Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Why Endorse? Bayh Asks Hoosier Reps


Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., tours Allison Transmission, Inc., in Indianapolis on April 12, 2008. Left is Jim Wanaselja, VP North America Sales and marketing, third from left is U.S. Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., and right is Karen Caswelch VP of Purchasing. (Associated Press)

By Jonathan Weisman
With his state's critical primary in two short weeks, Democratic Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh -- a strong supporter of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton -- has been leaning on the Hoosier State's freshman House members to stay on the sidelines rather than endorse Sen. Barack Obama.

Obama is hoping to win the outspoken support of Reps. Brad Ellsworth, Baron Hill and Joe Donnolly. He campaigned for them ahead of their 2006 Democratic sweep, and their districts sprawl across the southern half and central heartland of Indiana -- white, working class areas that favor Clinton. Even a good showing in those districts could be enough for Obama to take the state, given his strength in Indianapolis and the largely African American north near Chicago.

In an interview today, Bayh said he has appealed to Ellsworth, Hill and Donnolly to stay out of the race until their voters have spoken. Clinton will take all three of their districts, he said.

"Why should they get crosswise with some of their friends if they really don't need to?" asked Bayh, perhaps the most powerful elected Democrat in the state.

Already, according to three House sources, one member has defied that appeal. Newly elected Rep. Andre Carson of Indianapolis had been in Bayh's sights before he broke for Obama.

The effect of any endorsement -- his included -- "really is pretty marginal," Bayh said.

But with 25 percent of Indiana's Democratic voters in Chicago's media market, Clinton is going to have to run up her margins downstate. She doesn't need any headwind from the region's new House members.

"My advice to you is to follow the voters of your district," Bayh said he has been telling them.

He has not overtly asked them not to endorse, but, he added, his advice "would have that effect."

By Web Politics Editor  |  April 23, 2008; 7:28 PM ET
Categories:  Barack Obama , Hillary Rodham Clinton  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: And Now, Indiana
Next: McCain, in Lower Ninth Ward, Blasts Bush Katrina Response

Comments

fprcbx ulaxts
limewire download

Posted by: Free limewire | May 13, 2008 2:48 AM | Report abuse

qfuybvlsz lrat ljgwoiunp kfez gqkwtfcz xqds twavqe gfuktvwcq uzysxtd

Posted by: awpxieh bipvy | May 7, 2008 2:04 PM | Report abuse

osywih nmiqwur ubit yvfsxtq irzjovf dvfroci znsq

Posted by: buzfp csmtvqgno | May 7, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

I don't generally feel anything until noon; then it's time for my nap.

Posted by: Airline Ticket | May 4, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse

obama is black kkk.

Posted by: bob | May 1, 2008 3:02 AM | Report abuse

Wow, Bayh is quite the hypocrite to endorse Clinton the encourage others NOT to endorse simply because they want to endorse someone he did not. That certainly takes nerve. I can see why he endorsed Clinton...they have a lot in common.

Posted by: XME | April 30, 2008 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Nancy Few: I do not know why people still persist in believing the myth that Obama does not sing the Anthem or say the POA! I guess you are referring to the picture when the National Anthem was playing and he did not have his hand over his heart. Well guess what....you do not have to hold your hand over your heart for the Anthem. I learned (in Oregon)in school that you only put your hand over your heart for the POA.

This is a subject that has been discussed ad nauseum and he has been cleared by Constitutional Scholars. I would think out of all the candidates he would know exactly the proper procedure , seeing as he is the ONLY Constitutional Scholar amoung them. As for your comment that what he has said is not based in history you are wrong. He knows exactly what the job of the CAC is because he has had to teach it at a University level!

I think , and mind you this is only my opinion; that people such as yourself are always looking for a reason or excuse not to vote for him. I also feel that if you are honest with yourself you will never find a good reason to vote for him. And thats ok too! I got nothing but love for ya , especially if you vote!

I would rather have a President who respects the Constitution , instead of voting in a family(Clintons) who have no respect for the truth or morality. Bill Clinton lied to the Congress, Senate, the court, the Nation and his wife and daughter. Hillary is also now in court in California for lying to the FEC. She is in deep doo doo, because unfortunately the guy has video and audio tape evidence . She tried to block his lawsuit and was winning in the lower courts, but unfortunately or fortunately the California Supreme Court said , no, no, no, ! She and Bill have to stand trial! And then her lawyer tried to have it so that she was blocked from having to testify. The judge said and I quote: "Well, any opposition is probably going to be dead on arrival, if that will - if you understand what I'm saying, Mr. Kendall."

Thats where Bill Clinton was last friday, testifying in court! Hillary has also had the judge throw a gag order on the press! The press cannot say a mumbling word about the case!

Now if I was an honest , truth telling person , why would I request a gag order? Obama could have done the same thing with the Rezko case.

So now we come back full circle to your original thought. What good does it do for a President to say the POA and sing the National Anthem , with their hand over their lying heart?

You decide

Peace, Renee

p.s.- Here is a link to the court case I mentioned. It is a direct link to the court : www.lasuperiorcourt.org

Choose Civil - then Case Summary - type in the Case Number BC304174

Posted by: Renee | April 30, 2008 2:52 AM | Report abuse

Obama is naive, but idealistic, and has a good track record sponsoring/supporting thoughtful, beneficial laws that do have good potential. And there is NO big political machine behind him, as there is behind Clinton. I worry about another term (or God Forbid)2 terms with the machine behind Hillary.
The only real problem that I see limiting Obama, is his stance on the National Anthem. His comments were not very well based in history, and he realizes, does he not, that if he becomes President, he WILL be the Commander in Chief of the 5 branches of the military. And if he persists in his stance of disrespect to the Nation's Anthem, how is he going to be as the Commander in Chief?

Posted by: Nancy Few, from AZ | April 30, 2008 1:13 AM | Report abuse

FJRinLA: Thank you so much for the props and for your equally eloquent blog entry. I am so frustrated at times to have to view this all from a distance. Thursday I sent off my absentee ballot to my home state of Oregon (which hillary has NO chance of winning!). It made me feel sooo good to be able to show my support once again for Obama.

The great thing about the state of Oregon voting system is that every registered voter receives their ballots at home. This way older folks such as my "Nana" can vote without having to stand in line and wait. I have called all my family members and told them to get their ballots out NOW! That means that Barack will receive just from my immediate family members over 75 votes alone!

