run television ads in Florida the week before the primary.

The only way that Obama has a chance to win these two states is if he supports seating their delegates in a way that reflects election results in which a overwhelming number of Democrats went to the polls.

This is not just about delegates, it is about individual voters who went to the polls and voted in good faith.

Here what led to the Florida primary being moved up:

Florida's Republican led legislature brought to a vote a bill that would make electronic voting a thing of our "shady" past with the questionable election of GWB.

The Republicans tied to the bill a provision to move the Florida's primary date from Feb 5th to January 29th. Many Democrats in our Assembly voted with the Republicans on this issue. They (as I do) felt it was more important to have paper ballots than risk another fraudulent election. As punishment, the DNC striped the State of it's delegates.

Obama has fallen into the GOP's obvious trap, and an Obama nomination will mean a John McCain victory because of that.

At the end of the day, superdelegates should consider the popular vote for both candidates and include Florida and Michigan in that tally before deciding who to support.

Posted by: iankeywest | February 15, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

I am curious about why Hispanics feel so loyal to Hillary. Is it because they liked having Bill as President? What exactly has Hillary done for Hispanics?

Posted by: Heron | February 15, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Regarding the following statement:

Texas is still a part of the Union?
(too bad)

Posted by: kase | February 15, 2008 03:16 PM


I'm a Democrat. Been one for over 40 years, but, if Billary is the candidate, I will vote for John McCain. Should enough cretins actually vote for Billary for her to actually win the presidency, Texas ought to consider seceding.

Posted by: texascorvette | February 15, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Obama's "change" proposals (read: taxes for new programs) are estimated to cost 857 Billion (with a "B") dollars. That's basically all I need to know about this purple lipped clown.

Posted by: birvin9999 | February 15, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

An Authentic Leader in the White House?
Posted February 15, 2008 | 03:18 PM (EST)


The resounding victories of Barack Obama and John McCain in Virginia, Maryland, and D.C. -- Obama by an average of 34 percentage points and McCain by 28 -- confirm a growing desire of the American public to elect an authentic leader as its next president.


At every talk I have given this past year on True North and authentic leadership, one of the first questions is, "Is it possible to have an authentic leader in the White House?" At first, I begged off these questions, saying my research on leaders was based entirely on business and non-profit leaders. Privately, I had my doubts that our political process, which has become so negative and vicious in recent years, would permit an authentic leader to prevail.

As this extended primary campaign moves on, it is becoming increasingly clear that the American public is not only open to an authentic leader as President, but demanding one. The two leading candidates at present, John McCain and Barack Obama, are on the rise precisely because they are authentic.

The media seems to think this election is about gender and race. I think it is about authenticity. Most people under 40 are so cynical about politicians who promise one thing and do another, or who are unwilling to admit their mistakes and shortcomings, that they will only get engaged for a leader that they are convinced is authentic. No wonder that both Obama and McCain have such a following among independents and the younger generations.

On the Republican side, Mitt Romney may have been the best qualified candidate in either party, but he failed because he lacked authenticity and seemed to say whatever people wanted to hear. His positions on key issues changed so dramatically since his years as governor of Massachusetts that no one knew what he stood for. The same could be said for the precipitous fall of Rudy Giuliani, once the Republican front-runner.

McCain, on the other hand, who was left for dead last summer as his campaign was falling apart, came back on the strength of his authenticity. McCain, who experienced his crucible as a prisoner-of-war in Vietnam, tells it like it is. He is not afraid to go against popular positions or the Republican hierarchy, including the current president. As he has assumed front-runner status for the nomination, the hard-liners in the Republican Party have tried to bring him in line, but he has steadfastly refused.

On the Democratic side, Hilary Clinton is fully qualified to be president, but people don't seem to know who she really is. She is extremely skilled at playing the polls and figuring out the right appeals to voter subgroups, but this has only led to unusually high negatives in the eyes of many people who are politically aligned with her positions. The one time she showed a little emotion in New Hampshire voters responded by giving her a surprise victory over Obama. Then she returned to the negative side in South Carolina, and her support has been slipping ever since.

Obama's authenticity is precisely what makes him so appealing to such a wide range of voters. He seems "good in his skin," and is able to rise above the negative attacks. His message of hope and change, backed up by specific programs that seem logical to most people, is inspiring a lot of Americans to get engaged in the political process. For all the talk that he would wither under the pressure, he seems to get stronger and more confident as he goes.

Obama talks openly about his crucible -- coming from a mixed race family, watching his parents divorce while he was very young, moving to Hawaii, and being confused in high school about which direction to go -- until he found himself in his early twenties. His opponents say that he lacks experience, which is not really true. At 43 years of age, Obama has had an abundance of life's experiences, which enable him to understand the lives of ordinary Americans and to empathize with their challenges.

