Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama and the Critical Indiana Primary

By Dan Balz
Is Indiana a must-win state for Barack Obama?

Few in the Obama campaign will put it that bluntly. By their calculations, a narrow loss to Hillary Clinton in Indiana will do little to knock Obama off his steady march toward winning the pledged-delegate competition when the primaries end on June 3. Victory, along with a win in North Carolina the same day, could force Clinton to consider ending her candidacy.

But after Pennsylvania and Ohio, the stakes are much higher for Obama. Questions about his appeal to white working-class voters, to white Roman Catholics, to older voters -- to all the constituencies where he lost badly to Clinton in Pennsylvania -- will continue to dog him until he answers them. Victory in Indiana can help.

Neither Obama nor his advisers have fully faced up to the issue of why he has not done better with these middle and working-class voters, which is unusual for a campaign that in so many other ways has been attentive to and skillful in dealing with problems.

Obama was asked about his poor showing among these voters when he spoke with reporters in Indiana on Wednesday. "The problem," he said, "is that, to the extent there is a problem, is that the older voters are very loyal to Senator Clinton."

Gary Langer, the polling director at ABC News, which is The Post's polling partner, put up a helpful rejoinder Thursday, challenging Obama's thesis. The problem he has is not with older voters in general but with older, downscale and less-educated voters.

In general, Obama does better with younger voters and Clinton does better with older voters. That pattern has been clear from the Iowa caucuses forward and his success in generating enthusiasm among young voters could pay long-term dividends for the Democrats if he is their nominee.

But Langer's analysis of the exit polls showed that Obama does significantly worse among older voters without a college degree than he does among older voters who have graduated from college.

Combining the exit polls from the primaries, Langer calculated that white senior citizens with college degrees have backed Clinton by 50-42 percent. Among those seniors without college degrees, Clinton has trounced Obama by 69-21 percent.

He found a similar pattern based on income. Obama actually carried seniors with incomes of more than $100,000 (50-45 percent) but, once again, lost overwhelmingly among those with incomes below $50,000 (70-22 percent).

Obama argued that he is making progress with these voters, saying he did better with them in Pennsylvania than in Ohio. To reach that conclusion is to set the bar exceedingly low. He lost whites without college degrees by 44 points in Ohio and by 42 points in Pennsylvania. That is hardly progress.

The numbers are only slightly better when viewed through the prism of income: He lost whites earning less than $50,000 by 41 points in Ohio and by 34 points in Pennsylvania.

Of 30 states with sanctioned contests where there is exit poll data available, Obama has won the white vote in seven (Iowa, Illinois, New Mexico, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin and Vermont) and essentially tied Clinton in two others (California and Connecticut).

Indiana offers Obama an opportunity to reassure the doubters. It is neither a carbon copy of Ohio and Pennsylvania -- whose demographics and political culture were favorable to Clinton -- nor is it Wisconsin, whose demographics were similar to Ohio and Pennsylvania but whose political culture is not. Obama won a convincing victory in Wisconsin, carrying white men overwhelmingly (including working-class white men) and only narrowly losing white women.

Indiana has a substantial blue-collar population and education levels among whites are lower than in Pennsylvania or Ohio or Wisconsin. It is also culturally conservative. All that should be helpful to Clinton. At the same time, Indiana's primary is not closed to Democrats only, as it was Pennsylvania. A sizable percentage of the turnout on May 6 will not be Democrats. And, like Wisconsin, it borders Illinois. Voters in the northwest part of the state watch Chicago television and therefore are more familiar with Obama than voters in other states.

The state long has depended on manufacturing and like other states has struggled economically as those jobs have declined. Harold Ford, the chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council and the former House member who narrowly lost the Senate race in Tennessee two years ago, has some blunt advice for Obama: Sharpen your economic message and figure out a way to connect with blue-collar voters.

"Whichever of these candidates are able to develop the most convincing and compelling argument for dealing with the economy will be able to win," Ford said. "Senator Obama is going to have to develop a message that connects even more with voters."

Two other factors are notable about Indiana. First, it is a very red state. No Democratic presidential has carried the state since Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964. Obama has done well in Democratic primaries and caucuses in red states.

At the same time, it is a state with no history of competitive Democratic primaries. The last presidential primary of note in Indiana was in 1968, when Bobby Kennedy carried the state. In statewide races there, contested or truly competitive primaries have been rare. That means there is not much history to examine to predict the size or composition of the electorate on May 6.

As an example of the unpredictability, there have been three public polls there in the past two weeks. Two of them showed Obama leading by five points (although one of them put the undecided vote at nearly a fifth of the electorate) while the third showed Clinton ahead by 16 points.

Should there be any doubt about how Indiana will vote on May 6? The Obama campaign, in its famous internal spreadsheet that was accidentally sent to Bloomberg News some time ago, put Indiana solidly in Obama's column in its post-Feb. 5 projections. In fact, at that time the Obama campaign estimated that his margin in Indiana would be almost as big in North Carolina (seven points versus six points).

Since Obama advisers have played down their chances, preferring to adopt the view that Indiana is a truly competitive battleground. Obama, however, has made clear the importance of winning. Victory could help close down the Democratic race. Defeat, however, could raise even more questions about his candidacy. Indiana has become a crucial test for Obama.

By Web Politics Editor  |  April 24, 2008; 4:25 PM ET
Categories:  Barack Obama , Dan Balz's Take  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Fox & Friends
Next: Rev. Wright, in PBS Interview, Defends Sermons and Calls Coverage 'Unfair'

Comments

The Clintons have pulled in $100 MILLION dollars for the last 10 years! So, who is the elitist and out of touch person here. Sen. Clinton was known in Arkansas as the "smug" wife of a governor. She came to the White House refusing to add her husband's name to her own until it came politically correct to do so.

The Clintons are elitist who have yet to tell the American people where the money is coming from towards the Clinton library. Do your homework... read, research the facts! You don't want to put someone in the White House by mistake!

Posted by: change | May 6, 2008 8:56 AM | Report abuse

Hillary and Bill Clinton have ran the 'worse" democratic primary in history. Look at this, Sen. Obama is "still standing" after the 3-on-1 have worked feverishly to defeat him. I don't believe the Clintons have worked this hard their entire lives... campaigning! It shows the consistency and "true grit" of Obama. How many times does the media have to ask him the same questions repeatedly? Any other mortal would have folded under the stress. One thing is clear to the American voters... the Clintons can't say he's not been tested. Because they have used fear and racist tactics to be elected - going for the uneducated whites who hate blacks and they don't even know why. Indiana voters please get out and vote for Sen. Obama today. He is the only qualified candidate between the three of them to be given the nomination. You have a uniter and not the divisive politics of yesterday. As Obama has always stated, the Clintons represent what was we want to go forward towards a brighter future. The Clintons believe in exclusion, but we know better it's about all of us and not the privileged few. The Clintons have uniquely shown "elitist" msnners by talking down to the poor and telling straight-faced lies! And, one of the latest is the gas holiday. Sen. Obama has experience with this and says that you don't save but a few pennies. Yet again, it's close to an election and she and Bill start their lying fantasies all over again. For instance, in Indiana Bill Clinton is talking with a thicker southern drawl than usual. Anyway, Clinton did come from Arkansas and was poor, so he's used to using code language (racist) to the uneducated. Indiana don't believe the Clintons. Take a higher road and vote for Obama. He is what this country needs. People are tired of divisiveness and name-calling! We are better than that... words from Obama!

Posted by: Change | May 6, 2008 8:52 AM | Report abuse

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

I think he can pull it off.

Posted by: MrJones | May 3, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse

Obama = Clinton II = McCain = 4 more years of creeping incremental socialism/fascism

If the voters in Indiana had any brains or balls, (or wanted to hang on to their tax money and their guns) they'd vote for in the Republican primary for Ron Paul. This would at least register their dissatisfaction with the Demopublican Party that stands in direct opposition to their individual rights. That would leave them free to vote Libertarian on Nov, 4, 2008 in the general election.

But I doubt many "hoosiers" have those necessary brains or balls. Too little backbone. Too little will to crawl when it's past time to run.

Good luck little sheeple! If you can't even ask for your freedom inside of a dark voting booth, then you'll certainly never fight for it. ...And that's what it takes to be free!

...Pathetic.

When the train gets to the gulag, wake me up ..if your leaders haven't taken my pistol, maybe I'll save a bullet for you. It's no longer funny or even entertaining theater. Give slaves their freedom, and they beg for their chains. It's all so miserably boring.

Obama is a mediocrity preaching soviet-style communism / collectivism / socialism / duty and Clinton II is a naked power-luster preaching all of the same. One is black and the other is a woman. Oooooooooh! Wow! McCain is the same, but in the tortured body of a confused and doddering old white man, with a slightly more nationalist view of socialism! Yawn.

This guy pretty much predicted the future in 1986: http://www.peikoff.com/op/home.htm

Do you think that a woman or a black man can't abuse the reins of power? Do you think that a doddering old enemy of freedom of speech and gun rights will change his ways once he gets in the whitehouse? (Or will he vote against freedom with a complacent and sated RINO majority?)

If you think any of the mainstream candidates are not tyrants bent on personal power, you're a simpleton. Simpletons have rewarded them for chasing power, and wielding it, their entire careers.

Each of these clowns has given the simpletons who elected them bigger and thicker chains after every election.

...And if you're a simpleton, there's probably a good explanation: government schools, churches that preach conformity and obediance to authority, and a nice comfortable life where you never once identified what it is that gave you your comfort. Of course, the thing that gave you comfort was the freedom that you've never exercised, and the once strong gold-backed dollar that you've bankrupted.

It was capitalism and freedom that made you comfortable, and you threw it away.

Luckily for you, the hell you fear is a myth. Unluckily for us all, maybe you can actually make the USA into that hell, and give your myth some real teeth. Nice pointy teeth, like the ones hidden by big brother's moustache!

If you think there's a choice between ClintonII, McCain, and Obama, you're not just asleep, you're in a coma.

Pleasant dreams. ...Don't let the shooting wake you up... It's just your brothers being sent to prison, for the holy war of prohibition and empire!

Sleep tight! Don't let the bedbugs bite!

Tomorrow, we'll all wake up early and have eggs and bacon, right from the supreme chancellor's breakfast table!

Then we'll all put on our school packs and take a little hike down to room 101 and face our deepest fears!

4 more years of war against the tax cheats! drug users! infidels! terrorists! enemy combatants! gun owners! christians! people of no faith! people of too much faith! home schoolers!
(everyone!)

Gawd Bless AmeriKKKuh...

Posted by: ALERT! WAKE UP! WAKIE WAKIE, EGGS AND BACIE! | May 2, 2008 6:18 PM | Report abuse

NO ONE IS STOPPING YOU GO AHEAD AND VOTE FOR HILLARY. LISTEN TO FOX NEWS AND CNN AND CONTINUE TO LISTEN TO THE LIES PEOPLE ARE BRINGING UP ABOUT OBAMA. THEY HAVE NONE ON HIM.This is the most I have ever seen when it comes to a divided party. If were divided in may what makes you not think the democrats won't be arguing over Obama and Clinton in November. Think about it.

Good luck
Alex

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

lier, lier, snipper fire!

Hillary and Bill may be able to fool SOME of the uneducated!

When will the media stop supporting the liar? This only makes it harder for the uneducated!

Wasn't it the uneducated that voted in Bush? DUH

Posted by: Anonymous | April 28, 2008 10:55 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is a liar (think Bosnia) and trend-f*c*er (think Nafta and Iraq stance switcheroo, think Annie Oakley and slugging down hard liquor) She has a radical past in working with the Black Panthers and in the Clintons pardoning of the Weathermen; she padded her resume like crazy. Obama, in fact, has more years than she does in elected office (he has 12, she has 8). She and Bill fight super-stinky dirty--google "Clinton Body Count", and be shocked.
She CANNOT win western swing states (Colorado for one). She is UNpopular out there. She can NOT win back the support of Black people after the myriad of ways she and Bill have insulted them. And No DEM candidate has EVER won the presidency without that support.
McCain would CRUSH her on that Bosnian lie. After all, his entire campaign is based on his military experience and she would be crushed on that in round one, to say nothing of all the Clinton skeletons rattling in the closet that he would bring out--because McCain would not be a gentleman like Barack.
I am an older white woman and I would NEVER vote for Hillary. My 80 year old mom in assisted living in Pennsylvania voted for Obama.
Dems, Independents, and Repubs, yes we can.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 27, 2008 9:29 PM | Report abuse

Well, actually, Obama, you are right. The problem is that older voters are for Hillary.

Wisdom comes with age. Age has recognized who the better candidate is.

Younger voters are for you b/c you talk a good thing. Blacks are for you b/c you showed them you could be as black as they in South Carolina. White liberal intellectuals are for you b/c they fought for civil rights.

None of those recognize you as the better candidate. I wish it could be different for you. So, as the patriotic American and good Democrat that you are, please don't cause further damage to all of us. Just defer to the better candidate and quit.


Posted by: Lesley | April 26, 2008 11:22 PM | Report abuse

Isn't being in the lead the ultimate proof of his electability? Wouldn't it be correct to assume that someone that is not in the lead would be even less electable?

Go Obama 2008!

Posted by: Jen Boileau | April 26, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

TOP TEN REASONS HILLARY SHOULD BE PRESIDENT:

10. SO SHE CAN SIGN AN EXECUTIVE ORDER OUTLAWING MOVEON.ORG

9. RUSH LIMBO SEC. OF EDUCATION

8. SHE WILL RAISE McCAIN A NUKE ATTACK TO HIS BOMB BOMB BOMB BOMB BOMB IRAN SONG

7. SO BILL CAN FIND THOSE EARINGS HIS FRIEND LOST ON AIRFORCE ONE

6. HILLARY CLINTON CURED DISCO FEVER

5. THE CLOSETS IN THE WHITE HOUSE ARE LIKE TOTALY CLUTTERED

4. SHE BELIEVES IN CHANGE - OF THE NOMINATION RULES AND HAS CREATED NEW MATH

3. ONE WORD, PANTSUITS

2. SHE WILL END THE WAR BY FALLOUT FROM NUKING IRAN


THE NUMBER ONE REASON HILLARY SHOULD BE PRESIDENT;

1. TO PISS OFF DICK MORRIS

Posted by: TOP TEN LIST | April 26, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Three months and I still can find any of Obamas accomplishments as a Senator.

I can see he did vote tor prolong the war.
and
He did support the NCLB.

Guess thats enough to be president these days.

Posted by: hhkeller | April 26, 2008 9:16 AM | Report abuse

By the posted comments, Obama supporters only know about War vote, they are sick. Obama's supporters are young, they use computer more than seniors but it doesn't mean they are smarter than old people, we, seniors have a pure heart from our experiences, immatured youngsters use all kinds of bad words to Hillary. I don't believe young people are ready to control our important election, seniors have the better view and wise idea than saucy youngsters like Obama.
He doesn't respect colleagues, specially Hillary Clinton, he will get same treatment from his supporters in the future . Hillary 2008.

Posted by: Kyu Reisch, Radcliff, Kentucky | April 25, 2008 11:27 PM | Report abuse

Yes, he was the " so call PASTOR " that touched that 7 years old girl unappopriately.


Pastor WILLIAM PROCANICK.

Posted by: Bertrand | April 25, 2008 10:22 PM | Report abuse

Can someone tell me anything aboout the Rev. william Procanick ?
if i'm not mistaken,he was Clinton's Pastor.
OOOPS,
Sorry !!!

Posted by: raymond | April 25, 2008 10:12 PM | Report abuse

Obama voted for oil firm tax breaks

Obama helped ex-boss get $1 mil. from charity

Obama fesses up to getting more Rezko money
Saturday, March 15, 2008

Presidential candidate Barack Obama now admits he got as much as $250,000 for his various political races from indicted Chicago wheeler-dealer Tony Rezko. That's well up from the $150,000 Obama had previously claimed.

Since this is not a rounding error, the question is, how much of a dent does this give to Obama's record for probity, and for his attempts to distance himself from Rezko?

Second, why did this come out? Did either the Chicago Sun-Times or the Chicago Tribune (Obama sat down with both papers' editorial boards to reveal this) have some goods on the dollar amounts in question?

And, in a bit of snark, since Obama said he gave all of Rezko's campaign contributions to charity, will he be cutting a check for another $100,000?
There is no god and I am his prophet.

(AP) Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama may have a lot of explaining to do.

He voted against requiring medical care for aborted fetuses who survive. He supported allowing retired police officers to carry concealed weapons, but opposed allowing people to use banned handguns to defend against intruders in their homes. And the list of sensitive topics goes on.

With only a slim, two-year record in the U.S. Senate, Obama doesn't have many controversial congressional votes which political opponents can frame into attack ads. But his eight years as an Illinois state senator are sprinkled with potentially explosive land mines, such as his abortion and gun control votes.

Obama -- who filed papers this week creating an exploratory committee to seek the 2008 Democratic nomination -- may also find himself fielding questions about his actions outside public office, from his acknowledgment of cocaine use in his youth to a more recent land purchase from a political supporter who is facing charges in an unrelated kickback scheme involving investment firms seeking state business.

Obama was known in the Illinois Capitol as a consistently liberal senator who reflected the views of voters in his Chicago district. He helped reform the state death penalty system and create tax breaks for the poor while developing a reputation as someone who would work with critics to build consensus.

He had a 100 percent rating from the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council for his support of abortion rights, family planning services and health insurance coverage for female contraceptives.

One vote that especially riled abortion opponents involved restrictions on a type of abortion where the fetus sometimes survives, occasionally for hours. The restrictions, which never became law, included requiring the presence of a second doctor to care for the fetus.

"Everyone's going to use this and pound him over the head with it," said Daniel McConchie, vice president and chief of staff for Americans United for Life.

Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said voters will be able to judge distorted accounts of his votes against his legislative career in general.

"I don't doubt that if you take a series of votes and twist them and kind of squint, you can write a narrative the way you want to write it," Gibbs said. "I think what people understand is that (what matters) is taking the full measure of his career and the full measure of his legislative efforts."

Abortion opponents see Obama's vote on medical care for aborted fetuses as a refusal to protect the helpless. Some have even accused him of supporting infanticide.

Obama -- who joined several other Democrats in voting "present" in 2001 and "no" the next year -- argued the legislation was worded in a way that unconstitutionally threatened a woman's right to abortion by defining the fetus as a child.

"It would essentially bar abortions because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this was a child then this would be an anti-abortion statute," Obama said in the Senate's debate in March 2001.

During his 2004 run for U.S. Senate, Obama said he supported similar federal legislation that included language clarifying that the measure did not interfere with abortion rights.

Such hot-button issues were the exception in a legislative career that focused more on building consensus to improve the justice system and aid the poor.

Gibbs noted Obama's leadership on legislation requiring police to videotape interrogations in murder cases. It started out as a controversial idea but ended up passing the Senate unanimously.

Allies and opponents alike say he listened to those who disagreed, cooperated with Republicans and incorporated other people's suggestions for improving legislation.

"He was looked upon by members of both parties as someone whose view we listened carefully to," said Republican state Sen. Kirk Dillard from Hinsdale, Ill.

Obama regularly supported gun-control measures, including a ban on semiautomatic "assault weapons" and a limit on handgun purchases to one a month.

He also opposed letting people use a self-defense argument if charged with violating local handgun bans by using weapons in their homes. The bill was a reaction to a Chicago-area man who, after shooting an intruder, was charged with a handgun violation.

Supporters framed the issue as a fundamental question of whether homeowners have the right to protect themselves.

Obama joined several Chicago Democrats who argued the measure could open loopholes letting gun owners use their weapons on the street. They said local governments should have the final say, but the self-defense exception passed 41-16 and ultimately became state law.

"It's bad politics to be on the wrong side of the Second Amendment come election time," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association. "It will certainly be talked about. You can take that to the bank."

On the other hand, Obama parted company with gun control advocates when he backed a measure to let retired police officers and military police carry concealed weapons.

Obama occasionally supported higher taxes, joining other Democrats in pushing to raise more than 300 taxes and fees on businesses in 2004 to help solve a budget deficit. The increases passed the Senate 30-28.

That's one reason Illinois business groups gave Obama a low rating, while labor groups praised him. But even Obama's allies say he refused to become a rubber stamp for their legislation.

"He always wants to understand an issue and think it through," said Roberta Lynch, deputy director for Council 31 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. "You have to make your case no matter who you are."

For six years, Obama served in a Republican-controlled Senate, so he and fellow Democrats only got a fraction of their bills signed into law.

During his last two years, Democrats controlled the chamber and he was the go-to guy on a variety of issues. He helped pass legislation overhauling Illinois' troubled capital punishment system and was a key figure in requiring a massive statewide study of traffic stops to look for signs of racial profiling. Although police groups opposed the legislation, they say Obama listened to their concerns and accepted some of their suggestions to improve the bill.

Even when he was in the political minority, Obama sometimes played a critical role. He helped write one of the rare ethics laws in a state known for government corruption and worked on welfare reform with Republicans.