In Oregon we are raised up to be politically active through our school system. I have been blessed to have gone to grade and high school with some of my states mayors, governers, and congressmen/women's children; some of whom are now involved in politics themselves. I worked on their campaigns for my civics classes for extra credit and because it made me feel good that I was making a change in my neighborhood and state.

When I arrived in Switzerland it was amazing to me that most of the people here do not vote unless its about a measure for how they can get rid of foreign workers/nationals. I have experienced racism here that would make most people pack their bags and leave! But I stay and fight. Why? Because my children are half swiss and it is also a part of their legacy. As is the US. When my eldest Son turned 18 , I had him register himself with the selective service. He is not required to do as a dual citizen, but I felt that since he has the PRIVILEDGE to hold a US citizenship and the fact that he was born in Oregon, he has a duty to stand and be ready should his country call him into service. Barack could fight back dirty or run from this fight , but he stands his ground with and takes his morals with him! That is one of the things I absolutely love about him!

But I will use every legal means I have availiable to prevent my child from ever being sent to a immoral, unjustifiable , illegal and fairytale war that is Iraq! We have a right to bring justice for those who died on 9/11 to Afghanistan's doorstep! We are also in a no win situation in Iraq due to bad leadership. We broke it and somehow we have to learn how to fix it enough to get the hell out of dodge! I have a vested interest in this as I have 5 family members currently serving in "Hot Zones" there. By the Grace of God none of them have been seriously injured as of yet. I am tired of living in fear of the next phone call from home, telling me one of them did not make it.

The war in iraq and sen hillary clintons vote for the war ; were two of many catalyst that lead to my strong support of Sen Obama. He is not perfect and he has some issues that he needs to clear up with my Caucasian Brothers and Sisters. Issues that hinder some of them from supporting him.

But, we Barack Obama supporters have our issues as well, which will make it equally difficult for Hill supporters to crossover to our side should Sen Obama win the nomination. This is why myself and many others have appealed to our fellow Obama supporters for restraint on the open boards. If I find some new info on Sen Clinton that I feel is important to the community then I will post it in a community blog. But I confine what I call my "ranting , frustrated PMS" post to my private blog page.

I do personally feel though that there is an organized effort and cooperation between the Republicans and Hillary to destroy Barack not only as a Politician, but as a Man as well. I would rather he lose this election , than lose his dignity and morals. I do not think it is worth it to sacrafice an entire lifes work for 8 years of an ego trip!

Please check out my blog

http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/SwissDemsForBarack

Leave a message and I will get back at cha! We are currently waiting for him to win the nomination before we start our fundraising effort for the group. We are severely limited to how we can donate from Overseas, so we tend to make regular donations from our private blog page.

Looking forward to hearing from and chatting with you !

We just need to keep the faith and know that God see's all the ugliness in Hill and McCains hearts and will deal with it accordingly. All that they do will come out in the light! I do not think that God will let his Christian, Muslim , Jewish, etc children of the United States of America suffer anymore ! We have suffered enough! It is all getting just too much to bear!

Peace,
Renee

Posted by: Renee | April 27, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Headline: Obama says YES to Cheney

Foreword: I wrote the following comments about an hour before I heard Olberman report that Rush Limbaugh was promoting on his website: RIOTS at the Democratic Convention in Denver

We all know the ECONOMY is the #1 ISSUE in this campaign season.

Since ENERGY is an important basis of economics our nation's Energy Policy is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT...as we have all seen with the increasing cost of FUEL and FOOD engendered by the rise in Oil Prices.

The Mainstream Media has failed to address or air the 3 Presidential candidates' ENERGY POLICIES. (Have YOU heard anything about The Cheney Energy Bill?)

It was passed in 2005...while the Republicans still had control of Congress. Obama Voted FOR the Cheney Energy Bill. McCain Voted FOR it.
Clinton Voted AGAINST it.

Most of us, upon hearing of the EXISTENCE of a CHENEY Energy Bill would...assume it to be...NOT in the best interests of our nation or any of us Not Wealthy humans...i.e. some kind of RIPOFF of the American taxpaying public.

It also seems strikingly ODD that Obama, appearing to be a very LIBERAL DEMOCRAT, Voted FOR The Cheney Energy Bill.

Clinton has brought up Obama's YES to Cheney VOTE several times during the televised debates. YET...the News People asking the debate questions never followup by asking Obama: WHY DID YOU VOTE FOR THE CHENEY ENERGY BILL?. They Never followup by asking: What IS the Cheney Energy Bill about?

It is by far One of the most IMPORTANT ISSUES of our time, but the "mainstream media" just doesn't cover it. WHAT is the reason for the mainstream media's SILENCE on an ISSUE so critically important to our future?

I asked myself that question and went looking for the answer. This is what I found:

GE owns NBC & MSNBC. Westinghouse owns CBS. GE is the 2nd largest corporation on the planet: BOTH corporations have, for many generations, pumped vast quantities of PRODUCT...$ADVERTISING Dollars...into all forms of media.

GE and Westinghouse are the Major Players in the nuclear industry. An industry that was set to suffer a Slow DEATH...UNTIL...the Cheney EnergyBill gave it "a new lease on life". NO new nukes have been built in the U.S for the past 30 years because the banks would not loan money to build them - too risky.

The Cheney Energy Bill Solved That Problem For The Nuke Industry by GUARANTEEING TAXPAYER Payback of any of the nuke loans that default.

(Given that the Congressional Budget Office rated the risk of default at 50%, or greater...do you think it was GOOD JUDGMENT for Obama to vote FOR it?)

(Given the already substantial economic damage done by the SubPrime mortgage meltdown -what amount of economic damage are we LIKELY to suffer from SubPrime: Not Credit Worthy -lending- to the nuke industry/compounded by the fact that US TAXPAYERS would PAY the full cost of a SUBPRIME Nuke Lending meltdown?)

The nuke industry's plans to build 29 new nuclear power plants are already far advanced. Licensing hearings for the first few nuke plants have already been scheduled.

Second Level Major Players in the Nuke Industry:

Excelon Corp. of Illinois - one of Obama's largest campaign contributors since his earliest days in politics - biggest nuke operator on the planet; they own the nukes in Illinois; they own Con-Ed of New York.

Entergy - Owns many utilities in several Southern states.