He is confident enough to sit down with a wide variety of world leaders, even those with whom the United States currently has hostile relationships, and try to work out solutions. He uses the same approach to health care, offering to bring all the interested parties around a big table and seek solutions, something his opponent steadfastly refused to do in the early-1990s and is currently belittling him for today.

In a topsy-turvy election year, there's no assurance that either McCain or Obama will be elected president, but that doesn't take away from voters' desires for an authentic leader in the White House.

This just might be the year. Wouldn't that be a change?

Bill George is the author of the best-selling books, True North and Authentic Leadership, and the former chairman and CEO of Medtronic. His web site is www.truenorthleaders.com.

Posted by: diksagev | February 15, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

"Say what you will about Mrs. Clinton, the fact remains that she understands world and middle east politics, she understands fiscal responsibility, and quite frankly a
tuff and pull no punches woman with maybe just a slight chip on her shoulder is exactly what this counrty needs right now."

:::: jnmancini: What are you smoking? Hillary Clinton could not even exercise fiscal responsibility within HER OWN campaign! She spent everything she had irresponsibility. She had to give her campaign a loan to pay the bills after she has raised millions.

Now I understand why Hillary Clinton does the best among people who are uneducated. I guess tat demographic works for her because they will buy into all the dumb BS fed to them by the disingenuous campaign of Her Majesty Hillary Clinton, the self coronated queen of America.

Posted by: BethesdaMD | February 15, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

All I know is Obama all day!!!! But, it's gettin to the point where people are starting to not like Clinton or not like Obama. I like them both honestly. And if Obama wasn't running, Hiliary would have my support. I will be the first to admit that I didn't give Obama a chance. But, once I saw his speech after he won Iowa, he made me love him. I haven't been moved by a speaker like that since I watched old footage of Dr. King. When I watch McCain, Clinton or any other politician, I see a POLITICIAN. Someone who says anything just to get a vote. When I see Obama, I see a man that wants to change the direction of the country. He's upfront and honest when he says this won't be easy if he became president. All he asks is that we support him and he'll do his best to support us. And people act like he's gonna make all the laws, rules, etc... There is a democratic process. Even if he supported (or anyone else who becomes president)a bill he wanted passed, it would have to be approved by Congress. So, the talk of he can't lead is just excuses. U need a strong face with strong words as a president for TV and a good impression of this country around the world. The president needs a strong team around him to actually get things accomplished. The way he organized his campaign shows me that he will be able to organize a strong team like that once he is elected in office. Obama 08 all day!!

Posted by: DMoney820 | February 15, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Obama has donated $694,000 and Clinton has donated $195,000 to the super delegates for their re-elections.

Since joining the Senate, Obama's voting record on Iraq has been identical to Hillary's. Both have continuously funded the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

Change? Really?

Posted by: lndlouis | February 15, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

leonardo8

If you want to understand the "Texas Game" better, someone has taken the time to do the math to predict how Texas will shake out. Very reasoned analysis that shows that Clinton's "Texas Victory" is about buying time and getting symbolic victory out of a victory, not about recoving the delegate gap.

http://blog.texansforobama.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=751

Being a Texam, knowing what I know about the demographics of my home state, and watching the pundits in the media talk about Texas as a "must-win" without any appreciation of the nuances of my state, I realize what the Clinton game plan is: "winning" Texas (by a margin of less than 10%) doesn't change Clinton's 100+ pledged delegate deficit and she knows it. But it creates a perception in the media and among her contributors that she can make a comeback or turn this around, and keeps her in the game a bit longer, until Pennsylvania, and that will give her TIME, which is what she is really after... time to work the superdelegates, time to attack Obama before he becomes inevitable, and time to make her case for FL and MI. It seems a bit dishonest, but she wouldn't be the first politician to play hard ball to get the nomination. If Clinton were to be the nominee, I would vote for her, because I have strong commitments to the Dems in general, but I am very afraid of the damage she will do to my party in the process.

Posted by: Salty1 | February 15, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Regarding Dani's comments, all I can say is that you must be drinking too much tequila if you believe that Senator Obama is a closet republican. How utterly ridiculous. The only closet republican is yourself. You gave yourself away for the phony you are.

Oh sure, Senator Obama is a closet republican who opposed the 2002 War Resolution vote as opposed to Senator Clinton. Senator Obama voted against both Justices Roberts and Alito being appointed to the Supreme Court. Yeah, he's some closet republica. The fact that you stated you would vote for McCain if Senator Clinton wasn't the nominee shows what a liar you are. You are a republican and an idiotic one at that.