He sponsored legislation to bar job and housing discrimination against gays, and he helped create a state version of the earned income tax credit for the poor. Obama also led efforts to reject federal rules that would have put workers' overtime checks in jeopardy.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 10:08 PM | Report abuse

The only reason he isn't for Mi and Fla redoing primary, is he knows she'll pass him up by a mile

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 9:55 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama has missed 223 votes (40.2%) during the current Congress. See a list of his missed votes since 1991 or see a full list of vote missers.

wow,another prez not around

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 9:37 PM | Report abuse

Obama is a Muslim, going to get you one night when his kin comes and crashes into your town

Posted by: Kasco03 | April 25, 2008 9:31 PM | Report abuse

Check out the April 21, 2008, (The Roland
Report) about Ed Randell in PA. who supports Hilary. (April 14, 1997)

VERY INTERESTING

Posted by: Henry | April 25, 2008 7:59 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "Can we get on to the contrasts with John McCain and stop this. Please!!!

No, because Senator Clinton thinks she is destined to be crowned president and refuses to read the math or the fact that half the democrats hate her, plus all of the republicans. She will take the democratic party down with her for years to come.
Believe me, I saw it happen in Texas. Used to you couldn't find a republican in Texas now every major elected office in the state is republican and you can hardly find anyone who admits to being a democrat. And they brought it all on themselves with the same stubborn reasoning.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 6:51 PM | Report abuse

See below - I realize that these numbers were compiled by the Obama Campaign but the overall pattern is hard to argue with. Can we get on to the contrasts with John McCain and stop this. Please!!!
Obama Campaign's Memo to Superdelegates
April 24, 2008 7:13 p.m.
TO: Superdelegates

FR: Obama Campaign

RE: The strongest candidate to face John McCain

DA: April 24, 2008

Who's the strongest candidate to take on John McCain?

After 45 contests, Senator Obama has won more delegates, twice as many states and territories, and more of the popular vote. He's won in every part of the country, and has scored victories among every segment of electorate. He's inspired Democrats, Independents, and Republicans, building an unprecedented coalition of more than 1.4 million contributors. And when it comes to head-to-head match-ups versus John McCain, Obama performs better than Clinton in key states and shows the potential to put new states in play for Democrats up and down the ballot.

Polling data from across the country, from large states and small, reflects the advantage Senator Obama would bring in a race this fall. His ability to expand the Democratic base, and his ability to capture the crucial Independent vote, make him a stronger candidate than Senator Clinton, who would enter the fall campaign with the highest unfavorable ratings of any nominee in half a century.

Big States

• California: Obama beats McCain by 27, Clinton beats him by 23. (SurveyUSA, 2/23)

• New York: A February poll of Clinton's home state shows her beating McCain by 11, while Obama beats McCain by 10. (Quinnipiac, 3/18)

• New Jersey: Obama and Clinton both beat McCain by 5. (Farleigh Dickinson, 3/30)

• Illinois: Obama beats McCain by 29 in his home state, while Clinton wins by 9. (SurveyUSA, 2/28)


Traditional Battlegrounds

• Iowa: Obama up 7, Clinton down 6. (SurveyUSA, 4/17),
Among Independents: Obama up 9, Clinton down 31. (Rasmussen, 3/31)

• North Carolina: Clinton trails McCain by 11, Obama ties him. (Rasmussen, 4/10)
Among Independents: Obama up 8, Clinton down 16. (Rasmussen, 4/10)

• Oregon: Obama up 9, Clinton up only 1 (SurveyUSA, 4/17) A march poll showed Obama up 6 and Clinton down 6 (Rasmussen, 3/26)
Among Independents: Obama up 11, Clinton up 4. (Rasmussen, 3/26)

• Wisconsin: Obama up 5 while Clinton ties. (SurveyUSA, 4/17) A March poll showed Obama up 4 and Clinton down 4. (WPR, 3/26)
Among Independents: Obama up 17, Clinton up 2. (Rasmussen, 3/26)

• Michigan: Obama trailing by 1, Clinton trailing by 3. (Rasmussen, 3/25) A February poll showed Obama up 8 and Clinton tied. (Rasmussen, 2/17)

• New Mexico: Obama up by 3, Clinton down by 3. (Rasmussen, 4/8)
Among Independents: Obama up 8, Clinton down 5. (Rasmussen, 4/8)

• Nevada: Obama leads by 4, Clinton leads by 1. (Rasmussen 3/19)

• Minnesota: Obama up 14, Clinton up 5. (Rasmussen, 4/22)
Among Independents: Obama up 9, Clinton down 14. (Rasmussen 3/19)

• Pennsylvania: Clinton up 9, Obama up 8 (Rasmussen, 4/9)
Among Independents: Obama down 1, Clinton down 19. (Rasmussen, 4/9)


Making new states competitive

• Colorado: Obama up 3, Clinton down 14. (Rasmussen, 4/19) A February poll showed up Obama up 9 and Clinton down 6. (SurveyUSA, 2/28)
Among Independents: Obama up 9, Clinton down 13. (Rasmussen, 3/17)

• North Dakota: Obama up 4, Clinton down 19. (SurveyUSA, 2/28)
Among Independents: Obama up 9, Clinton down 29. (Survey USA, 2/28)

• Virginia: Obama down 8, Clinton down 16. (SurveyUSA, 4/17)
Among Independents: Obama up 10, Clinton down 8. (SurveyUSA, 3/16)

• Montana: Obama down 5, Clinton down 18 (Rasmussen, 4/6)
Obama down 2, Clinton down 12 (Rasmussen, 4/6)

• Texas: Obama down only 1, Clinton down 7 (SurveyUSA, 2/28)

Posted by: Timothy Crocker | April 25, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "Why should Obama waste his time with another debate with Clinton? Everyone knows the issues they stand for. It is another attempt for Clinton to dig in the knife. No more debate - its a waste of time. Obama vs. McCain debate not that lier Hillary."

Yep, she should better spend her time making up the reasons why she shouldn't go to jail in the upcoming fraud trial.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Why should Obama waste his time with another debate with Clinton? Everyone knows the issues they stand for. It is another attempt for Clinton to dig in the knife. No more debate - its a waste of time. Obama vs. McCain debate not that lier Hillary.

Posted by: ob08 | April 25, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

AND NADER YOU CAN
GO TO H@#@

Posted by: AL GORE | April 25, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

POPULAR VOTE DON'T COUNT FOR JACK

AND BILL DOESN'T HELP TO HANG AROUND

ASK

ME

AL GORE

Posted by: AL GORE | April 25, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

WOW
GIVE ME A SHOT AND BEER
AND
END THE DRAMA
VOTE OBAMA
298 TO VICTORY

Posted by: ROLLING ROCK | April 25, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

COUNTDOWN TO VICTORY
298 DELEGATES TO GO

OBAMA WINS

VS 436 HILLARY

WITH ONLY 706 LEFT
298 SUPERS 408 ELECTED

LOOKING GOOD
FEELING GOOD
GO OBAMA
END THE DRAMA
VOTE OBAMA

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "3 More Super Delegates Back Obama Including Ok. Governor."

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

This kind of navel-gazing commentary is precisely what Clinton wants. Way to be a tool, Dan. You downplay the inroads Obama made into her base and devalue the fact that he took over half of her lead away. You put the questions to Obama without looking in turn at Hillary, as to how she could fritter away a 20 point lead. 20 POINTS. Hillary's 9 point win is setting the bar too low.

Posted by: get real | April 25, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Quoting: "Witnesses who personally interacted with Paul that will be called to confirm that Paul was illegally expending millions to support Hillary's campaign solely as a quid pro quo for Bill Clinton's agreement to serve as a rainmaker for two of his companies for a year as soon as he left the White House. The quid pro quo made between Clinton and Paul subjected Paul's expenditures to federal maximum limits for his expenditure/in-kind contributions to Hillary's campaign. The quid pro quo by operation of law made Paul's donations illegally excessive. Witness/participants include former DNC Chair and Penn. Gov. Ed Rendell- who directed various illegal contributions made by Paul to the DNC and Hillary's campaign and who failed to report to the FEC Paul's expenditures of more than $100,000 for a gala for 150 Hollywood people for Al Gore's campaign and the DNC on June 8, 2000"

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Quoting: "The case represents much more than the frauds that Hillary and Bill directed to win and keep a Senate seat to launch a Presidential campaign from- it has the ability to expose the institutional culture of corruption embraced by the Clinton leadership of the Democratic Party- which is dedicated to assuring the attaining of unaccountable power for the Clintons at the expense of the Rule of Law and respect for the Constitutional processes of government."

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse


Quote: "Indeed, the video appears to confirm that Hillary was intimately aware of all aspects of Paul's fundraising activities."

Start packing those pant suits for jail, Hillary.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

And more and more. The beat goes on:

"Clinton man indicted in Medicaid fraud case

Ole Petterson had expressed interest in running for Oneida County Executive in the last election


Now, Pettersen is accused of collecting roughly $500,000 in payments from the State Department of Health to which he was not entitled.

Pettersen faces one count of grand larceny, 10 counts of falsifying business records in the first-degree and one count of offering a false instrument for filing.

He will enter a plea in Oneida County Court on April 21."

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Quote from the news: "At the conclusion of a hearing Thursday morning before California Superior Court Judge Aurelio N. Munoz, lawyers for Hollywood mogul Peter F. Paul will begin seeking sworn testimony from all three Clintons - Bill, Hillary and Chelsea - along with top Democratic Party leaders and A-list celebrities, including Barbra Streisand, John Travolta, Brad Pitt and Cher."

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Robert ask:
"Why won't Obama debate anymore?"

When you are "knocked down" you get up. Obama came up short in the last debate, and he ain't getting up.

Posted by: Billw | April 25, 2008 12:04 PM | Report abuse

"That was before his relationship with racist Wright made the news on March 13..."

Are you speaking of the Rev. Wright whose comments were taken out of context by the Clinton campaign. The same Rev. Wright who was just presented with an award by the Brite Divinity School of TCU, one of the most prestigious theological schools in the nation. Rev. Wright ain't running.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 11:59 AM | Report abuse

LOL. All this is moot. The super delegates will take one look at the Clinton fraud trial and flock to Obama. Who cares what happens in Indiana or anywhere else.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Why won't Obama debate anymore? I think debates are much more telling than soundbites. I would think he'd want another chance to show he can meet Hillary toe to toe.

Posted by: Robert | April 25, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

OBAMA COULDN'T VOTE FOR THE WAR BECAUSE HE WASN'T A SENATOR YET!!!

Posted by: Open Eyes | April 25, 2008 11:51 AM | Report abuse

ccclam said:
"SENATOR OBAMA HAS HAD MORE AMERICAN'S CAST THEIR VOTES FOR HIM"

That was before his relationship with racist Wright made the news on March 13, and before his remarks about small town people. Last tuesdays primary was the first since those occurances, and had this happened earlier, the vote ratio would be different today. Unfortunate for Clinton.

Posted by: Billw | April 25, 2008 11:50 AM | Report abuse

OBAMA SAT THROUGH 20 YEARS OF HATED-FILLED, RASCIST SERMONS. GOOD JUDGEMENT?

Posted by: Open eyes | April 25, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

Quoting from the news:

'Hillary Clinton and "The Largest Election Law Fraud in History"

Hillary Clinton's campaign appears to be in possible legal jeopardy with the introduction of a "smoking gun" video in a court case that has somehow escaped the attention of the mainstream media.

Investor's Business Daily explains that the "scandal involves allegations by movie producer Peter Paul that a 2000 senatorial fundraiser for Clinton in Hollywood violated campaign laws. Paul claims he spent $2 million to produce the fundraising event -- a de facto campaign expenditure. Under campaign law then in effect, campaign gifts were limited to $2,000."

John Armor, Election Law Expert at Equal Justice Foundation, says Hillary is involved in the "largest election law fraud in US history."

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse

SurveyUSA interviewed 600 registered voters in each of the 50 states. A total of 30,000 interviews were completed. If John McCain faces Barack Obama, Obama wins 280 to 256. McCain carries 26 states. Obama carries 24 states plus the District of Columbia ... and then there is Nebraska, which divides its electoral votes based on which candidate wins each of the state's congressional districts. McCain wins Nebraska 45% to 42%, but loses in two of the state's three congressional districts, which results in Barack Obama taking two of Nebraska's five electoral votes.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 11:42 AM | Report abuse

The upcoming Clinton fraud trial:

Quote: "A status conference hearing is scheduled for April 25, 2008, and a trial date is expected to be announced soon.

Discovery in the case is expected to begin in May, 2008 as it proceeds to trial.

The discovery will expose an ongoing cover-up of the campaign finance crimes and the obstructions of justice directed by Hillary Clinton with the help of Bill Clinton and former DNC Chair Ed Rendell. The cover-up rivals Watergate in its corruption of each branch of government and the media."

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

The Clintons are toast, finally.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

FEC fines Hillary
fund-raising group
Senator denies responsibility
but civil suit under way


© 2008 WorldNetDaily

"A committee that helped fund Sen. Hillary Clinton's 2000 Senate campaign has been fined for filing three false reports to the Federal Elections Commission regarding a Hollywood gala that feted her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

In a "Conciliation Agreement" with the FEC, New York 2000 and its treasurer Andrew Grossman agreed to pay a civil fine of $35,000 and amend false reports to reflect failure to report a $721,000 donation by Los Angeles millionaire lawyer and businessman Peter Franklin Paul."

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 11:34 AM | Report abuse

Quote: "Hollywood filmmakers normally inclined to support candidates such as Sen. Hillary Clinton are working quietly behind the scenes to put the finishing touches on a documentary alleging the New York Democrat committed felonies to get elected and assisted her husband in defrauding a major donor."

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 11:29 AM | Report abuse

WND Exclusive ELECTION 2008
Clintons to face fraud trial,
Judge setting date, testimony to include ex-president, senator.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 11:23 AM | Report abuse

NewsWire:

While Senator Clinton is on the campaign trail telling reporters that the use of her opponents' 'bitter' remarks could damage Senator Obama's chances to win the general election if he should win the nomination, a California superior judge will soon be setting a trial date for the historic civil landmark case in Paul vs. Clinton.

Apparently the Clintons believe that the word 'bitter' is far more damaging than testify under oath in a civil fraud trial.

For some reason, the media doesn't think that a historic trial to haul a former President and a Presidential candidate to court for fraud is newsworthy.

A status conference hearing is scheduled for April 25, 2008, just three days after the Pennsylvania primary. California Superior Judge Aurelio N. Munoz is expected to finally set a trial date after delayment back in February.
Judge Munoz ruled back in February that Paul's legal team can begin seeking depositions from a host of big names - including Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton - that allegedly were witnesses to an effort by the Clintons and top Democratic leaders to extract millions of dollars from Paul in illegal donations and then cover it up. Discovery is expected to begin in May.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

LESBIANS FOR CLINTON!!!!!LYING LESBIANS FOR CLINTON!!!

Posted by: LetthemdrinkCrownRoyal | April 25, 2008 10:17 AM | Report abuse

You're asking Obama all these questions, older voters, less educated voters...

Why don't you see that Clinton has also real problems with certain type of voters?

Why can't she win the young vote? Younger voters heavily choose Obama.

Why can't she win the African American vote?
So far, African American have heavily chosen Obama, do you think she can win in November without the African Americans?

Why can't she win the educated voters? They have also heavily chosen Obama?

Why can't she win some Republicans voters? She's still in this race because Rush Limbaugh urged the republicans to vote for her in Ohio and Texas, otherwise she would have already ended her race ?
Some republicans will clearly vote for Obama in november if he's the nominee and will never vote for her if she's the nominee. A lot of my republican friends tell me all the time that Obama is their candidate if he's the nominee, they'll never vote for Clinton and will go back to McCain (even if they don't like him) if Clinton is the nominee.

Most importantly, why can't she win the Independents? Very heavily the independents favor Obama, if she's the nominee they'll also go back to McCain.

These are all voter categories Clinton cannot win and hasn't win so far, how can she win in November without those voters?

Obama is the strongest candidate, once is the nominee he'll convince older voters to vote for him, it's just a matter of time. Clinton on the contrary has half of the country against her, people just don't like her, if she's the nominee, the republicans and the independents will back McCain and he'll win, McCain has no chance of winning if Obama is the nominee.

See ya

David, NY

Posted by: David | April 25, 2008 10:07 AM | Report abuse

Oh how funny,as that would be a great and
very descriptive new name to cover both the
rabid Obama Youth Stormtroopers and the
Toxic Kool Aid Drinker Obamabots,under the
name of "Idiots for Obama in 2008" now then
and it certain fits them to a tee.

And especially so,when you realize that this creepy braindamaged by cocaine drug
addict,pathological liar,empty suit,loser
Barack Hussein Obama is the least qualfied
and most totally inexperienced Democrat
Presidential Candidate in history,and so
you definitely would have to be an idiot
to be stupid enough to vote for Obama.

Posted by: Claudine | April 25, 2008 10:04 AM | Report abuse

The difference between more educated and less educated is simply that the former are more willing to be colorblind and the latter less. It is racial prejudice that drive the "typical" rural Clinton voters. Not so much Obama and his campaign could do at this point. For HRC is not stand still there. She and her campaign have done their best to repeatedly hint on it. The truth is unspeakable here and now. How could Obama and anyone point out it? Voters have every right to make their own decisions. Morality is weak and nothing at this point. The Clintons' cynicism is cruel and shameless. Their thirst for power is dangerous. I just hope the Dem party could be stronger to defeat their horrible attempt to power. It's been lesson after lesson that the Republicans as a party are always stronger in this sense.

Posted by: pinepine | April 25, 2008 10:02 AM | Report abuse

The simple truth, while I seldom take any poll seriously, is, it suits politicians such as Senator Clinton to assure and reassure not so educated, not so privileged, not so motivated working class people (often referred to rightly or wrongly "underclass')across the racial/ethnic divide that their needs will be looked after, once they get the political power. Sad thing is, the working class people believe these politicians and swallow their assurances and vote for them. As for the hardened racists, no matter, which socio-econmomic group they belong to, nothing and no one can truly change their attitudes or minds toward black people. One must not dismiss the envy or jealousy or how dare he or she rise above his or her station factor either. There is Senator Obama in spite of being a son of a white mother has been successfully labelled as a 'black' candidate - the Clintons were more than anxious to do that. The truth is he is not, he is a mulatto. Senator Obama's brain, looks, education, eloquence, eating habits, behaviour etc., normally equated with 'superior' whites are irritants to some white folks. How many blacks have managed to rise to highly elevated, distinguished positions of political power during the past 50 years?

Therefore, all this not so helpful polls, analyses really do not mean much. It would be desirable for political commentators, analysts not to add to the unfounded fears about the candidate and cause more confusion. By all means comment and anlyze the relevant poltical issues; educate and help the electorate to choose between the two candidates at this stage of the election. Nation's education is such an important issue and am yet to hear any attention being given to it by the candidates or the political pundits. There has been a couple of articles here and there and that is not enough. Education - a wholesome, solid education is the answer to many of our ills in the society.

Posted by: koks | April 25, 2008 9:53 AM | Report abuse

But the question is,how would you feel about a Lesbian president?

Posted by: LetthemdrinkCrownRoyal | April 25, 2008 9:41 AM | Report abuse

IDIOTS

FOR

OBAMA!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 9:34 AM | Report abuse

Obama's = Lifting the Country up!

Clinton's = Tearing each other down!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 9:27 AM | Report abuse

Obama's = Yes WE can

Clinton's = Yes YOU have to

Posted by: shishir | April 25, 2008 9:23 AM | Report abuse

SENATOR OBAMA HAS HAD MORE AMERICAN'S CAST THEIR VOTES FOR HIM. What is the problem with you people. Do the millions of American's who are black, brown, white, yellow, men, women, etc... who voted for him not account nothing? If you answer YES, then you are the problem with this country. The racism, the bias in reporting this primary is fueling the hatred and prejudice that obviously exist in America. A vote is a vote. It should not matter who is casting it. What color our skin or collars are should not have any bearing on the value of our vote. If you give Senator Clinton Florida, Michigan and then give Senator Obama Florida and the "uncommitted" vote in Michigan since his name was not on the ballot, HE STILL HAS MORE VOTES. The media needs to go back to reporting the "facts" and get out of the "entertainment" business. The fact is you have two good candidates, racist, people with strong gender bias and those of us in the middle. The media knows this and also knows American's love to cover their eyes, cry their tears, and grip their seats as they witness the horror of a car wreck. The longer this primary goes on, the better it is for the "not the news media". It is a terrible "disservice" the modern media is doing to all of America.

Posted by: ccclam | April 25, 2008 9:21 AM | Report abuse

Obama's = Peace

Clinton's = War

Posted by: shishir | April 25, 2008 9:17 AM | Report abuse

Obama's = Positive

Clinton's = Negative

Posted by: Shishir | April 25, 2008 9:14 AM | Report abuse

Obama says that "older voters are very loyal to Senator Clinton." That is especially important in states with closed primaries such as Ohio and Pennsylvania because independents are excluded.

Posted by: FirstMouse | April 25, 2008 8:41 AM | Report abuse

.

N E O C O N S

F O R

H I L L A R Y


.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 8:22 AM | Report abuse

If Hillary Clinton is the strongest candidate, why did she recieve just 3 supperdelegates to Obamas 69 since Feb. Obviously they think Obama is the better candidate and I want to Win. Hillary Clinton has a book of scandals and controversies that the republican party is going to pounce all over. We just havent heard them yet. Vist Utube and find out what republicans use on Hillary during the general election.