3 Consortiums of other nuke industry players.

MSNBC & NBC have become more FAUX than FOX. All day everyday since last October I have seen on MSNBC & NBC..ALL their "reporters" and "news analysts" -(from Joe Scarborough and Mika Berzinski on "Morning Joe"-to Chris Matthews on "Hardball" in the afternoon-to Keith Olbermann in the evening BLATANTLY promoting Pro-Obama PROPAGANDA/ Slamming & smeaaring the Clintons...everyday all day long.

I'm not the only one who noticed. Millions of people noticed and posted their complaints about it on the internet. Last night Bill O'reilly on Fox news said - "MSNBC has become the Obama Network".
(I call MSNBC/NBC -BOP-N---Barack Obama Propaganda Networks.)

In response to...(unspecified...& unreported complaints) about "media bias" against the Clintons, Howard Fineman, TIME magazine & MSNBC "News analyst"---whined to Chris Matthews on "Hardball" last week: Gov. Rendell said to me -"you're from the Obama Network"-they shouldn't be complaining about US being biased against the Clintons WE're Journalists! WE just report the facts. (Pathetic...Fineman
...trying...to convince himself he's not -exactly what he is- a highly paid Propaganda Pusher.)

Obama's 20 year history in politics arose from Chicago, Cook County, Illinois.

The Rezko trial involves charges of extortion, fraud, money laundering, kickbacks, bribes; CRIMES
& Political CORRUPTION (at every level of government City, County, State, National) involving: allegedly,
Rezko, Mayor Daley, Governor Blagojevich, et al for crimes committed in the U.S.; and involving internationally 3 Arabic men: Rezko, Auichi, Alsammarae -for crimes allegedly committed in massive international frauds.

(Auichi was convicted a few years ago in the French Courts of massive fraud/robbery/looting involving the French ELF petroleum company and the U.N. Oil for Food Program.

Alsammarae was convicted in the Iraqi Courts of looting the Iraq electricity grid while he was the Iraqi Minister of Electricity...under Bush-Cheney's Coalition Provisional Authority. Rezko is accused of being Alsammarae's partner in that looting.

The mainstream media is airing very little coverage of Rezko's -City, County, State, National, and International Fraud/Looting trial.

For example, the Federal Prosecution's main witness testifed last week that Obama and his wife DID Attend a party thrown by Rezko at Rezko's Chicago mansion for his guest of honor AUICHI. Obama has previously stated that he: doesn't remember meeting Auichi. WHY is the mainstream media (TV, in particular) not covering the Rezko trial? WHY have they Still NOT Asked Obama if he DID or DID Not attend that party? WHY have they NOT asked Michelle Obama if she attended that party?

The conclusion I have reached from those and many other FACTS I have gathered from my impartial search is:

GE, et. al; the Corrupt Corporate "establishment"
-is running Obama and McCain for President -because they plan to reap $BILLIONS in RISK-FREE Profits from building 29 new nuclear power plants AND $BILLIONS more in RISK-FREE profits---For The NEXT 30-40 Years---from the HIGHER ELECTRICITY RATES produced by building nuke plants. i.e. The NEXT Big Dick Cheney MONOPOLY POWER
---ENERGY RIPOFF----
just...waiting in the wings...for Obama or McCain to get elected.

Currently, the mainstream media is PUSHING Obama for President and holding a lid on the BAD NEWS about him. If and when it reaches a point where Obama cannot get the nomination the corporate-controlled media will drop him and start pumping out PRO-McCain Propaganda.

GE, Cheney, et al prefer it to be a NO-RISK,
Win-Win (for Them) Presidential election WITH Obama vs. McCain. The Media is NOW pumping out: the contest is Over; Obama's the Winner; the Nomination BETTER NOT get "stolen" from Obama or there'll be HELL to Pay and the Democrat candidate will lose in November.

The Obama campaign was caught red-handed playing the race card to win the South Carolina primary
...in a 4 page internal Obama campaign Memo published online by the Huffington Post...but the Media went right on PUSHING the BIG LIE -they blamed the Clintons. Obama has repeatedly played the race card every time he is in danger of losing.

There are indications online that Obama: used MOBS of poor black people cramming into small govt. offices in Chicago during his "organizing" days to get some of the "changes" he wanted; that Code Pink and a group named ReCreate '68 are threatening to mass mobs of 50,000 in Denver to protest/incite riots at the Democratic Convention IF Obama does not get the nomination. DOES Obama have connections to the groups threatenting HELL to pay at the convention if he doesn't get the nomination...connections that could be covered by...plausible deniability?

Having already...recklessly, despicably, dangerously, played the race card repeatedly & supposing...Obama does have connections with left wing extremist groups...could electing him President get us -WORSE THAN BUSH-...incitement of interracial strife for purposes of Political Control... incitement of left-wing extremists/ riots for purposes of Political CONTROL? ...with the MEDIA aiding, abetting, lying and distorting...Reality...just like they are doing now?

Things that don't add up:

If Clinton is "the establishment" candidate -Why is her campaign constantly running out of money
while Obama has been rolling in CASH thruout the campaign?

The media tries to cover that by saying: well...her wealthy contributors have already given the maximum amount the law allows -they can't contribute anymore funds.

That's ridiculous. The "establishment" has enough cash to hire all the bundlers they need to go out and rustle up more cash from individuals employed at ALL Their Corporations, and from any other source. The media continues to PUSH the BIG LIE that Obama does not accept money from Lobbyists/Corporations -when a very brief search on Google will quickly turn up detailed confirmation of the fact that he accepts money from the same large corporate sources as the other candidates.

If Clinton is the "establishment" candidate...WHY isn't the corporate-controlled media PUSHING HER for President?

If, since January, Obama has been getting 2X-3X-5X more in campaign contributions from: we the little people
...How Come... he's not getting 2X or 5X
MORE VOTES than Clinton in the Primary elections?

Obama's got the money. He's got the MEDIA Propaganda. He's the establishment candidate.

What's wrong with building 29 nuclear power plants?

Hillary Clinton: nuclear can be considered in the future IF they can make it CHEAPER and find a way to safely and permanently dispose of the nuclear waste.

Nuke waste/nuke waste dumps have been a steadily deepening nightmare for the past 50 years. (Google: Hanford WA nuclear waste dump; Rocky Flats CO plutonium, Barnwell South Carolina groundwater nuclear waste dump.