Have another shot of tequila.

Posted by: jovitman | February 15, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

This link is a poll showing Obama leading Clinton in Texas 48-42 --

http://americanresearchgroup.com/

Posted by: andrewgerst | February 15, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

The following was posted by a regular to these discusion boards and I was wondering if you folks can confirm his analysis. He is a very legitimate discussant.


I am going to explain TX to you. Please pay attention.
1. Only 126 of 228 delegates will be selected by the Primary vote. It is likely that none of the 5 metros of more than 1.3m will split as much as 60-40 for anyone. Harris, Dallas and Travis Counties will probably go for BHO and Tarrant and Bexar for HRC. But neither candidate is likely to get a ten delegate lead among the 126. Call it 67-59. For the sake of argument, call it 67-59 for HRC on the assumption the Valley Machine supports her and actually gets out the vote down there.
2. 67 delegates will be elected IN JUNE.
But that is by the State Convention, which will have been filled with delegates from the County Conventions, which will be filled by delegates from the Precinct Conventions, run just like IA's, after the Primary polls close! In other words, when you hear the TX Primary vote, you won't
know anything about who won. Because if the BHO voters come back to the Precinct Conventions in big numbers, they can overwhelm an 8 delegate HRC lead from the Primary!
25 of the caucus selected delegates are supers, but "pledged" by their caucus vote.
3. Additionally, there are 32 unpledged supers, 12 of whom have endorsed HRC, 3 of whom have endorsed BHO, 17 of whom are waiting. These supers could tip the scale back to HRC or change their minds.
4. Just in case you think this was EZ so far, let me add that the 126 primary elected delegates are chosen by State Senate Districts. The SSDs got votes allocated by how strongly D they voted in 2004.
Of the 31 Senate Districts, the 4 largest in terms of delegates are:
* Senate District 14 (Austin) - 8 delegates. Home to the University of Texas at Austin and an enormous young, vibrant D community.
* Senate District 13 (Houston) - 7 delegates. Home to one of the largest African-American communities in the state and Senator Rodney Ellis, one of two African-Americans in the Texas Senate.
* Senate District 23 (Dallas) - 6 delegates. Home to Texas' other African-American State Senator, Senator Royce West, this district contains inner-Dallas and has over 280,000 African-Americans and over 270,000 Hispanics, just in this single district.
* Senate District 25 (San Antonio) - 6 delegates. This contains southwest Austin, north San Antonio, and the rural country in-between (Guadalupe, Hays, Comal and Kendall). The only district with more than 6 delegates that has a Republican Senator.
So whoever thinks TX is going heavily for anyone forget it. TX splits near even. Toward BHO if the Valley Machine sits out to make peace for Noriega, Toward HRC if the Valley Machine works its tail off for her.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 9, 2008 10:25 PM

Posted by: gandalfthegrey | February 15, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

I am a Texan and I am Latino. The older Latinos may be siding with Clinton, but the younger generation (those under 40) do not have the preconceived biases that our parents and grandparents do. The racial divide is being exploited by the Clintons (both of whom I was fond of until this election), but it will not work in Texas as well as they think. I, and most of the people I know of Latino descent, am siding with Obama because we are tired of the same "conquer-and-divide" election tactics from both parties. Obama will win the state of Texas and the primary will be over.

Posted by: robertorrios | February 15, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

It is more important for Obama to do well in Ohio than Texas for several reasons.

1. Nobody is counting on a Democrat to carry Texas in the general election.

2. Because of the delegate math in Texas, Obama could lose the vote large and still win more Texas delegates.

3. Ohio is full of blue collar households. Blue collar households are more important than Latino households in the general election for one simple reason: they are more likely to vote Republican than Latinos. Even if McCain can win substantial support among Latinos FOR A REPUBLICAN, the democratic nominee has a built in advantage with them. The states with a large Latino population and decent electoral college vote are: California, Florida, Texas, NM, NV, AZ and CO. CA is a sure thing for democrats and contains 1 in 4 of all eligible Latino voters (that's what the news said on super Tuesday). TX and AZ will not be competitive. NM will go Democratic and most likely CO. Because of the Cuban population in FL, the democrats have an uphill fight. So really, we're fighting over NV and maybe CO. With blue collar workers you've got the entire Great Lakes area of which every state is competitive except IL.

4. If HRC refuses to drop out after March 4, Obama's time in Ohio will pay bigger dividends in PA (shaping an effective economic message) than concentrating on Texas.