Posted by: North Carolina | April 25, 2008 7:33 AM | Report abuse

Indiana for Obama

Posted by: Indian | April 25, 2008 7:27 AM | Report abuse

Reading some of these comments made ME ashamed of my country. I can definitely relate to Obama's wife when she said for the first time in her adult life she was proud of her country. Does that mean she hated her country? No. For some of you with your heads buried in the sand, wake up! America is NOT perfect nor without faults and sometimes a person IS judged by the color of their skin. That is a FACT. So back off for none of you can tell Mrs. Obama what she has experienced as a person of color coming up in America. You can never walk a day in her shoes so you CAN'T relate. Leave her alone. Now, the pastor thing is really old now and really just an excuse people use. It is getting increasingly hard for the powers that be to dig up anything of any true political bad substance on Barack so what do they do? They attack his pastor. It's an old political ploy. The black church is a pillar in the black community. When you want to create disharmony, you attack the black church. Do you think Pastor Wright is the ONLY pastor in the US who've made comments like these? Probably not. In fact, some pastor that has endorsed McCain blamed the people of New Orleans for Hurricane Katrina or something like that. Not to mention, Bill Clinton had Pastor Wright at the White House during his impeachment. Another thing, Pastor Wright grew up in a time totally different from my own and different from Barack's. While I would never damn anybody on that level, I wouldn't try to tell this man how to feel. I didn't live his life. I didn't go through what he went through coming up in a very split, racially charged country where Blacks were treated as less than human. Effects of the such do not go away over night, indeed, they have been known to last a life time. He is an elder and you just don't walk up to him and tell him what he is feeling is wrong. The best you can do is disagree quietly and keep on. Not to mention the "well paid for media" showed the following masses exactly what they wanted them to see. Many of us are so stuck inside of a box it's pathetic. Get out of the box people. Stop being so quick to judge when you only see what you want to see. I was for Hillary at first because I've read a couple of their books and I felt she had a powerful hand during the Clinton administration. However, I am growing ever more disgusted with her dishonest and unethical tactics. And Bill? Well, let's just say he hasn't been the same since his triple bypass surgery. He would be of no use to Hillary. She's already had to ask him to let her handle things. LOL.

Obama will more than likely win the nomination. However, the Republican Party is powerful and they have been known to do whatever it takes to get what they want. I do fear Obama is to "good" to fight such people and I would hate for them to rub off on him. Hillary supporters are going on and on about this and that but the bottom line is this: he has the most votes, has won the most states, has raised the most money, and is seen as the most honest. If he has done all of that and he is in the leader, how could he not win? I would never imply anybody is stupid, but I will say some people just see what they want to see.

Also, I was wondering something, if anybody has any information concerning this, please post it. Back when Edwards was still in the race he won a few delegates himself. He suspended his campaign (I think) which means he kept control of most of his delegates (again, I think). Anyway, I believe he gets to distribute those delegates out in any way he sees fit, but I'm not sure. I don't believe he has endorsed either candidate, but I was wondering about his delegates, if he still has control of them and which way people think he will swing with them.

Posted by: smoothsoulsis | April 25, 2008 3:08 AM | Report abuse

The one thing Idiana superdelegates and voters should be considering is, who is capable of helping the party retain control of congress come November. Clintons spent eight years in the White House and the party lost net seats and also lost the presidency when the economy was supposedly robust. Does anyone not really believe that one of the major reasons Al Gore lost was because of the Clintons. George Bush's campaign mantra was 'restore dignity to the White House'. What do you think it will be if Clinton becomes the nominee. The party will again lose control of congress and possibly the white house in this messed up economy. Think about it. The reality is staggering.

Posted by: DJ | April 25, 2008 1:53 AM | Report abuse

Old people with no education degree have not been in colleges where people intellect and close the gap of race. This is why this people are judging Obama by his skin colour. People that has bee to university understand the race subject better, because there's a 50% chance that they had a person with colour as a friend in the university.

Posted by: Atuhe | April 25, 2008 1:28 AM | Report abuse

Clinton is the establishment candidate so why is nobody making a big deal at her inability to win the black votes. I think that Ohio and Penn are full of white people who are not civilized enough to want to ever vote for Obama just because of his race. They are still very backward and will remain that way-hence they have no jobs. If these folks go to other states they will realize that lots of people are looking beyond the color of the skin. Working class whites with little education the Clintons are playing you like they played the blacks for years!!

Posted by: AD | April 25, 2008 1:19 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton is by far the best candidate to represent the Democratic Party in the general.
She can carry Catholics, union families, women, families with incomes under $75,000 and those without college degrees. That is a huge base.
Obama has blacks, young and wealthy liberals.
You tell me how a democrat can win the general who cannot win Penn, Ohio and the entire South. I will give him Colorado, Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada, Missouri and he still loses if he loses Ohio and Penn.
I want a winner. I want Hillary Clinton!

Posted by: Kentucky | April 25, 2008 12:50 AM | Report abuse

Everyone wants to talk about how many people loyal to Hillary will not vote for Obama when he wins the nomination. Just consider for a moment, the amount of angry voters from urban/innercity areas, who will feel their candidate was totally robbed and will not show up in the general election if hillary win the nomination.

Posted by: BrianS | April 25, 2008 12:40 AM | Report abuse

Which nomination are we talking about? This race has been over since February 19th. The corporate media want a piece of the fortune the Clintons collected from Kazakhstan, Colombia, Saudi Arabia...So they pretend that Hillary still has a chance so she can buy the air time to throw her kitchen sink with.

Stop the drama, Go Obama

Crow / Sinbad '08

Posted by: tchanta | April 25, 2008 12:34 AM | Report abuse

Pepitone;
You must be blogging and getting high at the same time you answers make no sense at all, pitty that I don't smoke so we could be on the same frequency

Posted by: bushed | April 25, 2008 12:25 AM | Report abuse

Well, gotta go for the night. Been nice, and please note:

I'm a lover of peace, protector of the
downtrodden, (always for the underdog,
unless he's losin'...). I'm true-blue Odie Colonie.. Descended from Royalty.
Constant as the north star, and there when you need me. With words that serve
to inspire and enlighten... Peace unto you Brother, and the horse you rode in on.

Posted by: Billw | April 25, 2008 12:22 AM | Report abuse

bushed: So Wright was a marine. Is that what made him a racist and an anti-american. Plus a hate for white people. Is it because his sargents and commander's were all white and gave him a hard time. He wasn't the only black person in the Marines, Navy or Army. He has nothing to cry about. If he doesn't like this country there's the door. Shape up or ship out.

Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | April 25, 2008 12:19 AM | Report abuse

Ah, I did hear rumors that Jimmah was going to endorse Obama. That was before his trip to meet with Hamas.

What the far left Dems don't get is that normal Americans don't appreciate a former president meeting with terrorists then calling the Secretary of State a liar.

You don't have to like the current administration to see that Jimmah's losing it.

If it were GHW Bush running around the world during the Clinton administration doing ad hoc "diplomacy" with terrorists, calling Albright a liar it obviously would've been just as detrimental and unhinged.

If Dems nominate Obama, they will be refusing a gift-wrapped presidential win and handing it over to the GOP. Ain't gonna happen. They don't respect those who aren't virtually Marxist.

Posted by: Pennsylvanian | April 25, 2008 12:19 AM | Report abuse

billw;
Amen to that!
But on that I'm a proud american and therefore pragmatic and played no dramas of moving to Canada when those clowns got elected the 2nd time, soak it up and move on, everything happens for a reason, those guys have damaged the so called Reagan coalition beyond repair and to me that's excellent news, the best is yet to come!

Posted by: bushed | April 25, 2008 12:18 AM | Report abuse

Obama endorsements cont'd:

"New" politics of:
Tom Daschle
Jesse Jackson Jr (who compared primary to OJ vs. the wife he murdered)

Posted by: Pennsylvanian | April 25, 2008 12:07 AM | Report abuse

Pennsylvanian said re Obama's endorsements:
"Probably can count Jimmy Carter in but I imagine the Obama camp is telling him to keep it to himself..."

Yep, they kept a lot to themselves, but it leaked out on March 13... to their dismay.
Had it been known earlier the primary results would be different today.

Posted by: Billw | April 25, 2008 12:07 AM | Report abuse

pennsylvanian: I am so glad you said that to BillW. He needed something like that. I guess his mouth got him in trouble this time. I just sent him a message myself. I love that list of endorsements that Obama got. That's right on the head.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 12:07 AM | Report abuse

Pennsylvanian said re Obama's endorsements:
"Probably can count Jimmy Carter in but I imagine the Obama camp is telling him to keep it to himself..."

Yep, they kept a lot to themselves, but it leaked out on March 13... to their dismay.
Had it been known earlier the primary results would be different today.


Posted by: Billw | April 25, 2008 12:07 AM | Report abuse

pennsylvanian: I am so glad you said that to BillW. He needed something like that. I guess his mouth got him in trouble this time. I just sent him a message myself. I love that list of endorsements that Obama got. That's right on the head.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 12:07 AM | Report abuse

pennsylvanian: I am so glad you said that to BillW. He needed something like that. I guess his mouth got him in trouble this time. I just sent him a message myself. I love that list of endorsements that Obama got. That's right on the head.

Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | April 25, 2008 12:07 AM | Report abuse

Another Obama endorsement:

New Black Panther Party
Fat Teddy Kennedy
Loser John Kerry
Xerox provider - Gov. of Massachussets
(No wonder she carried Massachussets)

Posted by: Pennsylvanian | April 25, 2008 12:02 AM | Report abuse

Why is David Axelrod advising any of his surrogates to attack Bill Clinton (again) after his candidate drew 97% of the black vote in PA.

David Axelrod is not only tarnishing the legacy of Bill Clinton but he is ripping the country apart by playing the race card too many times.

It seems to me that Axelrod is threatening the superdeligates with the argument that if you take this nomination away from Obama, it will be your fault for igniting a racial war (causing possible riots?) in America.

Posted by: Steve | April 24, 2008 11:59 PM | Report abuse

bushed

You might say we've been Bush-whacked.

Posted by: Billw | April 24, 2008 11:58 PM | Report abuse

Amber: You are so right. The reason there are so many comments against the Clinton's is because they set goals for themselves and they accomplished their goals. Many people set goals and don't have the ability to accomplish them. It all adds up to jealousy. Jealousy is a disease that eats into you when you want what someone else has. And that's what is happening. The Clinton's earned their money and they were smart at making it. I give them credit for that. Bill Clinton became a governor then ran for the presidency. Hillary became an attorney then first lady. Now she is a senator running for the presidency and she might just make it. And as far as the war, Hillary was not the only senator that voted for the war. Obama didn't vote for the war but he voted for the funding. What does that tell you.

Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | April 24, 2008 11:58 PM | Report abuse

Hey Billw: Let's make list of Obama endorsements:

Martin Sheen
Farrakan
Hamas
That dude from the terrorist group in Columbia on his laptop...
Rev. Wright
Rev. Meeks
Oprah
Probably can count Jimmy Carter in but I imagine the Obama camp is telling him to keep it to himself...

Posted by: Pennsylvanian | April 24, 2008 11:57 PM | Report abuse

Pepitone loves this country so much that she or he forgets there's something call the 1st amendment. From my part I much prefer someone that criticizes his country but when called goes and serves it(as reverend Wright did on the Marines)than someone who poses as a patriot and a tough guy, wears a flag pin but when his country needs him gets 5 deferments alledging that he has other priorities, and I bet all the "bushes in my farm" that you've voted for the guy with the 5 deferments , TWICE!

Posted by: bushed | April 24, 2008 11:56 PM | Report abuse

The college vote is going strong for Obama. Hillary is doing well with the uneducated vote. It shows.

Posted by: gmundenat | April 24, 2008 11:53 PM | Report abuse

To Mariann Pepitone

Sorry, I don't get your point. I was supporting your view regarding Wright.

Posted by: Billw | April 24, 2008 11:52 PM | Report abuse

Why is Indiana being painted as "critical"? North Carolina has twice the delegate count. Oh yes, Hillary will be smoked by 15-25% in NC. The media needs a battle so as to continue to perpetuate the myth of her viability (to make money through ratings). Hillary is making a lot of big enemies in the party; her campaign in 2012 will never get off the ground. Nobody likes a loser.

Posted by: gmundenat | April 24, 2008 11:46 PM | Report abuse

BillW. If you are in college or went to college you probably are in the same class as Obama with drugs and heavy drinking. That's what most of the college students have for dinner and never seen the inside of a church. If Hillary is toast Obama is natural toast. He's not black or white he is Mulatto. If you don't understand the word look it up. Blacks don't like that name but that's too bad it exists. Therefore Obama would not be the first black president of this country.

Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | April 24, 2008 11:43 PM | Report abuse

besides...i want a commander and chief, not a camel toe and thief!

Posted by: seattleshawn | April 24, 2008 11:43 PM | Report abuse

TH said:
"Martin Sheen has just endorsed Obama"

Farrakhan endorsed Obama too, note.


Posted by: Billw | April 24, 2008 11:37 PM | Report abuse

vote no on the camel toe

Posted by: seattleshawn | April 24, 2008 11:36 PM | Report abuse

You really think he can change things?
I would rather stick with waht I know.
And please you Journalist, we know who to
vote for dont play games like Cambell and Martin on Cnn

Posted by: terry s | April 24, 2008 11:35 PM | Report abuse

Martin Sheen has just endorsed Obama on British TV. It was on the Graham Norton Show on BBC2. Penn was a setback, but things like this will help revive his momentum, and he will win.

Posted by: TH | April 24, 2008 11:31 PM | Report abuse

Obama snores and farts.

Posted by: Oawald | April 24, 2008 11:30 PM | Report abuse

And I know what you are. Your the kind that likes anti-american people or you wouldn't defend him. You should start going to his church if you think he's so great. The media didn't think so they kept talking about him for days and now they are showing the AD on Wright that the GOP started running. And you will not like that Ad. But there are two more going to run and they are worse yet. Don't miss seeing them.

Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | April 24, 2008 11:26 PM | Report abuse

trudem211 said:
"HIS NAME SAYS IT ALL"

Well... almost. His past association with shady characters and Wright says a lot as well. Maybe if he makes the white house he can invite Wright over and they could do a toast to Farrakhan.

Posted by: Billw | April 24, 2008 11:24 PM | Report abuse

I am not sure this country is ready for a Lesbian president.

Posted by: LetthemdrinkCrownRoyal | April 24, 2008 11:24 PM | Report abuse

BARAK HUSSIEN OBAMA

HIS NAME SAYS IT ALL



Posted by: trudem211 | April 24, 2008 11:19 PM | Report abuse

Someone said:
"And now we know what you are."

Mariann Pepitone is a person capable of knowing a hate-filled and foul-mouthed racist from a pastor.

Posted by: Billw | April 24, 2008 11:17 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, pepitone, but Hillary is toast.

Have a good evening.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 11:16 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "The threat to the party as well as the Clintons that is posed by the discovery and trial in the suit is that it not only links the Clintons personally to felony violations of the law and obstructions of justice but it will also destroy the credibility of Clinton surrogates who control the party at a time when Obama will be looking to take over the Party with his people.

The significance of the lawsuit is that it exposes a broader focus on the Corruption of the Clinton Cabal that has a stranglehold on the Democratic Party."

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 11:15 PM | Report abuse

You couldn't afford to purchase the pant suits Hillary wears. And I am sure your not a millionaire. Hillary wears different outfits everyday, I thought Obama would never change that dark suit. I saw him in a brown suit one time. But of course, he doesn't have 50 million in the bank nor could he ever write out a check for 5 million from his own bank account. The bank would refuse him. He doesn't have three million.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 11:13 PM | Report abuse

EXPLAIN THIS--THINK ABOUT THIS. WONDER THISs:

That Hillary in an interview with Newsweek called New Zealand's current Prime Minister Clark--a FORMER Prime Minister???
I know she "misspoke" on that one too. To which the Clark is reported to have said--"As current Prime Minister, I even spoke to Former President Bill Clinton last week."
Beyond embarrasing herself, and Candidacy, Hillary "abused" her "foreign Policy" Credentials. Is there not a danger here that if elected, President Hillary could pick up a phone to Iraq and say "Saddam must get his political house in order. US troops can not stay here in Tehran indefinately." So much for EXPERIENCE!!!

Posted by: Etesot Obe | April 24, 2008 11:11 PM | Report abuse

EXPLAIN THIS--THINK ABOUT THIS. WONDER THISs:

That Hillary in an interview with Newsweek called New Zealand's current Prime Minister Clark--a FORMER Prime Minister???
I know she "misspoke" on that one too. To which the Clark is reported to have said--"As current Prime Minister, I even spoke to Former President Bill Clinton last week." Now you can tell which Madam is a poor in the truth!
Beyond embarrasing herself, and Candidacy, Hillary "abused" her "foreign Policy" Credentials. Is there not a danger here that if elected, President Hillary could pick up a phone to Iraq and say "Saddam must get his political house in order. US troops can not stay here in Tehran indefinately." So much for EXPERIENCE!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 11:08 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "I don't care what you say, Pastor Wright is not holy and needs to repent himself for his anti-american statements and his hate against white people. Yes, I am holier than him. He's a non gospel preaching preacher and don't belong in the church. Those awards are given to him by those that believe in what he says. He should have been deported out of this country years ago along with his sidekick Farrakhan. This country is no place for people like them. And if you like those kind why don't you join them."

And now we know what you are.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 11:06 PM | Report abuse

Debra: You are so right in what you said. Obama is not interested in the black people who live in the Englewood area. He lives in Hyde Park in the house Rezko bought for him because he didn't have the money. Obama don't like to go into black neighborhoods even though he is half black himself. Obama is for Obama and no one else counts. He is desperate to make history like MLK but don't have the same integrity. The only change he knows is the change in his pocket. The word hope he uses is from the speeches of RFK when he was campaigning for the presidency. Obama is incapable of doing anything himself. That's why the Mayor of MA gave Obama his speech to use. And he's a Harvard graduate. You couldn't prove it by me. There is going to be an AD against Obama regarding the death penalty. It will be out soon.

Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | April 24, 2008 11:05 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is toast. I hope she gets pants suits to wear in jail.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 11:00 PM | Report abuse

jamerd said re Obama:

"Nearly all of "facts" about him on this post are blatant lies."

Well, this is true:
Obama said Wright was like an uncle to him. Wright was his spiritual adviser for 20 years. Wright curses America and is a racist. Wright awarded "achievement of the year" award to Louis Farrakhan. Birds of a feather flock together, yes they do.

Posted by: Billw | April 24, 2008 10:59 PM | Report abuse

"Hillary and Chelsea to be key witnesses in Bill Clinton Fraud Trial in Los Angeles

"The new documentary film "Indicting Hillary" shows Hillary Clinton's role in the campaign fraud that elected her to the Senate. It combines explosive home video taken by Peter Paul with key interviews to show why Hillary Clinton is unfit to lead America.


Stan Lee swears $225,000 reported by Hillary Clinton to the FEC was not his!

This video shows "Spider Man" creator Stan Lee swearing under oath that he contributed nothing to Hillary Clinton's 2000 Senate campaign, contradicting Hillary's latest report to the FEC."

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 10:58 PM | Report abuse


EXPLAIN THIS--THINK ABOUT THIS. WONDER THIS:

That Hillary in an interview with Newsweek called New Zealand's current Prime Minister Clark--a FORMER Prime Minister???
I know she "misspoke" on that one too. To which PM Clark is reported to have said--"As current Prime Minister, I even spoke to Former President Bill Clinton last week."
Beyond embarrasing herself, and Candidacy, Hillary "abused" her "foreign Policy" Credentials. Is there not a danger here that if elected, President Hillary could pick up a phone to Iraq and say "Saddam must get his political house in order. US troops can not stay here in Tehran indefinately." So much for EXPERIENCE!!!

Posted by: etesot Obe | April 24, 2008 10:58 PM | Report abuse

I don't care what you say, Pastor Wright is not holy and needs to repent himself for his anti-american statements and his hate against white people. Yes, I am holier than him. He's a non gospel preaching preacher and don't belong in the church. Those awards are given to him by those that believe in what he says. He should have been deported out of this country years ago along with his sidekick Farrakhan. This country is no place for people like them. And if you like those kind why don't you join them.

Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | April 24, 2008 10:56 PM | Report abuse

'Hillary Clinton and "The Largest Election Law Fraud in History"

"Hillary Clinton's campaign appears to be in possible legal jeopardy with the introduction of a "smoking gun" video in a court case that has somehow escaped the attention of the mainstream media.

Investor's Business Daily explains that the "scandal involves allegations by movie producer Peter Paul that a 2000 senatorial fundraiser for Clinton in Hollywood violated campaign laws. Paul claims he spent $2 million to produce the fundraising event -- a de facto campaign expenditure. Under campaign law then in effect, campaign gifts were limited to $2,000."

John Armor, Election Law Expert at Equal Justice Foundation, says Hillary is involved in the "largest election law fraud in US history."

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 10:55 PM | Report abuse

Quote: ". I already know what they are because I read them on the internet."

You can read? You could have fooled me.
Then read up on the upcoming Clinton fraud trial. Read it and weep.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 10:53 PM | Report abuse

I believe the root of Barack's inability to 'connect' with many uneducated White voters is due to what he reminds them of. At one time in this country, no matter how poor you were as a White person...you could at least feel good saying to yourself..."At least I'm not a ******!"

Barack reminds them that in spite of all of the injustices African-Americans have endured throught the history of this nation, there are educated Black people out there who are in better shape economically than they are.

Having a Black man elected president would truly be a daily reminder that an uneducated, underskilled White person is now at the bottom of America's food chain, and this is a reality many are unable to face.

Posted by: Ken | April 24, 2008 10:53 PM | Report abuse

Whoever said:
"Ah, but people did know about Obama and the Clintons' character."