ALL the nuke waste dumps are CLOSED. Nuke waste has been stored ON-SITE at the nuke plants for the past several DECADES; providing several hundred terrorist targets vulnerable to devastating consequences from just ONE RPG.

The nuclear industry is already running a modicum of Pro-Nuke Propaganda Ads. They have bought up a few "environmentalists" & manufactured a lot more -for the LAUNCH of their upcoming NUKE PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN (The Nukes are GREEN & CLEAN Ad Campaign)-that will start-right after the November Prersidential election.

What can YOU do about it? Copy & Paste this message -email it to everyone on your email list. Google: "North Carolina blogs politics" and post this everywhere you can -post it on Newspaper, TV, and radio blogs. Do the SAME for all the upcoming PRIMARY STATES...as far in advance of the Primary Date as you can.

"Getting off coal to go nuclear is like giving up cigarettes to take up smoking crack" (I wish I knew where I read that quote so I could give credit to the author of it.)


Headline: Obama says YES to Cheney
Foreword: I wrote the following comments about an hour before I heard Olberman report that Rush Limbaugh was promoting on his website: RIOTS at the Democratic Convention in Denver
We all know the ECONOMY is the #1 ISSUE in this campaign season.
Since ENERGY is an important basis of economics our nation's Energy Policy is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT...as we have all seen with the increasing cost of FUEL and FOOD engendered by the rise in Oil Prices.
The Mainstream Media has failed to address or air the 3 Presidential candidates' ENERGY POLICIES. (Have YOU heard anything about The Cheney Energy Bill?)
It was passed in 2005...while the Republicans still had control of Congress. Obama Voted FOR the Cheney Energy Bill. McCain Voted FOR it.
Clinton Voted AGAINST it.
Most of us, upon hearing of the EXISTENCE of a CHENEY Energy Bill would...assume it to be...NOT in the best interests of our nation or any of us Not Wealthy humans...i.e. some kind of RIPOFF of the American taxpaying public.

It also seems strikingly ODD that Obama, appearing to be a very LIBERAL DEMOCRAT, Voted FOR The Cheney Energy Bill.
Clinton has brought up Obama's YES to Cheney VOTE several times during the televised debates. YET...the News People asking the debate questions never followup by asking Obama: WHY DID YOU VOTE FOR THE CHENEY ENERGY BILL?. They Never followup by asking: What IS the Cheney Energy Bill about?

It is by far One of the most IMPORTANT ISSUES of our time, but the "mainstream media" just doesn't cover it. WHAT is the reason for the mainstream media's SILENCE on an ISSUE so critically important to our future?

I asked myself that question and went looking for answers. This is what I found:

GE owns NBC & MSNBC. Westinghouse owns CBS. GE is the 2nd largest corporation on the planet: BOTH corporations have, for many generations, pumped vast quantities of PRODUCT...$ADVERTISING Dollars...into all forms of media.

GE and Westinghouse are the Major Players in the nuclear industry. An industry that was set to suffer a Slow DEATH...UNTIL...the Cheney EnergyBill gave it "a new lease on life". NO new nukes have been built in the U.S for the past 30 years because the banks would not loan money to build them - too risky.

The Cheney Energy Bill Solved That Problem For The Nuke Industry by GUARANTEEING TAXPAYER Payback of any of the nuke loans that default.

(Given that the Congressional Budget Office rated the risk of default at 50%, or greater...do you think it was GOOD JUDGMENT for Obama to vote FOR it?)
(Given the already substantial economic damage done by the SubPrime mortgage meltdown -what amount of economic damage are we LIKELY to suffer from SubPrime: Not Credit Worthy -lending- to the nuke industry/compounded by the fact that US TAXPAYERS would PAY the full cost of a SUBPRIME Nuke Lending meltdown?)

The nuke industry's plans to build 29 new nuclear power plants are already far advanced. Licensing hearings for the first few nuke plants have already been scheduled.

Second Level Major Players in the Nuke Industry:
Excelon Corp. of Illinois - one of Obama's largest campaign contributors since his earliest days in politics - biggest nuke operator on the planet; they own the nukes in Illinois; they own Con-Ed of New York.

Entergy - Owns many utilities in several Southern states.

3 Consortiums of other nuke industry players.

MSNBC & NBC have become more FAUX than FOX. All day everyday since last October I have seen on MSNBC & NBC..ALL their "reporters" and "news analysts" -(from Joe Scarborough and Mika Berzinski on "Morning Joe"-to Chris Matthews on "Hardball" in the afternoon-to Keith Olbermann in the evening BLATANTLY promoting Pro-Obama PROPAGANDA/ Slamming & smeaaring the Clintons...everyday all day long.

I'm not the only one who noticed. Millions of people noticed and posted their complaints about it on the internet. Last night Bill O'reilly on Fox news said - "MSNBC has become the Obama Network".
(I call MSNBC/NBC -BOP-N--Barack Obama Propaganda Networks.)

In response to...(unspecified...& unreported complaints) about "media bias" against the Clintons, Howard Fineman, TIME magazine & MSNBC "News analyst"--whined to Chris Matthews on "Hardball" last week: Gov. Rendell said to me -"you're from the Obama Network"-they shouldn't be complaining about US being biased against the Clintons WE're Journalists! WE just report the facts. (Pathetic...Fineman
...trying...to convince himself he's not -exactly what he is- a highly paid Propaganda Pusher.)

Obama's 20 year history in politics arose from Chicago, Cook County, Illinois.

The Rezko trial involves charges of extortion, fraud, money laundering, kickbacks, bribes; CRIMES
& Political CORRUPTION (at every level of government City, County, State, National) involving: allegedly,
Rezko, Mayor Daley, Governor Blagojevich, et al for crimes committed in the U.S.; and involving internationally 3 Arabic men: Rezko, Auichi, Alsammarae -for crimes allegedly committed in massive international frauds.

(Auichi was convicted a few years ago in the French Courts of massive fraud/robbery/looting involving the French ELF petroleum company and the U.N. Oil for Food Program.

Alsammarae was convicted in the Iraqi Courts of looting the Iraq electricity grid while he was the Iraqi Minister of Electricity...under Bush-Cheney's Coalition Provisional Authority. Rezko is accused of being Alsammarae's partner in that looting.

The mainstream media is airing very little coverage of Rezko's -City, County, State, National, and International Fraud/Looting trial.