Obama needs to concentrate on winning delegates in TX and winning the vote in OH. Both for the nomination and confidence in the general election.

Posted by: caribis | February 15, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

bdfroms wrote:

Regarding electability in the Fall, I asked a Republican friend in Texas, a Bush supporter long active in Texas politics, who he thought would be harder for McCain to beat. Obama or Clinton? His answer" "Hillary, without a doubt!" I'm a lifelong Democrat, but on this point, I agree with my Republican friend.


This is the second person i have seen here using a GOP supporters thoughts to reason why Clinton would be better in the general election. Once again THIS IS ASININE! The numbers are there on any decent political/news website. Clinton is disliked far more than Obama BEFORE there is even a debate on the issues. Clinton CANNOT win moderate & independent votes, PERIOD! Please stop listening to Limbaugh supporters and GOP operatives and pick up a history book!!!

Posted by: areid45 | February 15, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

One would expect the former First Lady, and President in making to be magnanimous and admire her fellow senator's oratorial power - a natural gift - and simply point out the merits of her "solutions". Many a good speech from exceptionally able leaders have indeed changed the world. Thanks to that great ability to give speeches former President Bill Clinton continues to earn a great deal of money too.

Posted by: Iwantmyvoicetobeheard | February 15, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Both Hillary and Obama have specific policies, and they really are that far apart. Be objective and understand what "inspiration" means, the ability to influence others to your point of view. As believer of democracy, how can we not be moved by Obama's ability to draw otherwise apathetic citizens into full participants? Hillary's campaign can denigrade this ability it wants. If it is all so easy, don't they wish they can do it too.

Posted by: wwtt | February 15, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

I reject the premise. You wrote "But he still has yet to prove he can significantly dent Hillary Clinton's solid advantage in the Hispanic community."

Obama won the Hispanic vote in Louisiana, Missouri and Virginia. He's proven that he is capable of doing it.

Posted by: JacksonLanders | February 15, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

senator clinton after seeing her black support erode significantly began to court the hispanic/latino vote feverishly.in texas a significant number of individuals with hispanic names consider themselves as anglos and their driver license/photo identities list their race as "white." this group has always considered themselves as republicans.this group consists of those that are educated and well off.their exists a deep divisiveness between hispanics and blacks in texas.for obama to come into this state seeking a victory in my opinion i feel would be asking for the impossible.if mr.obama is the democratic nominee texas will remain a red state.if i were a member of his inner circle i would advise him to limit his campaign budget for texas and concentrate on the big states of california and new york.in order to win the white house some red states will have to be won over.texas is not the one to win,this is ultra conservative political state as one may find.he has a better chance of capturing georgia,alabama,mississippi and louisiana,but not texas.it's a state with a poor race relations in regards to black americans.

Posted by: ronaldtennillegeorgia1 | February 15, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Some will vote no matter who runs and many of us will vote for the other party when it comes to the fall election.
I remember voting in a primary for whoever was running against Nixon then voting for JFK when the fall election rolled around and we waited to see who had won.
Obama has followed Hillary's lead on most things she put out in May he had about the same in August.
I find this hard to accept and I sent it to my cousin here is his answer:
"I don't know how factual the Obama article is but a lot of it seems plausible. I know that in Jakarta he went to a Catholic school that had release time for Islamic study by Muslim students. It had to be an elite institution if the head of Garuda Airline, nation's main air carrier, went there as did some other now prominent individuals. He and I were there at the same time and while the American community was small I never ran into his mother."
Have you read this yet? http://www.freedomsenemies.com/_more/obama.htm
I really wanted to read this post also but alas I could not find it...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/23/AR2008012301215.html?hpid%3Dmoreheadlines&sub=AR
Anyone know how I can get a glance at that?

Posted by: cleanair_59824 | February 15, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

badger3: Obama did not diss anyone, the Democratic party did and Hillary Clinton agreed with their decision. It is typical for Hillary Clinton to agree to one thing and do something else.

Based on your sleazy twisting of facts you must be a Hillary Clinton supporter. Hillary Clinton supporters are the types that generally lack class or grace and want to change the rules when they are loosing so they can have a coronation for Her Majesty Hillary Clinton, the queen of America.

I have no issue with counting the delegates from FL and MI, as long as we have a proper election where each candidate has the opportunity to campaign and get the word out. What are you afraid of? That the voters will learn about Obama and that once they get to know him, they will like him so much better than Hillary's vindictive and dishonest politics?

Posted by: BethesdaMD | February 15, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

PS what about Hillary's total failure to get male voters? Obama now leads her by 21 points nationallly among men.