You are absolutely wrong. More of Obamas behavior and character was learned on March 13. Typical Obama supporter error.
Actually probably not an error - just disassociation from reality.

Posted by: Billw | April 24, 2008 10:49 PM | Report abuse

'Hillary Clinton and "The Largest Election Law Fraud in History"

"Hillary Clinton's campaign appears to be in possible legal jeopardy with the introduction of a "smoking gun" video in a court case that has somehow escaped the attention of the mainstream media.

Investor's Business Daily explains that the "scandal involves allegations by movie producer Peter Paul that a 2000 senatorial fundraiser for Clinton in Hollywood violated campaign laws. Paul claims he spent $2 million to produce the fundraising event -- a de facto campaign expenditure. Under campaign law then in effect, campaign gifts were limited to $2,000."

John Armor, Election Law Expert at Equal Justice Foundation, says Hillary is involved in the "largest election law fraud in US history."

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 10:46 PM | Report abuse

If it truly is the educated older folks that back Hillary, that must scare the hell out of the word. And you're telling the world she is working for the blue collar worker, RIGHT. Lets get all the votes from the uneducated Americans who sacrifice and pay for Hilary's wages with blood, sweat and tears. Show us a tear Senator. Still want to see Chelsea Clinton on the front line, in uniform. She is a big girl now. Lets nuke China. Must admit she is starting to sound like a man on steroids.

Posted by: justadad55 | April 24, 2008 10:45 PM | Report abuse

That 19% of the Pensylvania electorate ADMITTED that the would not vote for Sen. Obama ONLY because he is Black is a sad commentary on America. Bill Clinton veiled racist comments and Hillary's failure to timely renounce or reject them allows her to benefit from them. They know exactly what they are doing.

Posted by: SuJay | April 24, 2008 10:44 PM | Report abuse

Pepitone: You are a real hoot, look up Bill Clintons relatives if that makes a difference. He never knew his father and his mother supposedly was a heaavy gambler and friendly with the mob in Hot Springs.
Jimmy Carters brother was a drunk, his sister was a holy-roller preacher and his nephew could not stay out of jail.
Obama's relatives and Rev. Wright are not running for the president.
If you base your vote on relatives, you are dumber than I thought.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 10:42 PM | Report abuse

The poster must have had a mechanical gun. Get real. MI & FL are negotiating to seat their delegates at the convention according to reports. If that happens she will then surpass him in the popular vote. And that will increase her delegate count because she was the only one on the ballot in MI. I can't wait to read your comments on the two new ADs that are going to run against Obama in NC. They are going to be doosies. I already know what they are because I read them on the internet.

Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | April 24, 2008 10:40 PM | Report abuse

WILSON POSTED: To those who suggest that the race issue (Bradley effect) was a major problem for Sen. Obama in Pa, I disagree. I have serious doubts about Sen. Obama's ability to govern, his attitudes and his numerous associations--and my concerns have nothing to do with race.
------------------------------------------

Amen! Those who call it the "Bradley Effect" are using a euphemism for crying "racist". That has been Obama's MO from the get-go. "You don't like me cuz I'm black." No, I would NEVER vote for a white man with your puny background or nefarious supporters... Actually, it is less racist since we are treating him like a grown up.

Posted by: Pennsylvanian | April 24, 2008 10:34 PM | Report abuse

I don't have to look up my facts. In fact, why don't you try and get a copy of his Bio that was in the NYT and read it. Its very interesting. Its tells about his mother and father. His mother was married three times and his father four times. There are eight children involved whom Obama only knows one of them. The other six are probably running around Keyna somewhere. Incidently, I don't believe that Law Fraud because I believe it is a scam to make people change their vote from Hillary to Obama. Are you aware of the fact a a church on the border line of NC & SC has put up a sign reading Obama-Osama-are they related? They will not take it down, its there to stay. That's what they think about him.

Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | April 24, 2008 10:34 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "If your thinking Barack Hussein Obama is going to get the nomination think again. That's not going to happen..."

Don't make any statements that you can't back up. The last time that I heard one like that was on another political blog. One of the rabid posters said that if Bush was re-elected he would shoot himself.
Bush was, and I guess the poster shot himself as he was never heard from again. LOL

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 10:31 PM | Report abuse

Thursday, April 24, 2008
OBAMA PACKS UP HIS TOYS, GOES TO INDIANA

Tells Evansville crowd, I'm not gonna play with those Pennsylvania poopy heads ever again!!

http://carbolicsmokeblog.blogspot.com/2008/04/obama-packs-up-his-toys-goes-to-indiana.html

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 10:29 PM | Report abuse

'Hillary Clinton and "The Largest Election Law Fraud in History"

"Hillary Clinton's campaign appears to be in possible legal jeopardy with the introduction of a "smoking gun" video in a court case that has somehow escaped the attention of the mainstream media.

Investor's Business Daily explains that the "scandal involves allegations by movie producer Peter Paul that a 2000 senatorial fundraiser for Clinton in Hollywood violated campaign laws. Paul claims he spent $2 million to produce the fundraising event -- a de facto campaign expenditure. Under campaign law then in effect, campaign gifts were limited to $2,000."

John Armor, Election Law Expert at Equal Justice Foundation, says Hillary is involved in the "largest election law fraud in US history."

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 10:28 PM | Report abuse

I don't have to hear about any fraud trial and Hillary will not be going to jail. That's probably your wish. It will never happen. If your thinking Barack Hussein Obama is going to get the nomination think again. That's not going to happen. Everyone is aware of his close ties to a racist pastor, Rezko the crooked businessman, whom no doubt gave Obama tons of cash not reported to the IRS, Ayers who bombed three times and went underground to avoid arrest, Farrakhan and Ayres. He really knows how to choose the best of friends. What candidate campaigning for office of the presidency chose friends like that? You will see the next Ads that are going to run in NC and they are by two separate organizations going after Obama.

Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | April 24, 2008 10:24 PM | Report abuse

Again,
Ms. Pepitone, have you heard of the upcoming Clinton fraud trial?? Hillary will not be the nominee and will be lucky to stay out of jail.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 10:24 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "I don't care about the awards he receives because those that give him the awards are in the same category as he is."

I would suggest you ask your pastor about the Brite Divinity School. Don't pull your self righteous, holier than thou, stuff on me.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 10:21 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "If they did, how come he can't win the big battleground states that she won. The major states. Its because they don't want him as our president. Get a grip."

You don't believe that Texas is a major battleground state.?? Obama won there. Texas is the 2nd largest economy in the nation and the 15th in the world. Pretty major, I would say.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 10:18 PM | Report abuse

I don't have to check my facts on Rev. Wright. It is all on video or have you closed your ears to it. I don't care about the awards he receives because those that give him the awards are in the same category as he is. You can't be a true American and state anti-american racists remarks against this country. He is a white peoples hater but its the whites that are voting for Obama. He should shut his mouth and start preaching what he suppose to be preaching, the gospel.

Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | April 24, 2008 10:16 PM | Report abuse

Ms. Pepitone, have you heard of the upcoming Clinton fraud trial?? Hillary will not be the nominee and will be lucky to stay out of jail.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 10:15 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "Who cares who she votes for. Hillary will not miss her vote anyway."

That's because Hillary will not be the nominee. The Clinton fraud trial will take care of that, even if she doesn't step down, as she is behind in all counts.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 10:14 PM | Report abuse

Yes, I am correct. Ayers and Obama have been friends for years and George knows that otherwise he would not have brought that up. Who's kidding who. Sniper fire is not as bad as anti-american racist statements. No wonder the republicans are going after Obama and that's not the only Ad that is going to run. There are two more different organizations that are going to run Ads in NC against Obama. And you thought everyone liked him. If they did, how come he can't win the big battleground states that she won. The major states. Its because they don't want him as our president. Get a grip.

Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | April 24, 2008 10:11 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "So, democratic leaders, wake up! I am highly educated but I do believe Hillary has the better chance to win against the Republican nominee. Based, so far, from votes gotten by Hillary from cruial states.


So, "highly educated", that's not what the polls are saying. Look above.
And by the way, "highly educated", that should be crucial, not cruial.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 10:10 PM | Report abuse

Just pick one of them and get behind them and get those rich, radical, right wing, repubulsivecans out of there and get this country back into the hands of the people.
This country is in a total mess. I am a white , old, WWII vet with a college degree which does not amount to a squirt.
When I was discharged from the servic I was so proud of this country and would have never thought it would turn out so sad

Posted by: westexacan | April 24, 2008 10:07 PM | Report abuse

I am white and older than that 71 year old that said she would not vote for Hillary. Who cares who she votes for. Hillary will not miss her vote anyway. The only reason Dean doesn't want to seat the MI & FL delegates, not because they changed their date but because Hillary will surpass Obama and he endorsed Obama. New Hampshire changed their date but he didn't penalized that state because he thought Obama was going to win but lost and it was too late. If I am correct Illinois changed their date also but because Daley endorsed Obama Dean did not penalize that state. That shows you how underhanded the DNC is. If Obama needed MI & FL Dean would seat them immediately. Its a one sided deal. Dean, Reid and Pelosi should all step down.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 10:06 PM | Report abuse

Better check your facts on Rev. Wright. And stop believing the sound bites that the Clinton media wants you to hear.
He was just presented with an award by the Brite Divinity at TCU, one of the top theology schools in the nation.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 10:06 PM | Report abuse

Obama is just like any traditional politicians even if he mouths up the usual old SCREAMS FOR CHANGE every election time!

The difference is that he reads speeches and teleprompters with great eloquence. However, standing beside the better ones, he is observed to be unable to think fast on his feet. Without talking-point scripts, he just blabbers on.

The President of the U.S. in modern times has never been elected by a few educated and high-income "elitist" groups.

So, democratic leaders, wake up! I am highly educated but I do believe Hillary has the better chance to win against the Republican nominee. Based, so far, from votes gotten by Hillary from cruial states.

Posted by: Firefly2 | April 24, 2008 10:02 PM | Report abuse

Obama is our Savior? You must belong to the same church as Obama and listening to pastor Wright who is wrong. My church recognizes Jesus Christ as our Savior and preaches the gospel. You really need help. Obama is an anti-american racist like his pastor that's why he stayed with that church for 20 years. Voters should wake up and smell the coffee. Obama is desperate to make history like MLK. He doesn't have the integrity of MLK. In fact, he shouldn't be campaigning for the presidency to begin with. And his wife Michelle's comments that she likes this country now. And their Americans.

Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | April 24, 2008 9:57 PM | Report abuse

'Hillary Clinton and "The Largest Election Law Fraud in History"

Hillary Clinton's campaign appears to be in possible legal jeopardy with the introduction of a "smoking gun" video in a court case that has somehow escaped the attention of the mainstream media.

Investor's Business Daily explains that the "scandal involves allegations by movie producer Peter Paul that a 2000 senatorial fundraiser for Clinton in Hollywood violated campaign laws. Paul claims he spent $2 million to produce the fundraising event -- a de facto campaign expenditure. Under campaign law then in effect, campaign gifts were limited to $2,000."

John Armor, Election Law Expert at Equal Justice Foundation, says Hillary is involved in the "largest election law fraud in US history."

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 9:57 PM | Report abuse

To those who suggest that the race issue (Bradley effect) was a major problem for Sen. Obama in Pa, I disagree. I have serious doubts about Sen. Obama's ability to govern, his attitudes and his numerous associations--and my concerns have nothing to do with race.

Sen. Obama's associations are particularly troubling. He's surrounded by people such as the violent Ayers, the Hitleresque Wright, his wife Michelle (whose thesis clearly expresses her anti-American sentiments; http://www.politico.com/pdf/080222_MOPrincetonThesis_1-251.pdf), his half brother Abongo "Roy" Obama (a Jihadist terrorist), his Jewish/Israeli hating best friend Rashid Khalidi, his close advisor Robert Malley (who advocates supporting the terrorist group Hamas), Mr. McPeaks (Obama's military advisor who believes American Jews are the "problem"), Sen. Meeks (who speaks against all whites and gays), as well as Sen. Obama's most dangerous affiliation--Mr. Auchi--who was Saddam Hussein's right hand man, made billions in Iraq and has been an important supporter and behind the scene man throughout Obama's rise to power.

How can the American electorate seriously think that Sen. Obama would unite the country? How can a candidate with these associations effectively govern? No, it is not the Bradley effect, it's Sen. Obama's associations! And Sen. Obama's associations speak volumes about his attitudes and his true character.

Posted by: Wilson | April 24, 2008 9:53 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "And you say he has more experience than Hillary. Get a grip. He went to pakistan for a vacation and that's the end of it. He has never met or talked to world leaders..."

You had better look up the facts before you are accused of lying or "mis-speaking" like Senator Clinton.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 9:52 PM | Report abuse

hillary cannot win all things are working together for our good. BY THE WAY LOOK AT HILLARY VIDEO VICTORY SPEECH (PA) STARTING AT 5 MINS AND 18 SECS. BILL CLINTON STANDING BEHIND A WOMAN WITH A BLACK ARM LESS TOP, THERE IS ALEFT HAND TOUCHING HER SHOULDER, WHOSE HAND IS THAT, AND IF IT IS BILL OH NO IF SHE WERE TO GET IN THE WHITE HOUSE, DO YOU THINK SHE WILL BE THERE WHEN THE PHONE RINGS AT 3:AM OR SHE WILL BE SITTING IN A TAXI UNDER A TREE SPYING BILL. LOL.

Posted by: sexy | April 24, 2008 9:48 PM | Report abuse

.

.


--------------- O B A M A
--------------------------------------------------------------------->
--------------------------------------------------------------------->

.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 9:48 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "Am I correct when I say that Obama got caught in a lie about his pastor's statements saying he never heard him in church when he was seen sitting in the pew. When George asked him about Ayers didn't he say there were not friends when they are next door neighbors."

No, you are not correct. I am not friends with my next door neighbor in a small town, I sure would not be in Chicago.

Did Senator Clinton say that she landed under sniper fire in Bosnia , when the pilot of the plane, and the commander on the ground say that she did not. Did she say that she helped set up the Irish Peace agreement, when everyone there said she did not. Did she say she was against NAFTA when records show that she was attending congressional meetings supporting NAFTA. Did she say that a mother and her baby died in Ohio, because they did not have insurance when that was proven to not be true, and her campaign didn't bother to check. Is she a pathological liar? Yes a proven one.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 9:47 PM | Report abuse

Obama was a salesman and an attorney for crooked Rezko before he decided to run for the senate and won because he played dirty pool to the candidate running against him. He is a junior senator and doesn't know the first thing about foreign policy or what to do on day one. He would need help from Kennedy and Kerry or maybe Richard who gave him his own speech. And you say he has more experience than Hillary. Get a grip. He went to pakistan for a vacation and that's the end of it. He has never met or talked to world leaders but if he won the presidency Al Qaeda will be dancing in the street because they know how experienced he isn't. What a mess this country would be in. And god would have to help us.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 9:47 PM | Report abuse

.


HILLARY VOTED FOR THE WAR


.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 9:47 PM | Report abuse

Am I correct when I say that Obama got caught in a lie about his pastor's statements saying he never heard him in church when he was seen sitting in the pew. When George asked him about Ayers didn't he say there were not friends when they are next door neighbors. Doesn't Obama study the speeches of RFK's speech book so he will know what to say to the voter's. For a Harvard graduate I believe he better start over again because he really needs help. Can he run this country. Yes, to the ground.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 9:40 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "If Hillary doesn't get the nomination 40% of her voters will vote for McCain which is the right thing to do. And those that are voting for Obama are young college students, druggers, boozers and probably half of them will drop out eventually."

Could we have the proof and link to the 40% statement?? Your opinion is not facts.
And really, I have voted in every election for over 50 years and I voted for Obama, not once but twice, legally. Ever hear of the Texas Two Step. I certainly am not a boozer as the medical board would have frowned on that.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 9:39 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "He needs to go back to the senate for another four years and get experience."

Really, why? He already has more political experience that Hillary Clinton. Look it up.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 9:36 PM | Report abuse

I don't believe the republicans are afraid of Obama. If Hillary doesn't get the nomination 40% of her voters will vote for McCain which is the right thing to do. And those that are voting for Obama are young college students, druggers, boozers and probably half of them will drop out eventually. They are not grown up enough to know any better and they believe Obama is just like them as he took his drugs and booze in college also. What a background. That's a candidate for the presidency of this country? Give me a break. He talks about unity? He couldn't tie two shoe laces together without getting confused. He needs to go back to the senate for another four years and get experience.

Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | April 24, 2008 9:33 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "The complaint asserts Clinton has filed four false reports to the FEC of Paul's donations in an attempt to distance herself from him after a Washington Post story days after the August 2000 fundraiser reported his past felony convictions. Clinton then returned a check for $2,000, insisting it was the only money she had taken from Paul. But one month later, she demanded another $100,000, to be hidden in a state committee using untraceable securities.

"Why wouldn't that cause someone to inquire?" Paul asked. "Especially since it was days after she said she wouldn't take any more money from me."

Paul has the support of a new grass-roots political action group that is helping garner the assistance of one of the nation's top lawyers"

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 9:32 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is a bunch of mouth. A fighter doesn't talk about how tough they are. Any real tough person knows that.

Posted by: sally | April 24, 2008 9:31 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "Mrs Clinton on the other hand had been beaten, dragged, hammered and name it, and she hsd weathered the storm time and time again."

She has, and for good reason. As she stated, "why do I always have to prove that I am not a liar"

Well, duh, could it be because you are. And a pathological one at that.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 9:29 PM | Report abuse

Obama is our Savior. Obama, Ayers, and Reverend Wright are Right! God D*** america! The stupid, bitter, racist "typical white people" of pennsylvania voted for clinton. How disgusting. They ignored their opportunity to redeem themselves for their racist past - slavery - and finally make Michelle proud. How sad. Please no hater responses, but typical white people, please stop buying guns you biiter small town hicks, and save it for my reparations check! Obama ''08, Repartions Check, ''09! http://www.npr.org/programs/specials/racism/0108 27.reparations.html

Posted by: Obamamania | April 24, 2008 9:27 PM | Report abuse

Well I see that in as much as you have excellently educated people in America so do we have excellently ignorant people in abundance. What I have read so far, possibly from brothers and sisters, is a whole bunch of reverence for the Illinois Senator, irrespective of his agenda or lack off. This able gentleman has not been challenged in the true sense of the word, in the political arena that is. He has not been pummeled by the Republican machine which we all know will happen. Mrs Clinton on the other hand had been beaten, dragged, hammered and name it, and she hsd weathered the storm time and time again.
You can not ask for a tougher contender.
These times are tough for the country as a whole, we definitely need someone who has been trully tested to re-direct the affairs of the country else, the Republicans will take the White House again, for another 16 years. This you can bet on. It will be 2000 all over again. But when that happens, all of you with warped minds will be crying fowl again but then it will be too little too late. And we all will go through the grind for the next 16 years. I am not Nostridamus for your information. Just a clear thinking person. I respect Obama no doubt but these are serious times, sentiment is not in order here.

Posted by: Ebenezer John | April 24, 2008 9:24 PM | Report abuse

Why can't Hillary close the deal? She was the front runner from the beginning.

Posted by: sally | April 24, 2008 9:24 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "She will always get votes from older whites and racist whites, they will never vote for a Barack"

Now Mrs. Dean, I am as old as dirt, white, democrat. I voted for Obama, and would not vote for Senator Clinton if she was the last democrat on the planet. If by some crooked way, she were to become the nominee, I will stay at home for the first time in over 50 years.
We know the Clintons all too well down where I come from.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 9:22 PM | Report abuse

On issues of Iraq, Iran and the entire Middle East, we are in serious danger if Hillary were to win the whole thing. The woman has proven that she is capable of starting WWIII, this time with nukes after that we'll obliterate Iran thing. Doesn't she know that a couple of those countries are very close to getting nukes? (Syria?, duh!!!) Obama is the peackmaker and an arrogant woman like Hillary will only start trouble and blame it on the other side. Not to mention, the Muslim leadership over there will NEVER listen to an arrogant woman like Hillary. If she wins the Presidency there would be NO EFFECTIVE PEACE TALKS what so ever. All she could do is pull the troops out of Iraq leaving the country in Civil War. Then what is she going to do obliterate them? There is only one answer to this Middle East thing, OBAMA.

One more thing, FIRST LADY IS NOT A PRE-REQUISITE FOR PRESIDENT!!!!!

BARACK THE VOTE BABY!!!!

Posted by: B.LOVE | April 24, 2008 9:21 PM | Report abuse

We need a President who will obliterate Iran and imagine herself under sniper fire in the Euroasians. My vote is for Billary

Posted by: Jesse Jones | April 24, 2008 9:19 PM | Report abuse

IN the 20 years you've been a catholic, have you denounced the catholic church for all the pedophile priests?

Posted by: branqua | April 24, 2008 9:19 PM | Report abuse

Hillary flips flops, she wants Florida and Michigan to count now that she is losing, but she voted to keep the delegates and votes to be not counted in the beginning, they should not count if its only to help her out, let her seal the deal without them, something she can't do obviously. She will always get votes from older whites and racist whites, they will never vote for a Barack. But why does she not get the younger vote, because she is old school.

Posted by: ms dean | April 24, 2008 9:17 PM | Report abuse

Regarding the Clinton fraud trial:

"The Clintons have tried to dismiss the case, but the California Supreme Court, in 2004, upheld a lower-court decision to deny the motion."

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 9:14 PM | Report abuse

We need to some homework before deciding who to vote for.
I understand why only uneducated citizens vote for Hillary.