For example, the Federal Prosecution's main witness testifed last week that Obama and his wife DID Attend a party thrown by Rezko at Rezko's Chicago mansion for his guest of honor AUICHI. Obama has previously stated that he: doesn't remember meeting Auichi. WHY is the mainstream media (TV, in particular) not covering the Rezko trial? WHY have they Still NOT Asked Obama if he DID or DID Not attend that party? WHY have they NOT asked Michelle Obama if she attended that party?

The conclusion I have reached from those and many other FACTS I have gathered from my impartial search is:

GE, et. al; the Corrupt Corporate "establishment"
-is running Obama and McCain for President -because they plan to reap $BILLIONS in RISK-FREE Profits from building 29 new nuclear power plants AND $BILLIONS more in RISK-FREE profits--For The NEXT 30-40 Years--from the HIGHER ELECTRICITY RATES produced by building nuke plants. i.e. The NEXT Big Dick Cheney MONOPOLY POWER
--ENERGY RIPOFF---
just...waiting in the wings...for Obama or McCain to get elected.

Currently, the mainstream media is PUSHING Obama for President and holding a lid on the BAD NEWS about him. If and when it reaches a point where Obama cannot get the nomination the corporate-controlled media will drop him and start pumping out PRO-McCain Propaganda.

GE, Cheney, et al prefer it to be a
NO-RISK,
Win-Win(for Them)Presidential election WITH Obama vs. McCain. The Media is NOW pumping out: the contest is Over; Obama's the Winner; the Nomination BETTER NOT get "stolen" from Obama or there'll be HELL to Pay and the Democrat candidate will lose in November.

The Obama campaign was caught red-handed playing the race card to win the South Carolina primary
...in a 4 page internal Obama campaign Memo published online by the Huffington Post...but the Media went right on PUSHING the BIG LIE -they blamed the Clintons. Obama has repeatedly played the race card every time he is in danger of losing.

There are indications online that Obama: used MOBS of poor black people cramming into small govt. offices in Chicago during his "organizing" days to get some of the "changes" he wanted; that Code Pink and a group named ReCreate '68 are threatening to mass mobs of 50,000 in Denver to protest/incite riots at the Democratic Convention IF Obama does not get the nomination.

DOES Obama have connections to the groups threatenting HELL to pay at the convention if he doesn't get the nomination?...connections that could be covered by...plausible deniability?

Having already...recklessly, despicably, dangerously, played the race card repeatedly & supposing...Obama does have connections with left wing extremist groups...could electing him President get us -WORSE THAN BUSH-...incitement of interracial strife for purposes of Political Control... incitement of left-wing extremists/ riots for purposes of Political CONTROL? ...with the MEDIA aiding, abetting, lying and distorting...Reality...just like they are doing now?

Things that don't add up:
If Clinton is "the establishment" candidate -Why is her campaign constantly running out of money while Obama has been rolling in CASH thruout the campaign?

The media tries to cover that by saying: well...her wealthy contributors have already given the maximum amount the law allows -they can't contribute anymore funds.
That's ridiculous. The "establishment" has enough cash to hire all the bundlers they need to go out and rustle up more cash from individuals employed at ALL Their Corporations, and from any other source.

The media continues to PUSH the BIG LIE that Obama does not accept money from Lobbyists/Corporations -when a very brief search on Google will quickly turn up detailed confirmation of the fact that he accepts money from the same large corporate sources as the other candidates.

If Clinton is the "establishment" candidate...WHY isn't the corporate-controlled media PUSHING HER for President?

Obama's got the money. He's got the MEDIA Propaganda. He's the establishment candidate.

What's wrong with building 29 nuclear power plants?

Hillary Clinton: nuclear can be considered in the future IF they can make it CHEAPER and find a way to safely and permanently dispose of the nuclear waste.

Nuke waste/waste dumps have been a steadily deepening nightmare for the past 50 years. (Google: Hanford WA nuclear waste dump; Rocky Flats CO plutonium, Barnwell South Carolina groundwater nuclear waste dump.

ALL the nuke waste dumps are CLOSED. Nuke waste has been stored ON-SITE at the nuke plants for the past several DECADES; providing several hundred terrorist targets vulnerable to devastating consequences from just ONE RPG.

The nuclear industry is already running a modicum of Pro-Nuke Propaganda Ads. They have bought up a few "environmentalists" & manufactured a lot more -for the LAUNCH of their upcoming NUKE PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN (The Nukes are GREEN & CLEAN Ad Campaign)-that will start-right after the November Prersidential election.

What can YOU do about it? Copy & Paste this message -email it to everyone on your email list. Google: "North Carolina blogs politics" and post this everywhere you can -post it on Newspaper, TV, and radio blogs. Do the SAME for all the upcoming PRIMARY STATES...as far in advance of the Primary Date as you can.

"Getting off coal to go nuclear is like giving up cigarettes to take up smoking crack"

(I wish I knew where I read that quote so I could give credit to the author of it.)

p.s. Obama claims 7 years of experience in the Illinois legislature working across the aisles to bring people together to get good CHANGES passed -as exemplified by 26 good bills with his name on them passed by the legislature.

However, a local Chicago reporter says all 26 of those bills were passed in ONE Year.

http://wweek.com/editorial/3418/10516/
EXCERPTS:

But what's interesting, and almost never discussed, is that he built his entire legislative record in Illinois in a single year.

Kingmaker: Illinois State Senate President Emil Jones Jr. takes credit for smoothing Obama's path to the U.S. Senate.

Republicans controlled the Illinois General Assembly for six years of Obama's seven-year tenure. Each session, Obama backed legislation that went nowhere; bill after bill died in committee. During those six years, Obama, too, would have had difficulty naming any legislative achievements.

Then, in 2002, dissatisfaction with President Bush and Republicans on the national and local levels led to a Democratic sweep of nearly every level of Illinois state government. For the first time in 26 years, Illinois Democrats controlled the governor's office as well as both legislative chambers.

The white, race-baiting, hard-right Republican Illinois Senate Majority Leader James "Pate" Philip was replaced by Emil Jones Jr., a gravel-voiced African-American known for chain-smoking cigarettes on the Senate floor.

Jones had served in the Illinois Legislature for three decades. He represented a district on the Chicago South Side not far from Obama's. He became Obama's kingmaker.

Jones appointed Obama sponsor of virtually every high-profile piece of legislation, angering many rank-and-file state legislators who had more seniority than Obama and had spent years championing the bills.