Hispanics are an important voting block, but MEN are clearly a bigger one. Hillary is getting blown out by more than 3 to 2 in this demographic, which is more than 40% of all voters.

Hillary's campaign, with her claim to be experienced, strong on national security(?) etc, was clearly pitched at overcoming this problem. It's failed completely to do so.

Imagine going into the general election with a candidate who can't get men to vote for her.

Posted by: bourassa1 | February 15, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Regarding electability in the Fall, I asked a Republican friend in Texas, a Bush supporter long active in Texas politics, who he thought would be harder for McCain to beat. Obama or Clinton? His answer" "Hillary, without a doubt!" I'm a lifelong Democrat, but on this point, I agree with my Republican friend.

Posted by: bdfroms | February 15, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

Could Hillary Clinton possibly be any more disenginuous? Not only could she not take a stand against the war in Iraq, she can't even take a stand on terrorism!

Listen to her speak with her own words about how we should try to "understand" terrorists and how terrorism is simply a "tool" used throughout history to achieve objectives. She talks about the terrorist group the LTTE (The Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka) which has killed over 60,000 people, commited more suicide bombings than all other terrorist groups in the world combined, and is responsible for the assassination of the Prime Minister of India.

In her own words...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7z_olqBDnxA

http://www.asiantribune.com/index.php?q=node/8699

Could this sympathy have anything to do with the LTTE terrorist supporters fundraising for Hillary Clinton (Google: Hillary LTTE). I guess the same way Hillary Clinton could not vote "no" for the Iraq war, she's not really capable of saying that terrorism against civilians is completely unacceptable in a civilized society and that there could be no justification for acts of terrorism regardless of the "objectives."

We can do so much better with Obama without such sleazy and self-serving politics!

Posted by: BethesdaMD | February 15, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

GSWAGNER:

Do you honesty think that whomever the Democrats nominate against John McCain WON'T win Michigan, Florida, New York, California? Barack Obama will roll in those in November as well as a few "purple" ones, e.g. Missouri, Virginia, Montana.

===
Do you really think the people in Florida and Michigan will vote for Obama when the party dissed them in the primary? It's a pretty good assumption a lot of them could do protest votes for McCain.

Posted by: badger3 | February 15, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Yes we would like some new and fresh ideas in the White house. HOWEVER!!!! Has anyone actually asked "what great or even average thing has Obama done for Il."? I have not read a single thing other than his voting record that would lead me to believe he can run this counrty!!! Say what you will about Mrs. Clinton, the fact remains that she understands world and middle east politics, she understands fiscal responsibility, and quite frankly a
tuff and pull no punches woman with maybe just a slight chip on her shoulder is exactly what this counrty needs right now.

And I am sorry but there are few people who after 9/11 would not have voted to go to war.... Maybe one day if america has to send in our loved ones to fight for us the White House will do it ALL the WAY. Remember your WWII history? In 4 years we beat the Germans in Europe and the Japanees in the Pasfic. What's wrong with the piture in Iraq....Thats our republican machine at work....

So again I say we need a (C you next Tuesday) in the White House. So lets put her in coach!

Posted by: jnmancini | February 15, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

I believe the fact that Senator Obama has not become a house hold name in the hispanic community is why he has not faired well with their votes. Think about it, you have only been in the country for 20 years, barely speak the language and you remember that President Clinton was President of the United States when you first came here. You remember he was a supportor of minorities and the working class. Remember, the hispanic community in America grew significantly during the 90's, the Bill Clinton years. Now, his wife is running for President and that is who you are immediately drawn too. I believe come November, no matter who the Democratic nominee is, people are going to vote for the candidate that BEST represents them, Clinton/Obama or McCain. I just don't see why Hispanic people here in this country would think that Senator McCain has their best interest at heart. Oh well, voting the wrong way could reveal a horrible truth . . . for us ALL!!!!

Posted by: ajackson3 | February 15, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Dear Clinton Supporters

Please join up with the Obama camp. This isn't about ego - its about the future of the party. Obama is growing the party leaps and bounds over anything we've seen since before Reagan. We are on the brink of a Democratic consensus for the first time in a long long time. Obama is the one to lead it. Hillary is an accomplished person due respect, but she can't build the consensus that he can. Please join up and help us get out of the 51% era of partisan warfare and lead us into the 65% era of consensus politics.

Obama is person for the job. Please give your support to Obama.

Posted by: maq1 | February 15, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

There are now more Hispanic citizens than black citizens in the US. But there are still more black VOTERS than Hispanic voters, because blacks get to the polls in larger numbers. Turnout in a typical general election is white - about 54%, black - about 44%, Hispanic - about 33%.