Posted by: JG | April 24, 2008 9:10 PM | Report abuse

Especially for aoife:

SurveyUSA interviewed 600 registered voters in each of the 50 states. A total of 30,000 interviews were completed. If John McCain faces Barack Obama, Obama wins 280 to 256. McCain carries 26 states. Obama carries 24 states plus the District of Columbia ... and then there is Nebraska, which divides its electoral votes based on which candidate wins each of the state's congressional districts. McCain wins Nebraska 45% to 42%, but loses in two of the state's three congressional districts, which results in Barack Obama taking two of Nebraska's five electoral votes.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 9:07 PM | Report abuse

To Ephemerella: You are lying - Rev Wright did not say that Obama agreed with him. What's wrong with you? Don't you feel ashamed to tell such disgraceful untruths?

Here's the excerpt for those who will not do the homework:

Moyers: "In the 20 years that you've been his pastor, have you ever heard him repeat any of your controversial statements as his opinion?"

Wright: "No. No. No. Absolutely not. I don't talk to him about politics. And so he had a political event, he goes out as a politician and says what he has to say as a politician. I continue to be a pastor who speaks to the people of God about the things of God."

And here's the URL transcript:

http://www.suntimes.com/lifestyles/religion/913847,wright042408.article

It's things like what Ephemerella is trying to do up there, and the lack of inquisitiveness on the part of Americans that led to 4 more years of Bush, and economically self-damaging elections. Use your heads!!!! Do your own research. Clinton spills lies by the minute and people simply don't question any of it! If you end up with McCain in november you truly deserve it!

Posted by: Majhik | April 24, 2008 9:02 PM | Report abuse

Back again, aolife?? You didn't answer. Who is April?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 9:01 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "If he wins Indiana and North Carolina the same day, superdelegates will have to get off the fence and support him and Hillary and Bill will finally go away. Isn't that a pleasant thought?""

Yep, it makes my day. If only they would go the way of Gore and Kerry, and never be heard from again.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 8:59 PM | Report abuse

Notice how the medias mantra has changed ever so much today? Notice how more and more newscasters and pundits are questioning Obamas chances.

The DNC will be mulling over obama's very poor showing with core Democrat groups that the DNC will need come november if they want to win..... And, If Hillary wins Indiana, obama will get a hard look by the party and the big guys will throw him under the bus. After all, the most important thing for the DNC is for the party to win. If he cant win core democrats the party will suddenly decide to count florida and Michigan in order to give the nomination to a real winner, Hillary Clinton, and send bambi packing back to Chicago just in time to watch his dirty money deals and associations with rexko and auchi discussed in the trial

Posted by: Aoife | April 24, 2008 8:59 PM | Report abuse

Indiana can do what Pennsylvania failed to do: Put an end to this ugly contest. Vote for Obama. If he wins Indiana and North Carolina the same day, superdelegates will have to get off the fence and support him and Hillary and Bill will finally go away. Isn't that a pleasant thought?

Posted by: BigJD | April 24, 2008 8:56 PM | Report abuse

karl, just google for "polls in Indiana:

As of the 22nd:

Barack Obama 50%
Hillary Clinton 45%

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 8:55 PM | Report abuse

Gee, couldn't we just as well ask why is Clinton doing so poorly with African Americans and college educated voters? Why isn't Clinton capturing the youth vote ? Why do upper income whites prefer Obama? And what about those white men voting for Obama instead of Clinton? As a white woman in her 40s (is that young or old) I am sick of this.

Instead we are fixated on whatever the Clinton campaign wants us to fixate on because, well, the media are bunch of puppets. It seems obvious to me why Obama hasnt won lower income people, it's because they don't have time to do the independent research to realize that Clinton supported NAFTA and she worked on the board at Walmart and her background as a corporate lawyer hardly qualifies her as a working class hero.

The race is already over, though you wouldn't know it unless you do the math yourself. Clinton is too far behind in delegates to catch Obama's lead. Of course that doesn't make as good of drama as pretending the race is close.

Posted by: emma | April 24, 2008 8:55 PM | Report abuse

As someone who read "The Audacity of Hope," I found it just as empty and unfulfilling as Obama's speeches. Lots of fluff, but very little substance. Instead of just saying that the system is broken and raling against it, lay out your plan to fix it. So far, Obama has done very little of that. Lots of empty rhetoric does not change make.

Obama loves to talk about Washington being broken--do you people really believe that ONE man is going to change that? I can give you a one word answer to that question--NO! Remember--George Bush thought the same thing, and he had a MUCH BETTER record of bipartisianship as the Governor of Texas than Obama had in the Illinois senate or currently has in the US Senate. Last night, on Larry King, a McCain supporter attested to the fact that HRC has a much better track record of bipartisianship, and in fact, she is greatly respected by a lot of her Republican colleagues. Until he can take a solid position on an issue, and not feel that everything has to be nuanced in a way that no one gets offended by that position, Obama is going to end up on the mound of mediocre presidents--if he makes it that far--that has seen the likes of William Howard Taft, and soon to be George W. Bush.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 8:52 PM | Report abuse

Would somebody tell me what are the polls in Indiana ?
We knew in advance in PA that Clinton leads Obama 30 to 60% even before the election, we knew she was going to win.
Now, what about Indiana ?
Who is leading in the polls ?

Posted by: karl | April 24, 2008 8:51 PM | Report abuse

Aoife, where have you been? It's well known.


WND Exclusive ELECTION 2008
Clintons to face fraud trial,
Judge setting date, testimony to include ex-president, senator.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 8:50 PM | Report abuse

Aoife, who the heck is April??
You really need a reading comprehension course.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 8:49 PM | Report abuse

Gee, couldn't we just as well ask why is Clinton doing so poorly with African Americans and college educated voters? Why isn't Clinton capturing the youth vote ? Why do upper income whites prefer Obama? And what about those white men voting for Obama instead of Clinton? As a white woman in her 40s (is that young or old) I am sick of this.

Instead we are fixated on whatever the Clinton campaign wants us to fixate on because, well, the media are bunch of puppets. It seems obvious to me why Obama hasnt won lower income people, it's because they don't have time to do the independent research to realize that Clinton supported NAFTA and she worked on the board at Walmart and her background as a corporate lawyer hardly qualifies her as a working class hero.

The race is already over, though you wouldn't know it unless you do the math yourself. Clinton is too far behind in delegates to catch Obama's lead. Of course that doesn't make as good of drama as pretending the race is close.

Posted by: emma | April 24, 2008 8:47 PM | Report abuse

GO BARACK>>>>all the way...

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 8:45 PM | Report abuse

No April you are so misguided dear. Come talk to me when Obama's had 70 million dollars worth of investigation done regarding his background like the Clintons have had.

Sorry, but your Dear Leader has made some very bad choices in his attempt to quickly climb up the political ladder in Chicago..

REZKO, AUCHI, IRAQ...

Wonder why the DNC are trying to hurry things up? dirty laundry#


do the math if you can add that is!!

Posted by: Aoife | April 24, 2008 8:44 PM | Report abuse

By the way, Aolife, I don't need to go back to school. I am retired, medical. Those were not my comments about Watergate, but were copied from the internet, as the quotation marks indicate. You had better be ready for some real fireworks, as the proof is there. Read up.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 8:43 PM | Report abuse

You are hilarious Aoife. Obama is charged with nothing or even mentioned in the Rezco trial. The Clintons are going on trial. Read slowly, The Clintons are going on trial.
Thank goodness, it is finally coming to fruition.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 8:40 PM | Report abuse

.


N E O C O N S

F O R

H I L L A R Y


.

Posted by: . | April 24, 2008 8:40 PM | Report abuse

"""The discovery will expose an ongoing cover-up of the campaign finance crimes and the obstructions of justice directed by Hillary Clinton with the help of Bill Clinton and former DNC Chair Ed Rendell. The cover-up rivals Watergate in its corruption of each branch of government and the media."

Posted by: | April 24, 2008 8:20 PM
""""

Go back to law school love. What will be bigger than watergate or any of this smoke you attempt to blow up people's arse , because when they get done digging into Obama, via the dirty money dealings with Rezko and Auchi it will end Obama's career and all else will pale in comparison . get a life, you're reaching LOL

Posted by: Aoife | April 24, 2008 8:36 PM | Report abuse

The fact that the California Supreme Court decided to let the fraud trial go on carries some weight.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 8:36 PM | Report abuse

Apparently a lot of you can't read or don't care either. This is the most important thing to come down the pike in the upcoming election:

The upcoming Clinton fraud trial:

Quote: "A status conference hearing is scheduled for April 25, 2008, and a trial date is expected to be announced soon.

Discovery in the case is expected to begin in May, 2008 as it proceeds to trial.

The discovery will expose an ongoing cover-up of the campaign finance crimes and the obstructions of justice directed by Hillary Clinton with the help of Bill Clinton and former DNC Chair Ed Rendell. The cover-up rivals Watergate in its corruption of each branch of government and the media."

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 8:34 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 8:34 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons twist the election to what they want. They somehow feel that they don't have to follow the rules of the election as set by DNC. Now they want to follow the rules set for the GOP primaries. Bill Clinton is saying that if the democrats had followed what the republicans follow, then Hillary would be ahead. Wh doesn't she just switch parties and run under the republican banner if she is so desperate to win. Hillary wants to change the election rules to include Florida and Michigan, Bill wants to change the rules to follow republican rules. All this in the middle of the game. I bet that in their school days no body played with them because they never followed the rules of the game. I just can't wait to see the Clintons leave our political party.

Posted by: Janet Thornbrush | April 24, 2008 8:31 PM | Report abuse

Sad to know that most Americans have a short memory.
Before you vote for either Hillary or McCain, please, do some additional researches. Then, when you find out what exactly McCain and Hillary are up to, you will switch camp. I bet you.

Posted by: Jg | April 24, 2008 8:30 PM | Report abuse

JACKSMITH:

"Hillary Clinton seemed almost somber at her victory speech. As if part of her was hoping Obama could have defeated her"

jack, where were you watching the speech? At a bar in Amsterdam?

Posted by: bushed | April 24, 2008 8:27 PM | Report abuse

JakeD - Glad to hear it. Hang in there...I always appreciate a little levity with my reality.

Posted by: LW | April 24, 2008 8:26 PM | Report abuse

TO ALL AMERICANS AND TO THE CITIZENS OF NORTH CAROLINA, INDIANA AND THE OTHER REMAINING STATES THAT WILL HOLD THE CLOSING PRIMARIES:

C - CLEAR, CLEVER CHOICE: CORRECT, CHOOSE
C L I N T O N
H - HILLARY = HOPE TO
A - ALL AMERICANS FOR
N - NEW NO NONSENSE
G - GOOD GOVERNANCE OF
E - ECONOMY, ENERGY, ENVIRONMENT, ETC.,
EFFECTIVELY EVERYTIME EVERYDAY

Posted by: r. montilla | April 24, 2008 8:25 PM | Report abuse

.

HILLARY VOTED FOR THE WAR

.

but then again so did the american people

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1633/Iraq.aspx#4

2001 Nov 26-27 ‡
Would you favor or oppose sending American ground troops to the Persian Gulf in an attempt to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq?

Favor 74
Oppose 20
No Opinion 6

Hindsights a wonderful thing, but isn't the idea of politicians to represent the population.

Obama should have waited another turn ... he doesn't have the experience yet, just the ideas. It's not enough.

Now at least one great candidate of two will be "wasted".

Posted by: oz | April 24, 2008 8:25 PM | Report abuse

JakeD - Glad to hear it. Hang in there...I always appreciate a little levity with my reality.

Posted by: LW | April 24, 2008 8:24 PM | Report abuse

To those who suggest that Sen. Obama had a poor showing in PA because of race (the Bradley effect), I disagree. I have serious doubts about Sen. Obama's ability to govern, his attitudes and his numerous associations--and my concerns have nothing to do with race.

Sen. Obama's associations are particularly troubling. He's surrounded by people such as the violent Ayers, the Hiteresque Wright, his wife Michelle (whose thesis clearly expresses her anti-American sentiments; http://www.politico.com/pdf/080222_MOPrincetonThesis_1-251.pdf), his half brother Abongo "Roy" Obama (a Jihadist terrorist), his Jewish/Israeli hating best friend Rashid Khalidi, his close advisor Robert Malley (who advocates supporting the terrorist group Hamas), or Mr. McPeaks (Obama's military advisor who believes American Jews are the "problem") or Sen. Meeks (who speaks against all whites and gays) or Sen. Obama's most dangerous affiliation to Mr. Auchi who was Saddam Hussein right hand man and made billions in Iraq and has been an important supporter and behind the scene man throughout Obama's rise to power.

How can the American electorate seriously think that Sen. Obama would unite the country? How can a candidate with these associations effectively govern? No, it is not the Bradley effect, it's Sen. Obama's associations! And Sen. Obama's associations speak volumes about his attitudes and his true character.


Posted by: Wilson | April 24, 2008 8:21 PM | Report abuse

Say what you will. It's all up to the super delegates, and they can read:

The upcoming Clinton fraud trial:

Quote: "A status conference hearing is scheduled for April 25, 2008, and a trial date is expected to be announced soon.

Discovery in the case is expected to begin in May, 2008 as it proceeds to trial.

The discovery will expose an ongoing cover-up of the campaign finance crimes and the obstructions of justice directed by Hillary Clinton with the help of Bill Clinton and former DNC Chair Ed Rendell. The cover-up rivals Watergate in its corruption of each branch of government and the media."

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 8:20 PM | Report abuse

LW:

I'm still around : )

Posted by: JakeD | April 24, 2008 8:20 PM | Report abuse

"Cal" - You bore me. McCain isn't self styled...he is a maverick. Also, he wasn't my first choice. But, this man does have integrity. When the chips are down, I won't be concerned about his ability to handles stress under fire. Frankly, I don't have that concern about Obama either. Hillary, on the other hand, is an entirely different animal. Keep your head out of the sand.

Posted by: LW | April 24, 2008 8:17 PM | Report abuse

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
""Rather than read what idiots like Andy post, or what the "media" says (or his friends), why don't you read what Obama himself has written? If "The Audacity of Hope" and "Dreams from my Father" can't convince you that this is the person you want representing you in the White House, nothing will.

Posted by: John from CA | April 24, 2008 7:23 PM
""

John, I have both books and I have read both books. And I have also read all the "corrections" that have had to be made regarding info in those books due to his, lets say, "fibs" you know, like the Selma march and the kennedys funding his fathers trip over, etc etc etc.... Those books and his stint across America with Axelrod to promote the books was actually done to promote him for this run for the whitehouse. As was the keynote speech at the convention, which I might point out it was kerry behind that.. The DNC had to choose a Black candidate, as that was the only way to strip the black vote off the clintons, and just to make sure it would happen, they had to play the race card early on after the LBJ comment and the "fairytale" comment. What a joke!! The DNC wants a puppet, not a free thinker like Clinton. Were Obama to be elected he would not be "the man" he would be a DNC puppet, with people like Dean(failed presidency run), Brazile(failed Gore campaign), Kennedy(take a ride with me) and Kerry(failed presidency run) ,so we'd have all these presidential attempt failures behind the scenes running the whitehouse. I am a life long Democrat, I am highly educated with two degrees and Unlike the vast majority of Obama's cult followers, I dont let any organization shove any candidate down my throat, and that is exactly what the DNC (Dean, Brazile, Kerry and Kennedy) are attempting to do and I'm not having it. When this primary season first began I had no ill will towards Obama, even though I was a Hillary supporter. However, the DNC did not allow this race to progress in a fair manor, and that was a fatal error on their part....Had they simply allowed the American people to choose freely and fairly, let the primary season progress and BOTH candidates getting a fare shake in the media and by the DNC grandees, then most hillary supporters would have been alright with falling in line if Obama won fairly, HOWEVER, that didn't happen and now it's FAR too late.......... You see, those of us who supported Hillary we watched every day and noticed all the unfair and biased media coverage,We remember Obama's complaints about two CNN commentators who were let go because they favored Clinton, yet we see CNN loaded with Obama supporters who wince when they have to say anything positive about Hillary. followed by the "biased" comments from the DNC itself, Dean, Brazile et al. calling on Hillary to "drop out" which started months ago!! And we remember, Obama's camp was the FIRST to go nasty with the 1984 you tube video that played ad nauseum on all channels, this was linked to his campaign yet he denied it.. Then lets not forget the nasty comment from Michelle towards Hillary in early February as she pranced across the stage saying"if you can't take care of your own house then you cant take care of the whitehouse" Now, that to me was very insulting to women on a personal level, to bring someones marriage into play and somehow condem them for their husbands behaviour. So according to michelle anyone who's family is not exactly like hers is "unfit" that is disgraceful and an insult to many women.... Next, the media continued trashing hillary on a personal level, her clothes, her hair her laugh...........during one of the first debates she was actually asked about being liked!! Then they asked Obama to comment, he said "Hillary, you're liked enough" in a smug and arrogant tone with a smirk upon his face. This biased treatment continued, and when combined with the vile things Obama supporters say to hillary supporters online, your candidate and his supporters have effectively destroyed any chance of many of us supporting Obama, and I am one of those people who for the first time EVER will vote McCain if obama is given this nomination without Florida and Michigan having a re-vote.... From my perspective I'd rather see McCain get it now, he'd never get a 2nd term and all of Obamas dirt will come out during those four years and he'd be finished, then Hillary can run in four years time.
I can wait................

Posted by: Aoife | April 24, 2008 8:17 PM | Report abuse

Do you Clinton haters have NOTHING better to do with your time than troll the news sites & spew your hatred? You wonder why so many Hillary supporters say that they would rather vote for McCain than Obama. Maybe if you spewed less vitriol, and actually attempted to be more like the candidate himself--who I, for one, think needs to spend more time in the Senate--then HRC supporters would not be so disgruntled. Bashing her does nothing more than drive a deeper wedge between the factions. For Obama's supporters to be more educated than HRC's, you guys surely are very immature. I would rather be a part of the older, uneducated yet mature group any day! (BTW: this is being posted by an AFRICAN AMERICAN ATTORNEY--so not all who support HRC are uneducated!)

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 8:16 PM | Report abuse

Gerry, what you said that Obama can't relate to the real world is absurd. He is from a teenage single mother. His father is from Kenya. He was raised in Hawaii by his grandparents that didn't have money. He excelled and became something. How dare you hold your head over people you don't even know. Gerry you are obviously confused and dillusional. Obama is as real as they come and that is the problem. The American people are used to fake. Old people don't trust him or uneducated people. Old people are used to one kind of politician and uneducated are used to the uppity elite. Thats it. Thats why he get a leg up with them. But he will. Its ridiculous. I thought I lived in the best country. We have some of the most ignorant oblivious people here. I don't know anymore. I know Obama is a blessing and he opens up our eyes to the great that could be. Obama reinforces the american dream. Whether or not my grandmother wants to admit it or open their eyes to see it, or whether or not the uneducated people on welfare get the picture doesn't matter. Obama is our answer. Hopefully the world shows we aren't totally in charge and watch what happens!!!

Posted by: Lydia | April 24, 2008 8:15 PM | Report abuse

IT'S TIME AMERICA:

It's time for everyone to face the truth. Barack Obama has no real chance of winning the national election in November at this time. His crushing defeat in Pennsylvania makes that fact crystal clear. His best, and only real chance of winning in November is on a ticket with Hillary Clinton as her VP.

Hillary Clinton seemed almost somber at her victory speech. As if part of her was hoping Obama could have defeated her. And proved he had some chance of winning against the republican attack machine, and their unlimited money, and resources. In all honesty. I felt some of that too.

But it is absolutely essential that the democrats take back the Whitehouse in November. America, and the American people are in a very desperate condition now. And the whole World has been doing all that they can to help keep us propped up.

Hillary Clinton say's that the heat, and decisions in the Whitehouse are much tougher than the ones on the campaign trail. But I think Mr. Obama faces a test of whether he has what it takes to be a commander and chief by facing the difficult facts, and the truth before him. And by doing what is best for the American people by dropping out of the race, and offering his whole hearted assistance to Hillary Clinton to help her take back the Whitehouse for the American people, and the World.

Mr. Obama is a great speaker. And I am confident he can explain to the American people the need, and wisdom of such a personal sacrifice for them. It should be clear to everyone by now that Hillary Clinton is fighting her heart out for the American people. She has known for a long time that Mr. Obama can not win this November. You have to remember that the Clinton's have won the Whitehouse twice before. They know what it takes.

If Mr. Obama fails his test of commander and chief we can only hope that Hillary Clinton can continue her heroic fight for the American people. And that she prevails. She will need all the continual support and help we can give her. She may fight like a superhuman. But she is only human.

Sincerely

Jacksmith... Working Class :-)

Posted by: jacksmith | April 24, 2008 8:15 PM | Report abuse

As a 60-year-old white woman in Indiana, I am voting for Obama, and everyone I know in Indiana is also.

Posted by: samessing | April 24, 2008 8:14 PM | Report abuse

LW: McCain's self-manufactured "moderate maverick" reputation doesn't mean he wins in terms of integrity. His willingness to sell out virtually everything he claimed to be bedrock principles in order to secure the nomination proves his "I'm an honest politician, really!" act was nothing but a sham.

Posted by: Cal | April 24, 2008 8:11 PM | Report abuse

It's all moot. Obama it is.

The upcoming Clinton fraud trial:

Quote: "A status conference hearing is scheduled for April 25, 2008, and a trial date is expected to be announced soon.