During his seventh and final year in the state Senate, Obama's stats soared. He sponsored a whopping 26 bills passed into law--including many he now cites in his presidential campaign when attacked as inexperienced.

On the stump, Obama has frequently invoked his experiences as a community organizer on the Chicago South Side in the early 1990s, when he passed on six-figure salary offers at corporate law firms after graduating from Harvard Law School to direct a massive voter-registration drive.

But, as a state senator, Obama evaded leadership on a host of critical community issues, from historic preservation to the rapid demolition of nearby public-housing projects, according to many South Siders.
End of EXCERPTS

my comments:
Working across the aisles bringing people together to get CHANGES made = zilch
Taking credit for other Senator's work; Integrity = ZERO


Posted by: elme | April 27, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

There's obviously many things going on behind the scenes of this primary campaign that no one knows about - things that aren't right or fair.

These men are in leadership positions - they should act like real leaders with courage and conviction.

OBAMA08 in the 8th District of Indiana!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 26, 2008 10:05 PM | Report abuse

I find it interesting that Evan Bayh says these reps should wait to see how their districts vote before deciding who to support. Why isn't he following his own advice and waiting until after Indiana votes before stating whom he supports? Something tells me that if they were planning to announce support for Clinton, he wouldn't be giving them the same advice.

PG

Posted by: PeixeGato | April 26, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

One day, a girl awakened fatherless, her home destroyed -- even its barn that bore a target her grandpa painted to teach her to shoot.

Disguised as a boy, she trekked the Himalayas & Antarctica & the shores of Lake Erie & the deserts of Nevada & California & Washington DC & the cobbled ways of Ulster & Manhattan's canyoned streets. Even did she brave a strafing of a Bosnian airport.

Then in a real folk's tavern, she downed a whiskey & a beer -- and wept: "Where's father? Where's home?" She fainted on the sawdust-covered floor & awoke above the clouds before a great white gate.

Inside stood a gaunt & bearded, loincloth-wearing man. She put her nose between two bars. "Father?" she begged.

"Pinocchio?" the gaunt & bearded, loincloth-wearing man inquired with a whisper.

Posted by: a carpenter's apprentice | April 26, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Here's what somebody has to explain to me:
Hillary really seems to be running 100% for herself. I don't get the feeling that she cares at all for americans. I think she cares about getting BACK into the white house. I have heard she wants to put Bill on the Supreme Court. To me it's all about sustaining the Clintons power, and finances. Her lack of sincerity is obvoius in every speech. People seem to be counting her spouse in all this, as though a team is being elected. It just seems so cut-throat. But never let it be said that the american people, when given a choice, will choose wisely.
If the american people were indiana jones, indy's dad would have died at the end of that movie.

Posted by: What I Don't Get | April 26, 2008 3:18 PM | Report abuse

@jacksmith:

it's way up there, but your "you might be an idiot" post seems to point to bill clinton too much.
I have 2 points to that.
1. you know a pres. can only be in charge for 8 yrs, right. that is the law.
2. do you know anyone's wife that can pick up and run the job of the husband, where, and this is the important part, the two do not work in the same field? as you may not remember, hillary was not a politician when bill was in office.
if a man is a doctor and a wife a lawyer, can one do the others job in a pinch? i think not.

jackass

Posted by: jacksass | April 26, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Every 2.8 seconds a hater is born.

HAAATERRRRSSSS !!!

Posted by: anthony | April 26, 2008 2:10 PM | Report abuse

If they support Obama they should endorse him and not succumb to Bayh's underlying threat. They have the right to endorse because the people need to know who they support. Gee, Sen. Bayh what gives you the right! You endorsed who you wanted to and they should endorse whom they choose. SHAME ON YOU, SEN. BAYH!

Posted by: Margie | April 26, 2008 11:07 AM | Report abuse

Senator Bayh,

Unfortunately, you have been infected by "Billary Disease"....it is FATAL!!!

Shame on you!!

Posted by: DickNH | April 26, 2008 9:22 AM | Report abuse

Bayh and Clinton: integrity-challenged hypocrites.

Posted by: William | April 26, 2008 8:44 AM | Report abuse

"Evan Bayh is a great politician. He'd make a great VP for Hillary!"

We don't need a great politician. Great politicians are what's wrong with America right now. We need someone who will break away from the stupidity that is the American Political system.

Posted by: SickofHillary | April 25, 2008 11:30 PM | Report abuse

GOD BLESS YOU RENEE

For your support of Obama and your eloquence.

The Clinton Insurgency will continue on no matter what happens. They stopped running for President in '08 sometime between Super Tuesday and Mini-Super Tuesday, and morphed into the "Campaign To Defeat Obama" at all costs.

So we loyal DEMS have to recognize that and behave accordingly.

Whereas I had originally preferred that Senator Obama select Sen. Biden as his running mate to help him effectively govern and get his legislation through the Senate a la Kennedy/Johnson, I fear the success of The Clinton Insurgency thus far in coordinating with McCain and the architects/backers of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy to pin down Obama on Race and Elitism may force Sen. Obama to make a more political calculation to help secure this victory.

He may be advised to select Rendell or the Ohio GOV who can guarantee one of those two states....or maybe even a Maverick REP/IND like Mayor Bloomberg or Chuck Hagel who would personify his turning the page on the old style of politics and allow him to re-brand himself, coming out of the convention.

My primary concern however, is that The Clinton Insurgency will not stop trying to defeat Obama after the Convention or even after the Inauguration.

You see, The Clintons want to remain "titular heads" of the DEM Party in absentia, even if it means dooming us, the country, and the entire world to another four years of wandering in the wilderness during a McCain or Cheney-Lite Administration.

So please advise your DEMS ABROAD that we must increase our support of Obama and establish a heightened vigilance of The Clinton Insurgency and their concerted activities to defeat any DEM or Progressive agenda that is not their own.

I have no doubt that The Clinton Insurgency will just move to the Congress after her defeat where she will caucus with Sens McCain, Lieberman, and the rest of the REPS to create a failed Obama Presidency.

Of course, she's still got a great chance to avoid that by bringing to pass her preferred self-fulfilling prophecy of a failed Obama General Election campaign that produces a McCain Administration.