Moreover, the numbers of black voters who will vote Democrat definitely outweighs the number of Hispanics who will, because the GOP has made more inroads into the Hipanic vote. That includes crucial swing voters like Florida Cubans, who are heavily Republican.

So going into a general election, I'd sure rather be Obama, who has gotten about 35-40% of the Hispanic vote in recent primaries, than Hillary, who's gotten about 15-20% of the black vote.

The hole in her coalition is a gaping, fatal wound.

Posted by: bourassa1 | February 15, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

The Obama campaign is correct. Unless Hillary can win Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania by at least 20 points each, it will be nearly impossible for her to get to the convention with a lead in pledged delegates. Though Mark Penn and Co. are now claiming that they have no problem with thwarting democracy by stealing the election via super delegates or illegitimate Michigan and Florida delegates, I'm not sure even the Clintons are ruthless enough to destroy the party and hand the election to John McCain just for a primary win for Hillary. This article makes it seem as if the Dems are still competitive. They're not, and they won't be unless Hillary whips out a string of 20-point victories (something she's only managed to do in Arkansas so far, but that Obama has done in nearly 10 states). The primary season is as good as done.

Posted by: nshafroth | February 15, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

I am indeed a Texans and have been for the last 37 years. I am quite fond of Clinton because of her years in the white house as first lady, I presume that most of my Hispanic neighbors feel the same way.

However, after Bill's big mouth in these primaries, the fact the Hiliary did a monkey see, monkey do move when voting on the Iraq war. I now REFUSE to vote for her...... If she wins, I guess I will finally be on the winning side for the President of the United States in 2008, because Sen. McCain will definitely get my vote.

Posted by: michael_basile | February 15, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Why should Latinos trust Obama when his track record in actually doing what he says he will do is so poor? How does voting for Obama, change the ugly realities of race and conflicts of culture in the neighborhood? Latinos, unlike rich white folk, can ill afford to be let down or fooled by rhetoric. As you can see, there are many more questions then answers. Again, Latinos can ill afford to be foolish in their election choices. Maybe Obama needs to get specific, as do his elite followers, about latino community concerns. Beyond lofty promises, I just don't think Latinos would be a priority for Obama post-election; why didn't Latinos overwhelmingly support Obama in his own state? Maybe Latinos are better off pursing their own collective agenda for change in this election by supporting Clinton.

Posted by: truthteller52 | February 15, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

This was a good point, made earlier (2:52)

2) Yes, a female in the White House is exciting. But how about an uninspiring, divisive woman complicit in the partisan wars who rose power largely due to her husband's influence? Not as exciting.

When you throw in the mismanagement of her current campaign, cattle futures trading, the Rose Law Firm, Hillary Care 1, Travelgate, etc., the brave and courageous servant so often touted is actually pretty hard to find. This will get even more depressing if Bill starts overshadowing her again.

Why nominate at candidate that half the country dislikes? She cannot unify this country.

Posted by: brooksofsheffield | February 15, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

Its absolutely mind boggling to read these ignorant posts about Clinton being the stronger candidate in the general election. That is asinine. Clinton cannot and will not win the votes of moderates and independents. Barack Obama has energized voters in a way we havent seeen since the Kennedys. Furthermore, ask yourself when the last time a President came from New York or any other Northeast/ New England state. Southern Democrats would rather die than vote for Hillary or any other "New England Liberal". If the Democratic party was smart, Edwards would be president right now. PLEASE DO NO MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE AGAIN!!!! OBAMA 08!!!!!!!

Posted by: areid45 | February 15, 2008 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Texas is still a part of the Union?
(too bad)

Posted by: kase | February 15, 2008 3:16 PM | Report abuse

I, for one, live in the trenches of life and not in the clouds. Meaningful change is concrete. Hilary Clinton understands this to her very core. Obama will tell you one thing and do another; he failed to speak up for Maytag workers during plant closures while taking tens of thousands in contributions from the owner of Maytag. When asked to help in his home state to prevent nuclear waste emissions from nuclear power plants he responded with weakness and sold out to his nuclear power plant donors; nothing changed except the amount he got in contributions from his nuclear buddies.

Hilary delivers the tools we need to build our own lives. We who support her( Latinos, women, and working class people) share in a common value; when we need help, we ask and when we see someone in need among us we come to their aid (Obama will sell you out to his elite friends). Hilary needs our help now, she has been there for us, we should be there for her NOW.

In the memory of my mother and my grandmother whose burdens were heavy and for the future of my sons and daughters whose world is in peril, I support and join Hilary in her lifelong struggle to make solutions real and meaningful change possible. To my brothers and sisters in the Latino community, thank you for standing with Hilary to build the new coalition for change.