Discovery in the case is expected to begin in May, 2008 as it proceeds to trial.

The discovery will expose an ongoing cover-up of the campaign finance crimes and the obstructions of justice directed by Hillary Clinton with the help of Bill Clinton and former DNC Chair Ed Rendell. The cover-up rivals Watergate in its corruption of each branch of government and the media."

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 8:08 PM | Report abuse

"Tom C" - I understand your concerns but, remember something...character & integrity are far more important than party. Don't dismiss McCain if Hillary gets the nod. The last thing you want is someone with none of the above. Keep your head out of the sand.

Posted by: LW | April 24, 2008 8:05 PM | Report abuse

I love sports analogies and this is like a boxing match; we're somewhere around round 13 and Obama has a lead on points that can not be overcome all he has to do is jab his way to round 15 and he'll be fine. Hillary on the other hand needs a knockout punch on the form of 20% victories in every remaining state, quite unlikely. The fight will be decided on points, it won't be attractive to the mainstream media, but things not always go the way you want and in this country results is what matters. In a year she'll be at his office in the White House asking him for funds for New York state, Britney will probably do something really stupid and the media will be happy and busy

Posted by: bushed | April 24, 2008 8:04 PM | Report abuse

Tom C: You realize that McCain's foreign policy platform is virtually identical to Bush's, right? He wants to continue the war in Iraq for "as long as it takes" (meaning, forever) and seems inclined to start a war with Iran as well. So no, he really wouldn't be an improvement over Bush.

Posted by: Cal | April 24, 2008 8:04 PM | Report abuse

You know, I'm an Obama supporter, and I have already voted for him (Washington state). If he loses the nomination, I will vote for Clinton; she's not my first choice, but I will vote for her over McCain. However, even if McCain were to win, he'd be an improvement over Bush. A huge, huge, huge, vast improvement -- good old Republican greed and big-business coddling is waaaaaay preferable to starting lots of new wars just to make money, and lying and dismantling our Constitution. So even McCain would be an improvement. Hillary, an even greater improvement, and Obama, the best of all worlds.

Reading many of the comments here makes me despair for the future of the American political system.

Posted by: Tom C | April 24, 2008 8:01 PM | Report abuse

Hey, JakeD...thought you fell off the earth. To answer your question, no I don't think it's impossible for McCain to win Calif., Mass., or New York. I think it's impossible for Hillary. Frankly, I think McCain is more electable against Hillary but it is what is. I grew up being taught to keep my head out of the sand. Too bad more people don't practice that.

Posted by: LW | April 24, 2008 7:56 PM | Report abuse

You can read Obama's books all you want, I am sure his poor white grandmother is cringing in a corner somewhere afraid that the blackman will come talk to her.

BTW - I am a Indie white male, one who is not ashamed of his race, sex or his country's history. I sure as hell will not be voting for either of these two idiots. If that makes me a racist, then kiss off - you do not count anyway.

Posted by: Art | April 24, 2008 7:35 PM

>>>>

You mean the poor white grandmother who welcomed a black man into their family and supported her daughter's marriage to him in 1960 when it was still a *felony* in over half the states in this country? That poor white grandmother?

If, by Indie, you mean independant, then I'm also a Indie white male, one who is not ashamed of his race or sex (I'm less proud of the history of this country than you - see comments about illegal inter-racial marriages above). And if you and I both go to the ballot box (and I will), then I count just as much as you do, Art, whether you're a racist or not.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 7:54 PM | Report abuse

JakeD: Obama DOES still lead in the popular vote. Hillary is pretending to lead it by counting the votes from Michigan's Soviet-style primary in which she was the only candidate. And even running unopposed, she STILL only managed to pick up 56% of the vote.

Posted by: Cal | April 24, 2008 7:50 PM | Report abuse

I guess that if this country could live with a president that did not won the "popular vote" for 8 years then they can stomach Obama and they'll be fine when he is done

Posted by: bushed | April 24, 2008 7:48 PM | Report abuse

It is beyond my comprehension that the majority of the Clinton supporters make specious unsupportable arguments that amount to one of 4 things:

1) They seem to feel that we are re-electing Bill Clinton to the White House. While this may be a news flash to many, Mrs. Clinton did not have a security clearance and was not "co-president". Nostalgia for the 90's is not likely to bring us back 20 years to a time of "peace" and "prosperity" which is how many people perceive the Clinton years. Bill is NOT running for the presidency, and, for the record, the Clinton years were not the halcyon days from Lake Wobegon that many of the Clinton supporters seem to believe that they were. Frankly, there were aspects of the first Clinton presidency that were a national embarrassment to many. As an aside, an unsatisfied yearning for "the Clinton years" seems to be to many, the primary justification for casting their vote for Hillary Clinton.
2) Barack Obama is an "empty suit" that appeals only to people that have "drunk the kool-aid". Frankly, I've looked into both of their positions on the major issues facing us and they are both on the same end of the political spectrum with respect to the issues I care about, although I find some of Hillary Clinton's positions fatally flawed (freezing variable rate mortgages is an economic disaster that will cause mortgage rates for new home owners to rise so this is an ill-advised move and, I'm not clear that her universal health care has a snowball's chance of getting through congress -- note that it failed the last time she tried and is largely unchanged -- while Obama's seems slightly more centrist and puts something in place that can be built on).

The next president (whoever that may be) is going to have one heck of a mess on their hands and, without a large measure of support will accomplish nothing no matter which party they represent and are far more likely to make things worse but that is no reason to stop trying.

3) Hillary has more "experience". At one time I might have bought into this notion but, as we have seen, Hillary's claimed experience, when subjected to any scrutiny, does not hold up in the cold, clear light of day. Frankly I'm ready to take a chance on less experience. Lord knows we've survived almost 8 years of someone who, from my view was a national and international embarrassment due to his incompetence and who won the vote by convincing people in Kansas that they were the next most likely target of a terrorist attack. So, yeah, I'll take a chance with the new guy.

Say what you want about Obama, but my feeling is that he is a genuine, relatively honest human being that is capable of surrounding himself with the necessary people to "get the job done". The clearest indication of this for me is how he has run his campaign against a heavily-financed, nationally-recognized individual. While doing so, his campaign has brought people into the process that many of you dismiss as naive but it is these people to whom many of us will be passing the torch so it is patently unclear to me why their vote should count any less. My generation (and my parent's generation) have brought the country to the brink of some pretty awful places through acts of neglect and thinking that "the government knows better". It is time to stop whining about things and time to start fixing things.

If your heart tells you that you cannot support Obama, please feel free to vote for McCain. Personally, a democratic presidency is likely to cost me money so I'm more than happy to accept the gift you plan to give me by "voting for McCain if Hillary is not nominated." If, in the process, you manage to have your job offshored or one of the "discretionary" social programs that you really value cut to the bone, knock yourself out. That is what a democracy is about. But, for me, if a vote for Obama sheds some light on the process so that all of the congressional cockroaches are forced out of hiding and I can leave the USA a little nicer place to live than it is now while not forcing future generations to pay off the unconscionable debt we are building day by day, I'm all for it.

Feel free to vote your conscience but do me a huge favor. If you have something to say that hasn't been said before, ante up. If all you are going to do (no matter who you support) is be petty and nasty, find someplace else to do it so that those of us trying to have a discussion rather than silly playground name-calling can have the floor and maybe move the country forward while you go back to dipping each other's pigtails in the inkwell.

Posted by: dk | April 24, 2008 7:48 PM | Report abuse

I would flip the question around to ask: why can't Hillary seal the deal and since she is from Pennsylvania with a father and brother who played baseball or football there, why didn't she blow Obama out of the state with at least a 15% win? She, it appears has the problem. I also am insulted that Pennsylvanians question Obama's patriotism when their voting turnout in 2004 was 20%. They couldn't get out of the bowling alleys and the beer halls to go and vote when soldiers were dying in Iraq! What nerve to question his patriotism when Hillary voted to send the troops to Iraq in the first place! What an upside down, inside out world we live in.

Posted by: GracieGirl | April 24, 2008 7:45 PM | Report abuse

.


HILLARY VOTED FOR THE WAR

.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 7:45 PM | Report abuse

Must-win? EVERY state is a must-win now. But not for Obama. For Clinton.

And not only does she have to win every remaining primary, she has to win big. "10 point" wins that are actually 9 points like in Pennsylvania won't be enough either. She'd have to win every remaining contest by 20 points, like she was predicted but failed to accomplish in PA. And that's just to BREAK EVEN with Obama, not to actually SURPASS his lead. But it won't happen. If she couldn't pull 60% of the vote in PA, second only to her adopted home state of New York as a Clinton stronghold, how can Hillary possibly do so in Indiana (a toss-up), let alone North Carolina and Oregon (where it's more likely that OBAMA would win by 20 points than that Hillary would)? Realistically, all Obama has to do from now on to win the nomination is to stay alive.

Posted by: Cal | April 24, 2008 7:44 PM | Report abuse

bushed:

As long as you realize that you can't say "leading the popular vote" anymore, I'm fine with that.

Posted by: JakeD | April 24, 2008 7:40 PM | Report abuse

JAKED
delegates are counted under the rules agreed by everyone, incluiding the Clintons (but obviusly the can't recall agreeing to it), these were put in place and agreed by all involved, changing now will be like telling a pitcher who has just gotten the 27 out of a game and is winnig..."you know what? while you were out there busting your sorry a... we decided to change the rules and this thing now is sgonna last 6 extra innings". That might be ok to some people, I just hope the majority of us are on the side of honesty

Posted by: bushed | April 24, 2008 7:37 PM | Report abuse

notting hill london it seems like you don't know to much about the clintons and maybe that is a good thing there is alot of baggage that goes with the clintons and maybe you can check this out there is along list of baggage you have a nice day in london

Posted by: ken | April 24, 2008 7:35 PM | Report abuse

Anyone who listens to the exit polls is an idiot. I would lie because who I choose to vote or is no one's business.

You democrats are dense, which makes life easier for the Republicans. You attack white males, then beg them to vote for your candidate. You call folks hicks, rednecks, clueless to the elitism that exists in the Democratic party and then act surprised when these hicks and rednecks jam it uo your backsides.

You can read Obama's books all you want, I am sure his poor white grandmother is cringing in a corner somewhere afraid that the blackman will come talk to her.

BTW - I am a Indie white male, one who is not ashamed of his race, sex or his country's history. I sure as hell will not be voting for either of these two idiots. If that makes me a racist, then kiss off - you do not count anyway.

Posted by: Art | April 24, 2008 7:35 PM | Report abuse

It's no surprise Obama didn't win in Pennsylvania. You have State's most racist- Governor Edward Rendell went to national TV a month earlier to announce "Whites" won't vote for Obama.

Posted by: Obama2008 | April 24, 2008 7:34 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: gerry | April 24, 2008 5:38 PM: Hillary and Edwards certainly do not know that people use their credit cards to pay for health care. Obama does. Both Edwards and Clinton want to mandate insurance, with government for non-compliance. In an early debate with them~complaining that his health care plan did not include mandated insurance, he stated a simple truth: people do not buy because they can not afford.

My daughter and friends certainly relate to Obama's just having finished paying off student loans. They been there/done that.

Iraq war vets think's Obama knows their issues real well. He has backed up his talk with action in Congress. They know it and they agree with his stance on war.

There is more...
but, Gerry, my dear, it is you who are out of touch with real people. All you know is what someone tells you. The bio spin? His mother divorced his father; his father went back to Kenya. I have no idea what his Indonesian step-father did, but he did not stay there: he was raised by his grandparents in HI. All verifiable info. Not "spin".

Posted by: alice | April 24, 2008 7:31 PM | Report abuse

I wish all the obama bashers on this post had even one clue as to what they're talking about. They repeat any lie they hear like it was gospel. I guess they're too lazy to try to find out the real facts. Nearly all of "facts" about him on this post are blatant lies.

Posted by: jamerd | April 24, 2008 7:31 PM | Report abuse

Of course older voters can't stand Obama...they've seen many snake oil salesman in their day and have no need to prove to their peers that they are with the latest trend.

Most older voters never had the opportunity to go to college so that the younger Obama swooning crowd laughs and says only
the "uneducated" vote for Hillary Clinton. Most seniors had a better education in 12 years than younger people get with a college degree.

Obama is just like them! He insults people directly and excuses it with "it's the truth" and blames it on "mangling" of words. Blames it on the dumb folks for not getting the deep philosophical underpinning s of his "brilliant" statement. He meant exactly what he said. It is plain.

Bye Bye Barack...go eat your waffle...and take your hateful family and friends with you!!

Posted by: Pennsylvanian | April 24, 2008 7:29 PM | Report abuse

Morons for Obama

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 7:27 PM | Report abuse

This type of behaviour has turned off MILLIONS of CORE democrats, who, like me, will vote McCain or stay home before they will EVER vote for your dear leader. NOT becuase he is a black man, but because he is an empty suit media creation with NO experience with a thug cult following and he keeps very un-patriotic friends!! The more I see what you people write online, the more I know it is the right thing to do, vote McCain or stay home!!

Posted by: | April 24, 2008 7:15 PM

>>>>>>

Rather than read what idiots like Andy post, or what the "media" says (or his friends), why don't you read what Obama himself has written? If "The Audacity of Hope" and "Dreams from my Father" can't convince you that this is the person you want representing you in the White House, nothing will.

Posted by: John from CA | April 24, 2008 7:23 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's butt is getting huge

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080424/ap_on_el_pr/clinton

I guess all of those cheesesteaks were a bad idea. Looks like somebody else needs to get out of the kitchen

Posted by: Ed Lover | April 24, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

Tyrone:

Thanks for your thoughts. Luckily, for us, you are not a U.S. Democrat voter.

Posted by: JakeD | April 24, 2008 7:20 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Billw | April 24, 2008 6:57 "the results would be different today. No question about it, and that's unfortunate for Clinton, if for no reason other than fairness."

Ah, but people did know about Obama and the Clintons' character. That is why the Clintons are working double time to get people to believe is what they are. If it was not a government contest, he has some good defamation, libel and slander lawsuits against them. If Hillary had a lie detector test hooked up to her during debates you would be amazed at how many of them she has passed off to a gullible public as truth.

It pains me when her followers parrot her lines, thinking they are smart, when what they are saying shows they did zero independent research and thinking. The elite in government count on that, so they can keep their power and control in DC.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 7:20 PM | Report abuse

For the record, exit polls show that 6% of African-Americans did vote for Clinton.

Posted by: JakeD | April 24, 2008 7:19 PM | Report abuse

Hello,

This Democratic leadership contest is not just closely observed by the voters and media in the U.S but also millions of us over here, in the U.K.

If I was to brief as I could on this I would state, that I and many people here agree, both black and white opinions, is that if the Democratic Super delegates were to choose Senator Obama, over Senator Clinton, he would lose heavily to Senator Mccain, in the November preseidential elections.

There is a feeling that despite how appealing Sen Obama is to many across the demographic makeup in the U.S, when it finally comes down to marking your X against your chosen candidate, Americans, overall, will choose Mccain. Period.

Senator Obama is how you could say "before his time," and his ambition would serve him more favourably if he spent time as a V.P first. I would say despite any "baggage," that Senator Clinton has, whether it being seen as a good, or negative conotation, if I was a U.S Democrat voter, on this occassion, it would have to be Hillary Clinton that gets the nod.

Just thoughts...

Tyrone,

Notting Hill, London.

Posted by: Tyrone | April 24, 2008 7:19 PM | Report abuse

I am completely appalled at the fact that some on here are insuating that if you vote for Clinton, that you must be white, poor or dumb. Shame on you all for such inconsideration. Talk about playing the race card! I am white indeed, but that has nothing to do with my decision to support Clinton. On that same note, I am not poor and I'm well educated, and yet my vote remains for her. Stop being so critical of those who vote and focus more on the candidates!!

Posted by: clintonsupporter | April 24, 2008 7:16 PM | Report abuse

""The reason many of the white collar voters will not vote for Obama is because they are uneducated racists who think he's a muslim. I know the media would never suggest this nor the Obama campaign but its true.

Posted by: Andy Denver | April 24, 2008 4:56 PM ""

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

So andy, all whites who dont vote for Obama are "uneducated racists"???? Typical rhetoric from Obama supporters!!!

Seriously, You Obama cult people are really scary and should seek help form your local mental health clinic!! Understand this Andy et al; people are sick to death of Obama's free ride up until the recent debate where he FINALLY got treated like everyone else. Then of course the obama minions come out crying "racist, ABC is racist" just because he was asked hard questions ROFLMAO....... This type of behaviour has turned off MILLIONS of CORE democrats, who, like me, will vote McCain or stay home before they will EVER vote for your dear leader. NOT becuase he is a black man, but because he is an empty suit media creation with NO experience with a thug cult following and he keeps very un-patriotic friends!! The more I see what you people write online, the more I know it is the right thing to do, vote McCain or stay home!!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 7:15 PM | Report abuse

blacks vote for a black because they are black,, they don,t care about anything at all

Posted by: butch armel | April 24, 2008 7:14 PM | Report abuse

P.S. to AlphaOverdawg -- here's the quote I think you are referring to (defending John Kerry's vote for the Iraq war, in 2004, before Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate): "But I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports," Obama said, according to the Times. "What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/19/AR2007031902165_pf.html

Posted by: JakeD | April 24, 2008 7:10 PM | Report abuse

Someone said: "Clinton is the most fundamentally flawed of the three"

It doesn't get any worse than having a man who is like an uncle to you, was your spiritual adviser for 20 years, who curses America, is a racist, and awarded
"achievement of the year" award to Louis Farakhan.

Posted by: Billw | April 24, 2008 7:09 PM | Report abuse

Debra said "About 50% of Clinton supporters state they will not vote for Obama or will vote for McCain if Obama gets the nomination. Maybe some don't mean it, but you can bet that 10-25% at least do. That is enough to have Obama lose the election. May be you should consider coming over to Clinton side and voting for her if you want a Democrate because it ain't gonna happen with Obama. "

While I understand the frustration of Clinton supporters over Obama's nomination, the fact is that if McCain is elected, Roe vs. Wade stands a good chance of finally being overturned. Maybe 10-25% of Clinton supporters don't care about that. Maybe some of them are too young to remember a country before Roe vs. Wade., and don't believe their rights could be lost. Maybe some of them are too old and self-centered to care about the rights of the younger ones. I hope not. Obama will be the Democratic nominee, the next President will nominate at least one and maybe as many as three Supreme Court Justices, and John McCain is strongly pro-life and opposed to Roe. vs. Wade.

It's just a court ruling. It can be very easily changed.

Please think carefully about the effects on your own life from "punishing" Obama for his defeat of Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: John from CA | April 24, 2008 7:07 PM | Report abuse

bushed:

(from the states that really count, not the Clinton's math)

At least you realize that you can't say "popular vote" anymore. And, I certainly would hope that he runs as a 3rd party candidate, or at least a significant percentage of the African-American vote write his name in.

Posted by: JakeD | April 24, 2008 7:03 PM | Report abuse

AlphaOverdawg, lemme guess, you heard a quote out of context that doesn't relate to what you're implying and instead of looking it up to hear what the candidate actually did say, you just believed whatever the commentator wanted you to. Suddenly there are no links to it because those bad boys at whatever blog you're quoting had to take it down because of Obama's mind control mechanism! But you remember him saying that and don't need actual evidence of his words because scout's honor, you can be trusted.

Posted by: Miss America | April 24, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

According to CNN, Obama is now 300 delegates from the post. That's also about the number of undecided superdelegates left. Every extra pledged delegate picked up in the next 9 states is one less super delegate that will be needed to be convinced for nomination.
Clinton supporters, it's over. Get used to the idea that the nomination is not going to Clinton. After June 6th, Obama will need a paltry 100 superdelegates or so to get past the post. Of the 300 left, we can assume for argument's sake that they will split evenly by virtue of their status as undecideds. So Obama will easily get the 100 he'll need.
I'm amazed at the 10 million Clinton was able to pick up in donations after PA's primary. Folks don't give money unless they really think it can be put to good use. So these folks really believe that Clinton still stands a chance. That bodes ill for Obama, because somehow he's going to have to console these folks after their loss and convince them to come out and vote Democratic in November.
Stop throwing good money after bad Clinton supporters. Save it for Democratic contributions in the fall. Clinton wastes your money paying off vested interests like Mark Penn anyway. I hear he's got some 9 million from the campaign and is still owed another 2 million. No wonder she's always in debt.

Posted by: NittyGritty08 | April 24, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Power corrupts people, and the Clintons have been very powerful for too long. They are showing the signs of dementia. Bill continues to alter reality as if there is no historical record and now Hillary is doing it too (Bosnia). Hillary is a complete hypocrite. She says "if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen", but who was crying like a little girl when she didn't get her big shiny win in Iowa? There's no crying in politics! Hillary preaches getting away from the politics of fear, then uses the 3 AM bullcrap and pictures of Bin Laden to try and scare up votes. She even recklessly talks about annihilating Iran just to impress a few Jewish voters. The woman will say anything to get back in the whitehouse. Do you really think Hillary can unite congress? She is on a revenge trip. The Clintons (rightfully so) are still pissed off about the impeachment, and because of that they won't be able to form alliances across the aisle, nor will they want to. A lot of people, many of whom aren't US citizens made a lot of money when Bill was president and they would love to make some more. Does anyone honestly think that people would pay Bill $200,000 to give a speech and not expect anything in return? Wake up and smell the waffles people, Obama is the candidate and for all of his weaknesses he is a better choice than McCain.