So please be informed and aware, because based upon The Clintons words and deeds that we are all witnessing, there is absolutely no reason for any of us to be caught off guard or not prepared for their continued assault against Obama and any type of "Change You Can Believe In".

No one man could fend it all off alone, so we'll need everyone who is like-minded, angry, bitter, and fed-up with the status quo in Washington and beyond to make their voices heard in this election cycle and with the strengthened DEM majority in Congress to make sure that a Progressive agenda gets FULLY Enacted to restore our way of life at home and abroad.

See My FJRinLA Blog at Obama website for more.

Posted by: FJRinLA | April 25, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Gary in Indiana | April 24, 2008 6:29 PM :

Firstly you did not address the hard cold fact that I offered , which was that the majority of African Americans supported Clinton! Even one of our greatest authors, Toni Morrison gave him the moniker "First Black President". The AA community voted enmasse for him, and helped save his neck and presidency the second time around. Hillary was on track to profit from the AA communities affection for Prez Clinton.

But because we, as our Caucasian brothers and sisters can read and write; and make informed choices , we choose Obama.

Now mind you , there are still AA politicians(Williams, Nutter, Rangel) who still support Sen Clinton. So the blanket judgement that we all flock behind Obama is patently wrong and downright insulting. I myself supported Hillary Clinton. That is until Bill started talking pooh pooh out one side of his mouth, while attending AA church services(and falling asleep during them I might add!) and shuckin' and jivin' trying to brainwash us to support his wife.

He even went so far as to "remind" us of everything he had done for "us"! I thought of him in terms of the President Of the United States of America, for All Americans , not just Afro Americans! My bad I guess. But boy did he sure pull the wool over white folks eyes, I guess!

My Mother voted for Bush the last two elections. Why would she do this? Shouldnt she have voted for Gore or Kerry, seeing as they were Democrats and you know we house negroes always vote fo de Demoecrats! Deys always been guud massas to us! Please!

Bill Clinton overplayed his hand and Hillary is just a hot mess and that is why the majority of us do not support them. And I will not lie and say that it does not instill in us a certain pride when one of "ours" makes it as far as Obama has. We thought Jessy Jacksons run was the glass ceiling for us! We never dreamed that a candidate from our community could make it as far as Obama has.

As to your point I should "inform myself better" about the policies of Obama , well guess what......As an African American woman, who happens to possess Swiss citizenship as well; and who has lived in Switzerland for the past 18 years , I am more than well informed. And the reason for that is that I happen to be the head of the Obama Campaign group formed for the German Region of Switzerland! Oh Snap!

It is my J.O.B. to know his policies inside and out! And being that my Husband is the Chief Resident/Department Head of the largest ER in Switzerland , and who also sits on our NATIONAL Medical Ethics Board, I have gone through both healthcare proposals with him and his fellow board members. And guess what...Obamas wins hands down! It is closer to the UNIVERSAL healthcare coverage that we enjoy here in Switzerland. Our Universal healthcare is also above average compared to that of the EU as well. We have access to top surgeons and do not have to wait even for a day to have procedures/operations carried out. If the doctor has a free space then we can book it. My husband and I choose to also supplement our basic coverage with additional policies so that we are able to have a private room and are attended to by the department head. But make no mistake, even if someone here has only basic coverage and their case is complicated they are also cared for by the department head/chief resident.

The downfall of Hillarys plan is that it is nearly impossible to finance everyone . Someone , somewhere is going to fall through the cracks. And I feel that those whose employers or who are able to pay their healtcare themselves should do it, even the basic. Which I might also add my Husband and myself do. We pay the FULL monthly premiums because we can afford it. Most Swiss do. That means that when those in financial straits need coverage/treatment they are able to receive it with no waiting time/restrictions whatsoever. If one is not able to cover the full monthly costs themselves , then the state steps in and pays the difference. And will pay the entire cost if necessary.

And please tell me what is the difference between the most celebrated speech in American history MLK's "I have a dream" and Obama saying we cannot give up hope?! If you are a Christian then you know what the Bible says about hope "Hope is the substance of things HOPED for , the evidence of things we cannot see" .

And no one said all WASHINGTON politicians are perfect and that they all must go if Obama were to become President. But I tell you one thing, Hillary would be relying on the very WASHINGTON politicians you named , if she wants to get anything done! And they both will have to at some point go to John McCain for advice and support from time to time.

Obamas point is that we have CHANGE THE WAY THINGS HAVE BEEN DONE IN THE PAST IN WASHINGTON. WE HAVE TO MAKE THEM FUNCTION MORE EFFICIENTLY AND ECONOMICALLY, BECAUSE THEY WORK FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE! NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. Hillary even makes this point herself.

So in conclusion I will say once again, I will not have my vote nor views pigeonholed due to my race.

The very first time I cast my vote for President as a Senior in University was for G. Bush 1, even though I was a registered Democrat. Why did I do this? Because I thought that Dukka was a nutcase. I even entertained the thougth of voting for McCain over Hillary and Obama at one point. But to my bitter disappointment, the STRAIGHT TALK EXPRESS fell off the tracks!

I got nothing but love for ya, and it is a good thing to have a well rounded discussion when it comes to why one supports a particular candidate. I myself have said to Obama supporters to please know his policies and Clintons policies before making a decision whom they should support. I find it just as shallow and ignorant to support someone based on Gender, Party Affiliation, as I do to support someone based on race.

May the best Woman/Man win , and may America be blessed by/through their service!

Renee

Posted by: Renee | April 25, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

OMG, I have never seen such a line of garbage in my life. Hillary supporters, "where is Hillary today?" She is in California as a defendent in a lawsuit along with Bill. Who donated to Bill's library. If you think this will not come out if she steals this from Obama you are crazy.

And for all you folks talking about race out there, there are racists people in all races. Anyone who thinks Obama is a racist is #1 out of their mind. By the way Black Americans are not voting for Obama because he happens to be black, they are voting for him because he is the best candidate for the job. Research how the Black population voted when other Black candidates ran for office and you will see that you are so wrong. I feel bad for those Hillary supporters (which I used to be one of for 20 years) who are not really researching the facts, but listening to the lies and hype surrounding her.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

as an Indiana voter, I knew why there was a good reason to dislike Bayh, it just became clearer to me...a democrate all my life and will never vote for hillary again. bayh has done nothing for his people in Indiana

Posted by: maxine | April 25, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Indiana and N.C. give Hillary two to gone on. Home that is.


bleep, bleep
that's all folks.