Posted by: truthteller52 | February 15, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Obama has closed in on Clinton on most polls in Texas, and although still trailing, other indicators show that he has time on his side, and Texas eventually perhaps as well:

Texas Primary- Hillary vs. Barack:
http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=50

Posted by: davidmwe | February 15, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Salty1,

You're right about the demographics. Also, the Valley will be penalized for poor turnout in previous elections. A district down there might get only 3 delegates as opposed to a district around Austin or Houston, which might get 7 or 8.

Posted by: leonardo8 | February 15, 2008 3:09 PM | Report abuse

I never thought I'd cheer Texas republicans... but the idea that they will cross party lines and vote against hillary in the primarey is FANTASTIC!!! WOOOOO HOOOO! WAY TO GO LONE STAR STATE!

NOTHING will make me vote for the opaque lawyer who tried to deny the will of voters with a claim of "inevitability'. The opaque lawyer who lied about Obama on "Politico" yesterday. The opaque lawyer who's already failed at healthcare reform once. THe opaque lawyer who has accepted millions in dirty lobbiest money and is totally beholding to them.

NEVER.

VOTE FOR AMERICA! VOTE OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT!

Posted by: onestring | February 15, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse

I am Texan and Hispanic. I know quite well why most Hispanics are breaking for Clinton and I refuse to be a part of that.
But this comment is really about why Clinton wont get the landslide in Texas. True, of the 23.5 million residents of Texas, about 1/3 are Hispanic. But what people are not noticing is that about 1/4 of the Democratic electorate in Texas is African American. Clinton is working really hard to appeal to south Texas, but about half the population of the state (and the bulk of the delegates) are in and around Dallas, Houston, and Austin. Dallas and Houston are both cities where Obama will make a very strong showing, and Austin is full of Latte Liberals - highly educated, well paid Democrats. Perhaps the media might spin a 53% victory by Clinton (which is what I suspect she might get) as a true victory, but when they are done counting delegates, her net gain will be in the finger-counting range.

Posted by: Salty1 | February 15, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

All the latest polls how Obama gaining rapidly. By March 4th he will have the lead and Hillary will be finished.

Posted by: zbob99 | February 15, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Dani,

If you call things like blindly mandating that everyone buy health insurance and blindly mandating that credit card companies cap interest rates at 30% a "plan", then yes you're right about Clinton.

But what happens when some family chooses not to buy health insurance? Does the swat team break into their house and arrest them until they change their mind? Do they get their wages garnished until they decide?

Hundreds of thousands of drivers illegally don't carry auto insurance even though that is mandated in most (if not every) state.

Or what about when the 30% 'cap' on credit cards translates into credit card companies simply not extending ANY credit to credit-poor consumers? Are they supposed to go the loan shark when need to buy children clothes for school if that month's bills are tight?

And that is precisely whats wrong with Clinton's "plans". They are all about forcing people to do things and not considering the consequences of those actions, nor the reality of how things work in real life.

Posted by: perryair | February 15, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Dani4864,
If you look at things issue by issue, she clearly has better outlined plans and more clearly defined means to achieve those plans.

This is false. While Sen. Clinton speaks more about the details in her speeches than Sen. Obama, they have equally detailed policies. Go to BarackObama.com --he has all of his policies laid out in minute detail. Why haven't you checked this out already? Oh, because it's boring, which is exactly why Obama doesn't prattle on and on about it while on the stump. That's good politics, not a lack of substance.


Posted by: RyanMcC1 | February 15, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

I am a texas hispanic who does not support Obama. I support Hillary for many reasons that I don't care to mention. What I will say is that I am very loyal to this woman as many of our friends/family. Most of us here will not turn our backs on her as other minorities have. That's just not right. I don't care for Obama is that a sin? Are we not living in America where we have a choice. I have been reading the blogs - many are using many racial slurs against the hispanics. We are not creating a voting-bloc but I think some other minority is. Against the white candidate.

Posted by: oliviajimenez711 | February 15, 2008 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton has been a part of the Washington mess for over 15 years. She has supported bills that favor big business and hurt the middle class and low income families. The official government web sites (in contrast to her own) shows she has done more to help those who can help her than those who really need help. She has been trying for 15 years to get her health plan passed but can not get democrats or republicans to support it. She voted for the bankruptcy bill that has devastated thousands of low income families. She blames her problems on everyone else not taking responsibility for her own shortfalls and errors. She promises a lot now but in her years in office she has done little with any national impact. Her experience has been with the government that has almost ruined our economy and quality of life; we do not need her experience in the White House.