Posted by: Monkey | April 24, 2008 6:57 PM | Report abuse

Tuesday's primary was the first since Obama's Wright and San Francisco fiascos, where exposure of his close relationship to shady characters and his negative remarks about small town people have shown more about his character. He lost Pennsylvania by almost 10 percent, even though he FAR outspent Clinton on advertising. They both had baggage, but Obama's is now in the open and Clinton now has a more fair shake, except likely for North Carolina. The unfortunate thing for Clinton is that had Obama's character been better known in the earlier primaries, the results would be different today. No question about it, and that's unfortunate for Clinton, if for no reason other than fairness.

Posted by: Billw | April 24, 2008 6:57 PM | Report abuse

To those , like Deborah, who want to intimidate people with the prospect of Clinton supporters voting for McCain if Obama is the nominee, I have only 1 thing to say; If at the end of this race Obama has more delegates, votes(from the states that really count, not the Clinton's math)and states on his column and the "superdelegates" take this away from the peoples' candidate; then,we the people will ask Obama to run as a 3rd party candidate and let's see what can Hillary win!

Posted by: bushed | April 24, 2008 6:55 PM | Report abuse

MissAmerica:

Real sophistry. And you clearly haven't read what Obama said BEFORE he started running for President, after ONLY 3 weeks in the Senate. To wit: If I had had the same intel info as those who voted, I probably would have voted for the authorization as well. Now it's a different story. What a hypocrite!!

Posted by: AlphaOverdawg | April 24, 2008 6:55 PM | Report abuse

LW:

Are you saying that it is IMPOSSIBLE for McCain to win New York, California, or Massachusetts if Obama is on the ticket?

Posted by: JakeD | April 24, 2008 6:52 PM | Report abuse

BILL CLINTON so much used to giving HIS "I" to other M...,
Now He is GIVING HIS ANGER AND WORDS.

HE Blames OBAMA on RACE So ClINTONS GET TO "LOCK"UP OLDER WHITE PEOPLE.

remember, "HE LIED TO JESUS AND YOU AND HILLARY"

"HE LIED TO JESUS AND YOU AND HILLARY"
"HE LIED TO JESUS AND YOU AND HILLARY"
"HE LIED TO JESUS AND YOU AND HILLARY"


"HILLARY SLEEPING WITH LIAR AND WOMAN SUPPORTING HER THINK SHE IS RIGHT AND BILL DID IT RIGHT?"


"HILLARY SLEEPING WITH LIAR AND WOMAN SUPPORTING HER THINK SHE IS RIGHT AND BILL DID IT RIGHT?"

"HILLARY SLEEPING WITH LIAR AND WOMAN SUPPORTING HER THINK SHE IS RIGHT AND BILL DID IT RIGHT?"


"HILLARY SLEEPING WITH LIAR AND WOMAN SUPPORTING HER THINK SHE IS RIGHT AND BILL DID IT RIGHT?"

Posted by: kg | April 24, 2008 6:52 PM | Report abuse

HILLARY is RUNNING ONLY FOR 2012.


She is just making sure Obama/Democrats loose this time 2008.

Posted by: kg | April 24, 2008 6:49 PM | Report abuse

"Clinton would get all the Democrat votes in November, even the moonbeamer fans of "HIS INSPIRATIONNESS", but Obama won't." - AlphaOverdawg.

Thank you for priving my point.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 6:48 PM | Report abuse

Only ONE THING HILLARY and BILL Agree ON:

THEY BOTH LIED TO YOU (BOSNIA, MONICA) and THEY BOTH WANT YOUR MONEY AND VOTE POSSIBLY YOUR LIFE IN IRAQ.

Posted by: kg | April 24, 2008 6:48 PM | Report abuse

Looking at partisan politics from something of a distance, I see three candidates still standing, plus Ron Paul getting ignored by the media despite his serious platform and solid support:

Sen. McCain: Independent thinker, with some good common sense positions. Fatally flawed by his attachment to the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld war.

Sen. Obana: Inspiring leader, thin on experience in the broken ways of Washington (which may be a good thing), and most notably, a good planner and executive. Just look at how well he has run a campaign, with little more than a vision at the outset. He has attracted broad support because his vision is appealing to many. He has stumbled a few times. Humans do that.

Sen. Clinton: Highly skillful at the political techniques of decades past. Will say anything to anyone, without regard for the truth, to achieve her objectives. Has shown poor executive skills in the campaign.

None of the three is perfect. All have flaws. Clinton is the most fundamentally flawed of the three.

Posted by: Indy Pendent | April 24, 2008 6:47 PM | Report abuse

She REALLY needs to drop out. You know she knows she can't win and she's just keeping in the race for reasons unknown to any reasonable person.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 6:47 PM | Report abuse

HILLARY LIED 10 Times to you on BOSNIA
still is BRAVE/FRANK ENOUGH to the very same VOTERS.

IS SHE TRUSTING VOTERS esp. WOMAN AND SENIORS ARE FOOLS OR STUPID?

Posted by: kg | April 24, 2008 6:46 PM | Report abuse

HILLARY SIDED WITH BUSH, RUMSFELD, DICK and VOTED FOR IRAQ WAR killing 5,000 Americans and One million Innocent Iraqis.

Posted by: kg | April 24, 2008 6:45 PM | Report abuse

ephemerella,

Rev. Wright =/= Barack Obama.

How hard is this to understand?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 6:44 PM | Report abuse

Not insane at all, whoever you are. You need to forget your imagination, which you evidently are using big time to the exclusion of reason if you feel Obama can win. Clinton would get all the Democrat votes in November, even the moonbeamer fans of "HIS INSPIRATIONNESS", but Obama won't. I'll leave it to your vaunted imagination to figure out which demographics would never vote for THE OBAMA. Quit wishing and be practical.

Posted by: AlphaOverdawg | April 24, 2008 6:44 PM | Report abuse

Wow...am really amazed at the infantile behavior of so many these bloggers. Look, the reality of the situation, no matter which side of the fence you stand on, is that this election is OVER. Below is a link to a very unbiased analysis of what Hillary faces.

http://www.411mania.com/politics/columns/73871/Obama-vs.-Clinton:-State-By-State-Breakdown-of-Remaining-Democratic-Nomination-Contests.htm

Read it and learn, children.

Posted by: LW | April 24, 2008 6:44 PM | Report abuse

hmmmmmm.......wonder what the Super Delegates would have to say about this article


"Open Letter to the Super Delegates" http://savagepolitics.com/?p=311

Posted by: Sam | April 24, 2008 6:44 PM | Report abuse

Now, there is a new pastor disaster. Round II of the Rev. Wright saga.

Rev. Wright appeared on Bill Moyers' show on PBS, explaining how Obama's Great Race Speech was just to appease white people about Rev. Wright's sound bites, and how Obama really agrees with what Wright says. Wright explained his view that America has blood on its hands (suggesting that America deserved 9/11).

I'm adding quotes as they com in, to my blog on sexyfeministpoliticsblog.blogspot.com

Posted by: ephemerella | April 24, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse

AlphaOverdawg, voted to continue funding the war that Hillary got us into because as he said, that car had already been driven into that ditch. Be opposed the war in speeches he made before the war which is more than Clinton did to oppose the war as a Senator.

Posted by: Miss America | April 24, 2008 6:41 PM | Report abuse

gerry,
The same could be said for Clinton... she cannot relate to the average joe. Also, we had Clinton v1 in there, do we want a Clinton v1.5?

Posted by: Joshua | April 24, 2008 6:39 PM | Report abuse

"We, in the Muslim community, are all voting for the the Muslim man as we know he will ensure our victory for our people in Iraq. Praise Allah!!"
Muhammed Maharesh

Unfortunately, Muhammed, there are WAY TOO MANY ignorant Americans that hate Muslims and think really really VERY STUPID STEREOTYPICAL HATEFUL things about them like they're all terrorists or all from Iraq and that's why we can't even get a Muslim candidate in most elections even though we do enjoy Freedom of Religion and most Muslims aren't hateful, biggoted, CLOSED MINDED, IDIOTS just like all white people aren't racists and can't dance. Just some of them.

So - support whoever you want to but Barack Obama is not a Muslim. And I don't think you are either, but there is absolutely no use in arguing with you.

Posted by: Miss America | April 24, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

Black american should ask themselves before they decide whom to vote especially in North Carolina's upcoming primary.

1. Who among the two (Obama & Clinton) has been fighting/working for them for a long time to advance their interest?

2. The Clintons have been long engaged in helping/working with black americans to advance their interest.

3. I dont see that with Sen. Obama who is raised in Indonesia and practices as Muslim there when he went to a Muslim school called Mahdrasa.In Indonesia there are christian schools there but why did his parents choose to send him to a Mahdrasa school? which is for Muslim?

Posted by: Guy | April 24, 2008 6:35 PM | Report abuse

Re: the comment by zelduh above asking WHY CAN'T HILLARY GET THE ETHNIC MINORITIES TO SUPPORT HER ANYMORE? That reader is obviously referring to the African-American voters who are understandably and proudly supporting the first viable African-American candidate. Hillary has gained large support from other ethnic minorities cuch as the Hispanic-American voters, Asian-American, etc. Were she to be the nominee, the African-American voters would support her in the general election.

Posted by: Michael | April 24, 2008 6:33 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps the young folk are attracted to Sen. Obama's positive messages - but we haven't experienced much. When B. Clinton was president, Bosnia and Kuwait seemed far away and unimportant. Iraq has been our first war - and devastating at that. So, Obama seems fresh and new and better b/c he didn't vote for the authorization to invade. BUT - that seems to be the only "substantive" difference between the 2 campaigns. That isn't a weakness Sen. Clinton has to face against McCain - most of the voters come November shouldn't make their decision based on that. IF that were true, why didn't the Democratic Party win in 2004 when the war fallout was highly prevalent in the media?

And Sparky - believe me, I didn't come from any FL university. I think those pre-law students may have been attracted to Bush Jr.'s beer pong skills.

Posted by: Amber, the college student | April 24, 2008 6:33 PM | Report abuse

A people who would elect George Double-"U" TWICE!!! don't deserve the sanity which is Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: Canadian Bacon | April 24, 2008 6:33 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA VOTED FOR WAR FIRST CHANCE HE HAD!

Posted by: AlphaOverdawg | April 24, 2008 6:32 PM | Report abuse

Obama people are funny.

Posted by: JonD | April 24, 2008 6:32 PM | Report abuse

"Clinton is THE electable candidate." - Alpha Overdog

This is insane. She's the LEAST electable candiate I can imagine. She's so vile that Dems would vote against her just to not have someone named Clinton in office again.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 6:29 PM | Report abuse

However, I don't see Obama as a liar whereas Clinton has lied to the American public during this campaign numerous times. I guess you only see what you want to believe, huh Clyde Nugget.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 6:27 PM | Report abuse

> Is Indiana a must-win state for Barack Obama?

How does NO sound?

Isn't winning the majority of the states and delegates enough?

People don't get it that the opponent in the general election is not another Democrat named Hillary Clinton

Posted by: Nadie | April 24, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse

Don't think Indiana is a must-win for Clinton. Don't think she will consider quitting if she doesn't win Indiana. Don't think Party poohbahs like Carter and Gore will or can convince her to surrender. In this contest, defeat is preferable to surrender. It is too important to the Democrat Party and to America to concede the nomination to a certain loser in November. Clinton is THE electable candidate. Methinks the superdelegates know this to be true. Whether they have the gumption and grit to act on that knowledge is very much in doubt.

Posted by: AlphaOverdawg | April 24, 2008 6:25 PM | Report abuse

"Obama leaves a very bad taste in one's mouth; he's arrogant, lies a lot and just plain is not suitable to be president. His wife, being so not proud of America, should not be first lady." - Clyde Nugget

That's OK, Clyde Nugget. I used to like Hillary alright until I figured out the whole Bush - Clinton - Bush - Clinton monarchy and that frightened me.

Then her dirty campaigning and tactics got under my skin.

Then I realized how many of her supporters think that Billy Boy is actually going to be president when she's elected and that just wouldn't do.

Then, of course, the thought of Billy sexually harassing more interns made me sick.

Then my boss and his wife, neither of which work, they're tort lawyers and enjoy huge tax breaks for suing the pants off of corporations that may or may not deserve it started sending big checks to Clinton and that made me realize that she's not really out to support the working class and strengthen the middle class so much as she just wants to keep people in their place.

And then the lies started up.

So it's ok not to like a candidate for personal reasons, I guess. It's not like there are huge substansive differences between the two candidates on actual policy issues. Just character (which he has a lot of) and experience (which she would like you to think she has a lot of but actually doesn't).

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 6:24 PM | Report abuse

So, "white downscale undereducated" voters who planned to vote for Clinton for the past year, and remain unswayed by Obamania, are racist? Voters who were undecided and kept an open mind about Obama but decided to vote for Clinton are racists? But African-American and "white upscale educated" voters who changed their votes from Clinton to Obama at some point, primarily because Obama is a charismatic African-American, are liberal and open-minded?

Posted by: Who's Racist? | April 24, 2008 6:23 PM | Report abuse

It amazes me that jy2008 can read that newsweek article and come away with such a narrow mis-guided view of what happened in that state senate election. The article tries to drum up controversy, but in the end can't help but show that Obama did what any responsible politician who has committed to a campaign would do. Many of his opponents supporters said that he was gutsy, persistent and in the right to do what he did. That's who I want as my president.

Posted by: Obleyo | April 24, 2008 6:22 PM | Report abuse

One of the comments referred to Catholics as repressed. Now that is hatred. Shame on you for being so intolerant. Perhaps you need to attend church more often so that you can love your fellow Catholics.

Posted by: Clyde Nugget | April 24, 2008 6:21 PM | Report abuse

I am repulsed by some of the comments which I do not believe abide by the Post's guidelines. People who are less educated do not deserve to be distained. The sentiments of some of the comments made here demonstrate the very problem that Mr.Obama has encountered with those voters. Rather than hurling insults at people who differ with one's opinions it would be more appropriate to argue the points of policy about which you disagree.I believe Obama's weakness is that his campaign has been run on stirring emotion and has been very short on substance. Not supporting Obama does not make someone a racist. I am comforable in knowing that I am not one and will not be browbeated by that accusation. I do not agree with his policies.

Posted by: CHK | April 24, 2008 6:20 PM | Report abuse

Why be surprised that Hillary would enter the fall campaign with the highest unfavorable ratings of any nominee in half a century?

Bill Clinton's "Zippergate" showed a great deficit of loyalty and responsibility--really the foundations of civil society.

Hillary's campaign has shown the same yawing deficit of loyalty and responsibility to the Democratic Party.

It's time the Party greybeards stepped up to the plate and ended put an end to the farce the Clintons are trying to foist upon us.

Posted by: martin edwin andersen | April 24, 2008 6:18 PM | Report abuse

If Obama did want to play dirty, all he'd have to do is bring up one topic, three syllables...

WATERGATE.

Posted by: Miss America | April 24, 2008 6:17 PM | Report abuse

Clinton family again?

All those suckers (Clinton, Bush, Mclame) are nothing but filth

Comon, give Obama a chance.

PS
even Russians pulled from Middle East-
they DON'T NEED no white peple over there.

NO MORE WAR

Posted by: russian born now american | April 24, 2008 6:16 PM | Report abuse

My wife and I are white highly educated couple with highly educated friends (one in my household graduated from one of the top universities in the country.) None of us, including our friends, will vote for Obama and I sincerely believe none of us is a racist. If a well-educated, compassionate, middle-of-the road black man or woman with credentials to be President and Commander-in-Chief were to run for this office, we all would most likely vote for him/her. Obama leaves a very bad taste in one's mouth; he's arrogant, lies a lot and just plain is not suitable to be president. His wife, being so not proud of America, should not be first lady. Quit this racist bolony; too many people use this as an excuse for another not voting for Obama. There are too too many reasons to not vote for him for someone to throw in the race factor.

Posted by: Clyde Nugget | April 24, 2008 6:16 PM | Report abuse

Hillary has tried every despicable low level trick in dirty politics and managed to get a rating of untrustworthy by over half the people! The garbage her followers spit out is insane! You cannot change the rules just because they are making you lose. Obama has had to start throwing mud when he definitely has not wanted to. Clearly there is soooo much mud to sling. My biggest concern is the voter fraud Clinton has done. You do not pass out false voter guides and you do not cut and paste only the part you want to smear someone with unless you think anyone that would vote for you is stupid! This makes you untrustworthy and therefore unelectable!

Hillary LIES!!!!!

Posted by: Workman3344 | April 24, 2008 6:14 PM | Report abuse

We, in the Muslim community, are all voting for the the Muslim man as we know he will ensure our victory for our people in Iraq. Praise Allah!!

Posted by: Muhammed Maharesh | April 24, 2008 6:12 PM | Report abuse

Then let us diverse people unite together for our common causes and for the good of this country. Let us encourage our youth for their positive visions, after all they are the future.

A Christian supporter of Obama '08

Posted by: Obama2008 | April 24, 2008 6:12 PM | Report abuse

I attended an Obama rally in Wynnewood PA. A point he made that resonated with me was that money spent on the war could be used instead to improve infrastructure in America. Action by the President could result in jobs for people wanting to work.

Posted by: John | April 24, 2008 6:10 PM | Report abuse

tsk...tsk..

Posted by: david olson | April 24, 2008 6:10 PM | Report abuse

The reason Obama can't close the deal is that he is too much of a gentleman, and refuses to play dirty. The Republicans did a thorough job of attacking the Clintons 10 years ago, but 10 years is a long time, and people forget. That past history has not gone away, though. It would be so easy for Obama to bring back up all the "-gates" of Clinton era! Certainly, if Hillary is the nominee, it will be open season in the general election!

By contrast, Clinton's campaign has done its level best to dig up dirt on Obama. If the best they can do is attack his pastor, and call Obama an 'elitist' (which I believe is true, and which I find reassuring), then he must be as close to sainthood as a politician is likely to get.

And I used to like Hillary, for feminist reasons... She's a woman, alright, but she's no lady.

Posted by: Meg | April 24, 2008 6:10 PM | Report abuse

Nonsense. Indiana is not critical for Obama. Lets not kid our selves here. There is segment of American society that would not under any circumstance vote for a person of color. So to place this undo burden on Obama is foolish. Do we so quickly forget Obama won these working class folks in Wisconsin, Maryland, Maine and Virginia.

Posted by: Tom F. | April 24, 2008 6:08 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton has one argument - America's not ready for a black president. That's what the word "electable" means when it comes out of her mouth. The time has come for Senator Obama to remind the Democratic voters that Senator Clinton has some baggage and "electability" issues of her own. Republicans HATE her with a passion bordering on psychopathy. If she's the nominee, they will line up at the polls in numbers that will make us all miss the "defense of marriage" election of 2004. Plus she voted for the war and she's up against Senator McWar. It's a long list without even getting into what her husband has been, pardon the expression, getting into since MonicaGate.

Posted by: tashekor | April 24, 2008 6:07 PM | Report abuse

"Why doesn't anyone question Hillary's ties to pushing NAFTA through? After Ohio voted, it came out that she was obviously lying to the voters. During the last debate, she admitted to lying about Bosnia. How many more times will she get away with lying to the public?"

I have no idea. Barack Obama can't even pick his nose without it being a national crisis but Clinton can flit around saying the majority of voters support her, when they DO NOT and she knows it, thereby lying to our faces, and nobody thinks anything is wrong with this. She has build her entire campaign on misleading us. Acting like she has more experience or has a better shot of winning the general election when she knows she doesn't.

How can anyone believe a single word she says?

Posted by: Miss America | April 24, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

to Amber the College student.

I remember alot of Bush bumperstickers in the Florida Atlantic Univ student parking lot too in 2004.

If I'm not mistaken they were pre-law.

Posted by: Sparky | April 24, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

Senator Obama NEVER said vote for me because I am Black. On the contrary, Senator Clinton openly solicits female voters to vote for her simply because she is a woman. Don't blame Obama that a majority of Black voters have pulled the lever for him. People vote as they wish. Don't insult Black voters (or female voters who vote for Hillary) by lumping them all together. If Senator Clinton was not a former First Lady with a living former President as husband and chief campaigner for her - she WOULD NOT still be in the race. Be honest. The Clintons could care less about the Democratic party - they're in it for themselves.

Posted by: Robbie | April 24, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

Obama will have to asemble a majority without these old, less educated democratic voters. If he can draw enough well-educated independents and republicans and get high turnouts of the young voters, he will win the general election. The danger for Obama really is to avoid being stuck on the far left when going after these old and low income voters in the primary.
Hilary is correct in the sense that she will have stronger support from the traditional democratic base. However, we will be stuck with the same old politics, and nothing will be accomplished.

Posted by: Why Obama | April 24, 2008 6:04 PM | Report abuse

I'm 71, white, mother, grandmother, great grandmother. I read everything I can on the internet & newspapers (Seattle Times & Seattle PI) so I am as informed as I can be on the candidates & issues.

I am digusted with Hillary Clinton and all the pundits that give air time to a proven liar. In my opinion Her behavior (and Bill's) is ulgy & mean spirited. I do not want her as my President any time of the day or night.

Also In my opinion if she is the democratic candidate McCain will win. I know I'm not going to vote for anyone but Obama. I am an independent but vote mostly democratic.

For the first time I have contributed money to a candidate and joined a causus.
Again I will NEVER, NEVER vote for Hillary!!