Posted by: DAlnB | February 15, 2008 2:40 PM | Report abuse

I'm in Texas, born and raised. I'm not Hispanic and I'm not old either. I am voting for Clinton. She has my support hands down. If you look at things issue by issue, she clearly has better outlined plans and more clearly defined means to achieve those plans. Obama while he may be inspirational, lacks a lot in my eyes as far a being a leader of stealth and stature to bring this nation back to where it needs to be. In the end I fear he will not be able to live up to all of the hype he has been spewing, and I truly believe many would be disappointed. We all pay when the wrong leader of the nation is elected, and I have real doubts about Obama. I have no doubt about Hillary's ability or vision to help the nation and the people in it. She has my vote and my support 100%. I am a regular contributor to her campaign, and win or lose I will be until the very end. If Obama wins the nomintation, I will still will not vote for him. I think he is a closet case Republican and that just is not a chance I am willing to take.

Posted by: Fobamaman | February 15, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

No need to worry, GSWAGNER. The states you mentioned reliably vote Democratic in Presidential elections. No matter who is on the ballot for the Democrats, those states will vote for the Democrat in the general election, including Senator Obama. So you need not conflate the results of the Democratic nominee selection race with what will happen in the general election.

The real question is: WHO CAN WIN THE SWING STATES?, the states that may vote Republican or Democratic. If you go to this NY Times article from today and check out the graphic, you will see that Senator Obama has a strong advantage in the swing states (look at those states which Kerry won by 5% or less or Bush won by 5% or less). Obama won about 33% more delegates than Clinton in those states.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/15/us/politics/15clinton.html

Looking at cold, hard numbers, it's obvious that Senator Clinton only does well with hard-core Democrats and does not attract independents. Senator Obama would be a better choice for Democrats if they want to win the general election.

Again, inferring from the numbers, if Clinton is the nominee, then say hello to President McCain in November. If Obama is the nominee, then say hello to President Obama in November. Either way, a vote for Clinton today will be a wasted vote. If you are a Democrat and you want your Party to win the Presidency, your best strategy is to vote for Senator Obama.

Go to the New York Times article, look at the graphic, check out the numbers and see for yourself.

Posted by: junkmail | February 15, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Not if there's a terrorist attack between now and November 4th.

Posted by: JakeD | February 15, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Some points to consider for the first two posters:

1) In head-to-head matchups, Obama defeats McCain handily while Clinton usually loses. Why? He beats him with the Independent vote. The contrast between the bright, vibrant Obama vs. the 72-year-old, crotchety McCain couldn't be better for the Dems. And if McCain wants to debate the war, bring it on. 70% of the country wants this debacle to end now, not in 50, 100 or 1,000 years.

2) Yes, a female in the White House is exciting. But how about an uninspiring, divisive woman complicit in the partisan wars who rose power largely due to her husband's influence? Not as exciting.

3) Obama could rape a male child in October and still win California, New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts in the November general election. And how about Colorado, Missouri and Virginia? Do these purple states not count because Obama won them?
The 2000/2004 map is history. Obama will put many, many more states in play. Your concern is misguided.

Posted by: RyanMcC1 | February 15, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

GSWAGNER:

Do you honesty think that whomever the Democrats nominate against John McCain WON'T win Michigan, Florida, New York, California? Barack Obama will roll in those in November as well as a few "purple" ones, e.g. Missouri, Virginia, Montana.

While I am loathe to get too overconfident, I think Hillary is toast.

Posted by: brian.dougherty | February 15, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

I am concerned that Obama is picking up states that vote republican. He does not seem to win in the large states that are needed for a winning coalition in November.
When was the last time Nebraska, Idaho, Wyoming, Alabama, and South Carolina have voted for a democrat?
We need Michigan, Florida, New York, Massachusetts, California, New Jersey and Ohio in November to win. Other wise we will have a nominee like we did in the 80s and in the early part of the 2000s.
Hillary 2008!

Posted by: GSWAGNER | February 15, 2008 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Republicans who have little to decide in their primaries are crossing over to vote for Obama and thus eliminate Hillary, who they fear most in the general. As one caller from Texas to Rush Limbaugh said today: "take her out, so there is no doubt."
Dems, dont let the Repubs put the weaker candidate into the nomination. Obama versus Mccain in time of war equals another Repub president.
Another right wing talk show caller from Virginia called to say he crossed over to vote for Obama in that primary, because: "they both have the same agenda, but she will actually get it done".
Wake up democrats. A woman as leader of the world for the first time? Exciting.

Posted by: johnL1 | February 15, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company