Posted by: Gina Porter | April 24, 2008 6:04 PM | Report abuse

"The reason many of the white collar voters will not vote for Obama is because they are uneducated racists who think he's a muslim. I know the media would never suggest this nor the Obama campaign but its true."

Even in my own family it's true. They think he's actually related to Sadam Hussain because of his middle name. However, there is no reasoning with an idiot and as it turns out, I was raised by idiots. :-( Let me tell you, it's a sad sad day when you discover that your own blood, the people you love and have known your entire life, are racist hicks.

Posted by: Miss America | April 24, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

.

HILLARY VOTED FOR THE WAR

.

Posted by: +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ | April 24, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

Contrary to the previous post by Andy, By definition, white collar folks are generally educated. If they are not voting for Obama, its probably because of his extremely liberal voting record.

I predict that the first black or woman president will be a Republican because the Republican party won't make the mistake of nominating their most extreme candidates.

Posted by: chris | April 24, 2008 6:01 PM | Report abuse

If a lot of things had come out before all the caucuses, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. If the young people think change is unilaterally disarming the United States then go ahead and vote for Obama, because that is one of his plans. With all the rogue countries developing nuclear weapons, I think this a brilliant idea. In his book which was written not too long ago, Obama confesses his hate for whites, it is undeniable, no taking out of context. Ayers launced his Senate campaign at his home, this is unacceptable. Young people didn't live through the sixties it wasn't pretty. You cannot sit in a hate filled environment with your children and not expect it to rub off. When Hamas endorses you that should tell people something. Sorry, I'm not a racist I wouldn't vote for anyone with these credentials.

Posted by: Linda T | April 24, 2008 6:01 PM | Report abuse

So Hilary is hanging around because of old, poor and uneducated voters? Well thats exactly the demographic that should be deciding the future president.

Posted by: Josh | April 24, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Andy Denver, an obvious Obama fan, is spreading a lie that says Clinton supporters are racist. Clearly it is Andy Denver who is racist here and trying to sway black voteres to Obama for no other reason than that he is black. I apologise to the Black voters out there for this Obama fan. Don't listen to him. Decide who you think is best and don't let this racist bigot push you into voting for someone based on race. See his comment below. Andy Denver is clearly the racist here!

"The reason many of the white collar voters will not vote for Obama is because they are uneducated racists who think he's a muslim. I know the media would never suggest this nor the Obama campaign but its true."

Posted by: Andy Denver | April 24, 2008 4:56 PM

Posted by: Debra | April 24, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

The question I have is - why can't Hillary win the Black vote. She's miserable at it and it's getting worse. Her husband was a natural. Can a Democrat win back the white house without the solid support of the African American base?

Posted by: Robbie | April 24, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Debra,

Where did you get that information. Can you provide links? I can't find any reference to any of those facts online. Did you make them up?

Posted by: Jon | April 24, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

.

.


--------------- O B A M A
--------------------------------------------------------------------->
--------------------------------------------------------------------->

.

Posted by: MAD AVE AD | April 24, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

I think we underestimate the degree to which rascism is still a dominant factor in the decision process of many people. Look, we've only recently accepted that blacks can be quarterbacks and coaches, much less the Presidant. The dogs are coming out in NC with the attack ad, and I think you'll see this played to the hilt and at least tolerated by the Clintons. At least McCain has the intelligence if not integrity to distance himself from the attacks, but Hillary is showing her colors and pulling out all the stops in her desperation. It makes me very cynical and unlikely to vote, and I'm a left wing liberal.

Posted by: Neil | April 24, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

It seems the media really likes to promote these race and class wars in the structuring of polling and the focus on these demographics. It must be profitable. Hillary Clinton certainly needs the tension to continue because the polarization has energized her campaign, as it usually does for Republicans. None of these candidates knows what it is like to be afraid and confused about the injustices they perceive, but at least Obama sees such fears as a major reason this country's deterioration. It's disheartening to see the resolve to really turn things around this time start to slip as these fears are nurtured by greedy people.

Posted by: Timothy Crocker | April 24, 2008 5:55 PM | Report abuse

So tell me, how does the following from the Baltz post overlay with social science surveys of racism in this country?
__________
[all quoted material]
But Langer's analysis of the exit polls showed that Obama does significantly worse among older voters without a college degree than he does among older voters who have graduated from college.

Combining the exit polls from the primaries, Langer calculated that white senior citizens with college degrees have backed Clinton by 50-42 percent. Among those seniors without college degrees, Clinton has trounced Obama by 69-21 percent.

He found a similar pattern based on income. Obama actually carried seniors with incomes of more than $100,000 (50-45 percent) but, once again, lost overwhelmingly among those with incomes below $50,000 (70-22 percent).

Obama argued that he is making progress with these voters, saying he did better with them in Pennsylvania than in Ohio. To reach that conclusion is to set the bar exceedingly low. He lost whites without college degrees by 44 points in Ohio and by 42 points in Pennsylvania. That is hardly progress.

The numbers are only slightly better when viewed through the prism of income: He lost whites earning less than $50,000 by 41 points in Ohio and by 34 points in Pennsylvania.

Posted by: garyd | April 24, 2008 5:55 PM | Report abuse

I am sick of all the arrogant, whiny so called "millenials" who support Barack.....You're all a bunch of wussy's! Hillary scuffed Barack up pretty badly in the ABC Debate in Philly and all his supporters can do is complain about the moderators? He was ill prepared for the debate and unfortunately for him it was the first debate after 20 that was on network TV thereby reaching millions more viewers...Obama and his campaign are not ready for primetime and if nominated he will turn out to be a disaster for the Dem's come the fall. My prediction he lose's Indiana and then the superdelegates are going to be in real pickle because there will be inordinate pressure to nominate in unelectable candidate in the general election. And that would be just brilliant! Better a compromise candidate with Hillary who has proven that she is a tough fighter than a moral victory for the Moveon.org folks that ends up in a disasterous loss of the presidency.

Posted by: Fred | April 24, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

"If they don't vote for me, it should be because they think Senator Clinton or Senator McCain have better ideas. It shouldn't be because they think that I am less patriotic or because they question what my religious faith is."
Barack Obama

Since when is having better IDEAS the issue? Washington -- AMERICA -- is PACKED with good ideas. You REALLY think Bush wants things to go bad? The issue isn't ideas, but how to get people with VERY DIFFERENT ideas and goals -- some offsetting -- to work together to get things done. Who among the candidates has experience in forging coalitions, in getting people who disagree with him to compromise? It's easy to lead and inspire people who agree with you. The challenge every president faces, what poor Mr. Bush faces, is trying to accomplish something with vocal critics screaming that you an idiot. Obama has never yet had to work together to acheive agreements with people who constantly bring brutal, hateful attacks on his character (other than a few face slaps recently by Hillary.) Obama is merely running a campaign, and he can't even bring Democrats together. McCain, whatever his shortcomings, has a long track record of working with opponants and getting stuff done.

Posted by: Terry Stec | April 24, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

If Hillary wins every single primary by the same margin that she has been winning previous primaries, she still be behind Obama. Why can't this loser just face reality? She is dividing the party. She is painting herself as the peoples person, but she doesn't lead in the popular vote. We don't need a corrupt liar who continues to cater to special interests to run in November. Her husband looks like a fool, making up lies on top of lies. We don't more sex scandals, and corruption inquiries. We need credibility. CLINTON.......ITS TIME FOR YOU DO END YOUR RUN.....DO THE MATH>>>YOU CAN'T WIN, AND NO SUPERDELEGATES ARE NOT GOING TO SUPPORT YOU BECAUSE YOUR WHITE AND AND THEREFORE "ELECTABLE" THIS IS NOT THE 60's THERE IS A NEW GENERATION OF VOTERS THAT YOU ARE OUT OF TOUCH WITH. TAKE YOUR GLOVES OFF, AND SAVE SOME OF THE DIGNITY YOU HAVE LEFT OR WIN BY 30%........hahaha very unlikely

Posted by: Dave Schiff | April 24, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

I'm currently in law school and I'm 24. Although I have found Sen. Obama's speeches inspiring (particularly his 2004 DNC and "race" speeches), I haven't been swayed. Messages of hope may fill your body temporarily, but then reality sinks in and today, we face economically devastating times. Uneducated people, older people are not fools. They don't make decisions from their armchairs, but from experience in the real world. Sen. Clinton offers real solutions, and I think those demographics see that. Every "solution" I have heard from Obama seems to be a copy of Sen. Clinton's or a poor amendment. To any young, college-town student out there: listen to Sen. Clinton talk about fafsa and student loans, about health care, about education, about retirement plans, about social security, about the economy - these are things you will have to face in your near future. No one is a career student.

Posted by: Amber | April 24, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse

It's time that you all stop underrating the supposedly under-educated. There's a horrible implication that in voting for Hillary they don't know better. The supposedly educated -- particularly those in the "soft" subjects like journalism -- are much more sheep-like. Remember how dumb (i.e. silent) they were when we were led into the Iraq war? What has happened to thoughtful articles and commentaries? I feel I'm in a big barber-shop these days.

Posted by: Vic | April 24, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

+

TO THE WASHINGTON POST:

...............IT AIN'T "CRITICAL" !

it's the number of delegates

... and Obama has already won !

+

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

So, basically, the uneducated and the old are voting for Hillary? Hmm. You go, liar girl?

Posted by: Gene | April 24, 2008 5:48 PM | Report abuse

.

HILLARY VOTED FOR THE WAR

.

Posted by: . | April 24, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Kudos to 'Vinarc' and the comments about the pointless speculation of media pundits. This race reminds me of the NFL Draft and the sheer volume of speculative "mock drafts" that are published. We no longer have a news media; we have infotainment "experts" constantly handicapping the political horse race and ensuring that it goes on as long as possible.

The only way out of this mess is for the public to demand strictly publicly-financed elections with a six-week primary and general election, just like the UK. The length of the primaries and the enormous amount of money being raised, spent and generated by this circus subverts the real issues under a glossy veneer of gossip and spectacle. Policy issues that really affect American life are never the focus - religion and flag pins and other idiotic non-issues get the coverage and uninformed people (if they vote at all) throw their vote away on trivia and media-fostered misconceptions.

Posted by: stimpy | April 24, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

There's a BIG difference between "Who will vote for Obama vs. Clinton?" and "Who will vote for Obama (or Clinton) vs. McCain?"

I'm a Dem (and Obama supporter) who thinks this prolonged primary battle is the healthiest thing either party has seen in years, and will be happy to vote for either candidate over John McCain. To hell with early-spring coronations. This is democracy in action -- or at least as much a facsimile of democracy as we can get under the dual thumbs of unreformed campaign financing and least-common-denominator media. Live with it, people.

Posted by: Julie Stahlhut | April 24, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Hahaha, I just love how the media excoriated Sen. Obama over his views about the reason why small-town/less-educated whites won't vote for him, but now they're all tripping over each other to DEMAND that he explain why he didn't win with those very voters.

How ridiculous. As others are pointing out, Clinton needs to explain why she can't "close the deal" with African Americans, educated whites, young people, party activists, ad infinitum - I'm a lifelong Dem but I would sooner vote Green Party than vote for her after this campaign. She's run to the right of Nixon, for God's sake. She is no longer even a Democrat and if she leads the party I will leave the party.

Posted by: Bridget | April 24, 2008 5:43 PM | Report abuse

Obama's message is not just for the young and the educated. People with a lot of experience, people who work every day, regardless of how long they went to school, understand the concept of responsibility.

That's Obama's central message: RESPONSIBILITY.

We are responsible for making our government work the way we know it should work. It should work for us, not just for multi-millionaires. That's the change we believe we can make. We can make our government work for us. It's our responsibility to make our government work for us. No one else is going to do it. No one else CAN do it.

Go ahead and explain to me who is too old or too un-educated to understand that.

Posted by: DoTheMath | April 24, 2008 5:43 PM | Report abuse

Obama is a pipe dream. He's what you imagine you want. If you wake up you wil find rhetoric without substance. Claims of racism - bah, much less so then real misogyny. Wake up America!

Posted by: Brad | April 24, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Obama's smart enough to know that racism plays a huge role -- maybe the only role -- in his trouble gaining white, lower-class, uneducated votes. He's also smart enough to know that if he actually *says* that out loud, the press will eat him alive for ever speaking ill of these noble "REAL Americans." ("Bitter," anyone?) So it's really no mystery why he hasn't "fully faced up to the issue."

Posted by: Angie | April 24, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

gee, you sound like an elitist. all those people voting for obama...and they've all been fooled?

(I think you're the fool)

Posted by: Brian | April 24, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Hillary does better with the repressed (Catholic voters) and the less educated (voters making less than 50K per year) and older voters (thinly veiled racists)

Which just really leads me to believe that Hillary Clinton is part of the dumbing down of America. BUSH II the sequel.

Posted by: Sparky | April 24, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

It isn't just the Republicans that are afraid of Obama. About half of the Democrats are too. That blows your speculation out of the water that regardless if Obama gets the nomination that the Democrats will come together anyway. You better look at those polls again. About 50% of Clinton supporters state they will not vote for Obama or will vote for McCain if Obama gets the nomination. Maybe some don't mean it, but you can bet that 10-25% at least do. That is enough to have Obama lose the election. May be you should consider coming over to Clinton side and voting for her if you want a Democrate because it ain't gonna happen with Obama.

Posted by: Debra | April 24, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

The problem with Senator Obama is that he is unable to relate to the real world -- In spite of his 'storied' bio he was the son of a university professor -- he has no idea what the average working joe goes through and never will -- unless they fit into his welll stage crafted image --
The real tragedy is that if he is elected it his lack of ability to connect with them that ultimately be his undoing --

Posted by: gerry | April 24, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

.

HILLARY VOTED FOR THE WAR

.

Posted by: . | April 24, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

Beyond parts of Indy and Gary, Indiana will be overwhelmingly Clinton.

Check it: http://clintonista.wordpress.com/2008/04/24/indiana-match-up/

Join the revolution!

Posted by: Clintonista | April 24, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse


Who do you predict will win the Indiana Democratic Presidential Primary?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=2220


.

Posted by: Frank, Austin TX | April 24, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse

re: " Obama abused his access to the ballot boxes in Chicago to get elected. He had his opponents disqualified. He ran uncontested"

JUST MORE BULL SH*T !

The Illinois United States Senate election of 2004 was held on November 2, 2004. Democratic candidate Barack Obama defeated Republican candidate Alan Keyes by 70% to 27%. The 43% margin was the largest in Illinois history in a U.S. Senate election.

(Chicago does not have that much influence on the whole state of Illinois...in fact, southern Illinois usually votes heavily Republican)

guy, this is the Washington Post...people who read these columns tend to be more educated. You are out of your element. Perhaps you should post on the National Enquirer?

Posted by: Keith | April 24, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

Given the fact Pa voters clearly overstated the propensity with which the voted for Obama (4% vs. the actual double digit result), I would posit that we cannot trust the voeters' other responses to the exit polsters either.

Morever, since Obama was also over-represented in the more trusted tracking polls conducted 48 hours before the Pa primary, I would argue the Bradley Effect is in full force here, and we cannot trust the tracking poll results in Ind. or NC either.

Posted by: Stephen Gianelli | April 24, 2008 5:33 PM | Report abuse

A democrat has no chance if he cant get the dumb old poor people to vote for him.

Posted by: TW | April 24, 2008 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Hahahahahahahahaahahaahhaahahahha
You have got to believe this.
So much to say. Let us lay it out one by one
http://www.newsweek.com/id/133557/page/4


said Davis, who was friendly with Palmer at the time.
"She went out and recruited Barack."
...................
She filed petitions to get on the ballot for the spring 1996 primary,
but Obama took steps to make sure voters wouldn't get a chance to pick her.
...................


1. Is this so called NEW politics?
No one blames you if just say it is politics.
You call it new politics? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm


2. Good, Bad, and Ugly
Someone tells you where treasure is.
It is fine you just take all and run away.
But instead you kill that poor person.
Wow, speechless
What a character


3. Gentleman
He is really a 'nice gentleman'
fight hard with Woman with SKILLs
You follower should be very proud. LOL


More coming.....

Posted by: jy2008 | April 24, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

I mean seriously, enough with the bias here. I would expect better from any honorable journalist to provide a better, more neutral picture. This is just Hillary-pumping BS journalism. Are you on Hillary's payroll too, Mr. Balz?

Posted by: Bryan | April 24, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

.

HILLARY VOTED FOR THE WAR

.

Posted by: . | April 24, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

...well, if a broken (or bought) media means a broken country; then you have a broken country.

Posted by: Jack | April 24, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

Obama abused his access to the ballot boxes in Chicago to get elected. He had his opponents disqualified. He ran uncontested. He cheated. Plain and simple. He was only in the Senate one year. He over generalizes white people, an obvious hate for white women generated by his white mother who kept abandoning him as a child. He has done a crappy job fixing Chicagos problems. 3 out of 4 kids in Chicago drop out of high school. 30-40 killings in Chicago just last weekend. Is this what we aspire to? How can he help the country come together when he can't even help keep his state from self emploding.

Posted by: Debra | April 24, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

Kudos to your discussion guidelines! It certainly will help eliminate any offensive remarks and angry-sounding comments. They become useless and does nothing positive to anybody. I wish every available blog space would follow suit.

Now to my real comments.

Why is it that the media, pundits and the like, never get tired of the speculation game? What I mean is, the speculation game started as early as after Iowa and before New Hampshire primary. Then, the speculation was if Senator Clinton didn't win, it will be over for her. When she won, the speculators jumped to the very first Super Tuesday, only to change it again, and again and again.

The real question I guess is, what value or benefit does the american people get out of it? Nothing, I would say. Generally speaking, speculation is not a good business to be in, specially in Presidential elections!

The media is supposed to be reporting the news, not make it or even attempt to make the news. What about using the time instead to discuss policy differences between the candidates or some other issue of importance? I've never heard or seen it on tv where Senator Clinton's, McCain's and Obama's economic policy are laid down side by side for the american people to see what the differences are between them. Yet I would venture to say that hours upon hours are wasted discussing speculative theories. For what I would ask?

Please don't forget that the media, along with the justice system are 2 of the more important pillars of society. If any of these 2 breaks down, society breaks down as well. I can safely say: show me a tainted/useless media or a tainted/useless justice system and I'll show you a broken country.

Thanks.


Posted by: Vinarc | April 24, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Obama's most difficult contest is fighting against Hillary.
Once he gets the nomination (which he will) most Democrats will back him, and many Republicans will as well (look at Penn. 15% of Republicans voted for the anti-war candidate: Ron Paul), as well as all the new voters that he will attract.

He can easily beat McCain...and in truth, he's already beaten Clinton. Most of the savaging of Obama is from the conservative wing of the Republican party, people like Rush Limbaugh. They're supporting Hillary for a reason...they're (rightfully) afraid of Obama.

Posted by: Jack | April 24, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

.

HILLARY VOTED FOR THE WAR

.

Posted by: . | April 24, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

It has always been the goal of the Clinton campaign to paint Obama as a "The Black Candidate". Forget that he's a senator. Forget that he's Harvard educated...no, just focus in on his race.

It's sh*tty, and it's worked. The press bought it, the public bought it. The blow-back, was for the Black community to vote for him in higher numbers, but the downside is that now this remarkable Harvard educated young man has been reduced to being merely: "The Black Candidate"
Hillary Rove McClinton ! (what a gal!)

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

HILLARY WAS CAUGHT LYING AND THEN FLIP FLOPPED ON HER SUPPORT OF NAFTA!

DUMB PEOPLE FOR CLINTEN!

Posted by: Dumb | April 24, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Clinton's claim that only she can win the big states is flawed. Do you think that New York, California, Massachusetts, etc. are going to vote for McCain if Obama is on the ticket? Obama can win both blue and red states and he can raise money like no other candidate.

Posted by: . | April 24, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

What bothers me is WHY CAN'T HILLARY SEAL THE DEAL WITH EDUCATED PEOPLE AND YOUNGER PEOPLE??

Also, WHY CAN'T HILLARY GET THE ETHNIC MINORITIES TO SUPPORT HER ANYMORE?

These are the questions that should be asked. She cannot quite get enough to "seal the deal."

Posted by: zelduh | April 24, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Why doesn't anyone question Hillary's ties to pushing NAFTA through? After Ohio voted, it came out that she was obviously lying to the voters. During the last debate, she admitted to lying about Bosnia. How many more times will she get away with lying to the public? If you want to talk about jobs, lets talk about how Hillary flip flopped on NAFTA. If you want to talk about electability, nothing else would motivate Republicans to vote in November than Hillary Clinton on the Democratic side.

Posted by: Nat | April 24, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

.

HILLARY VOTED FOR THE WAR

.

Posted by: . | April 24, 2008 5:03 PM | Report abuse

Well, Hillary certainly does do better with the uneducated classes.
When you look at her demographics, it's the old, and the under-educated that are her strength. Probably that explains the nature of her campaign: going for the lowest, always playing on fear, proud to be a fighter & tough, as if that were something to be proud of.

Posted by: kl | April 24, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

The reason many of the white collar voters will not vote for Obama is because they are uneducated racists who think he's a muslim. I know the media would never suggest this nor the Obama campaign but its true.

Posted by: Andy Denver | April 24, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

.

N E O C O N S

F O R

H I L L A R Y


.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Indiana & North Carolina: Hillary vs Barack -
The Google Effect;

http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=100

Posted by: Dave | April 24, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company