Posted by: Orlando | April 25, 2008 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Bayh is not the most powerful in Indiana. He is a sleaze and is trying to sway voters to his way of "thinking" b/c he knows she wants him as a vp. I am glad a lot of politicos are not listening to him, and he is truly alienating voters for his next term. I am an Independent, damn right I am bitter-and hmm, I am also the supposed demographic that would vote for Billary2, but I'd move to Canada before doing that.

Posted by: Angelia | April 25, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Obama campaigned for Hill, Donelly and Ellsworth in 2006. Bayh has the balls to tell these three not to endorse a candidate and yet she has endorsed the lier Hillary. You guys be a man and come out and endorse whomever you want to - hopefully Obama.

A vote for Hillary is a vote for the Republicans. Obama will beat McCain in November. Ask yourselves why all these Republicans are pushing for Hillary to win. They have said so themselves that it would be hard for them to beat Obama even with all the negative stuff they are putting out there. They would walk all over Hillary.

The American people need change, new faces and Obama is that.

Billaries - you are the biggest biggets ever who would say and do anything to win in the expense of the DEMS - that is not fighting to me - that is what I would call desperation.

Posted by: ob08 | April 25, 2008 10:32 AM | Report abuse

typical Clinton manipulation.

Stop the DRAMA, vote OBAMA!

Posted by: emmaspeaks | April 25, 2008 8:20 AM | Report abuse

Is this guy an idiot, or just stupid. How can any politician, not already in prison, tell another not to do what he has already done! Endorsing Hillary was Bayh's mistake. NOT endorsing Obama would be every other elected Democratic official or Superdelegate's mistake.

Bayh, Rendell and the other traitors to the Democratic Party who blindly endorsed Hillary will deeply regret what they have done the next time they face the voter's in their respective states. They have shown their colors, now let them realize the consequences.

Posted by: GeorgeW | April 25, 2008 7:37 AM | Report abuse

Is this guy an idiot, or just stupid. How can any politician, not already in prison, tell another not to do what he has already done! Endorsing Hillary was Bayh's mistake. NOT endorsing Obama would be every other elected Democratic official or Superdelegate's mistake.

Bayh, Rendell and the other traitors to the Democratic Party who blindly endorsed Hillary will deeply regret what they have done the next time they face the voter's in their respective states. They have shown their colors, now let them realize the consequences.

Posted by: GeorgeW | April 25, 2008 7:37 AM | Report abuse

Evan Bayh obviously plays politics like Hillary: sleazy and with no moral character. He sounds weak and desperate. Let the poeple decide for themselves. Obama can win among white male voters in swing states like Colorado, Missouri, Wyoming, but Hillary cannot. Hillary cannot regain the trust and vote of black voters either, and no presidentail dem has taken the White House without that support! So I suppose you can say that Hillary has a "black voter and a white male western swing state voter problem." She would lose so fast against McCain. He would cut her down in a second over that Bosnia BS.
Why do people resist good change?
It baffles the mind!
They would rather have a lian' witch in office or a war-monger who will send their sons to war. If given the choice between a good ole boy who got a GED and a visionary, brilliant Harvard grad in constitutional law, it would be a simple choice for me.
WAKE UP!
Vote Obama!
For all you bigots out there, remember, he's half WHITE.
Obama, yes we can!

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

Voting for Obama is voting to stop the party destruction and waste of energy and funds. Based on Party rules, Obama will win based on most popular and most delegates.

Voting for Clinton is voting to change and challenge the rules. It is also a vote for Superdelegates to overturn popular votes and move the goalpost - an elitist image not good for the party.

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

I'm probably one of the few people commenting here actually FROM Indiana. Bayh was an excellent Governor, beloved, almost, but he has been a lackluster Senator. He obviously cannot make it into the White House without the coat tails of someone else, and, him being a sleazebag, it HAS to be Hillary, because Obama has too much integrity. Bayh's career is on the line here, so he, like Hillary, is doing anything, no matter how hypocrytical, how dishonest, and how stupid-sounding (kitchen sink, anyone?). What he doesn't know, because he's a rich white elitist out of touch with the state, is that the Obama Democrats have lost all respect for him, so he'll probably even lose his senate seat over this, ESPECIALLY if Hillary steals the nomination with her back room games.

Posted by: Chuck Lasker | April 24, 2008 10:23 PM | Report abuse

How can Bayh encourage other Indiana superdelegates not to endorse when he has endorsed? Why didn't he stay neutral until after the Indiana primary?

Posted by: Independent Voter | April 24, 2008 9:46 PM | Report abuse

uhm, why did Bayh wait until his state voted to endorse Clinton? Do these people think that we're stupid? I mean seriously, they have to think we are absent minded, crazy, stupid, dumb, forgetful, retarded and just not intelligent at all...I'm tired of all the hypocracy surrounding Hillary Clinton.

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

BAYH SEEKING TO FREEZE INDIANA SUPERDELEGATES

TREATMENT OF BILL RICHARDSON PROVES THE CLINTON'S NOT WORTHY OF THE WAIT

Sounds like Sen. Bayh is engaging in superdelegate voter suppression.

Let's face the flip-side of Hillary's inevitability:

When she announced last year most pro-Clinton SuperDelegates jumped onboard immediately, before any other real choices presented themselves.

BAYH is one who may have likely behaved like other red/purple-state Senators who remained uncommitted and been a natural ally and supporter of his neighboring Sen. Obama.

But he didn't and like many others:

Here is your real buyer's remorse. I could see and feel it with Ed Rendell also who was practically campaigning for OBAMA/RENDELL '08 during the PA primary and probably won the job.

If I'm Obama, I remind Rendell that I'm polling ahead of McCain in PA on my own and that as much as I think we'd make a good team on the campaign trail, the choice only makes political sense for me if you can promise to deliver Ohio and excite the solid Lieberman Jewish vote about our ticket in states like FL, PA, and even NY & CA.

This is where I believe Obama/Rendell '08 looks and feels like it packs the electoral punch, at least, of Kennedy/Johnson. Sen. Obama will need to rely on Speaker Pelosi and the senior Sens. Dodd, his Co-Chair Durbin, and Biden to push his agenda through Congress.

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

Wow! Is her already VP? Because if he isn't he sure did endorse before votes were cast in his state. He sure doesn't think much of his fellow delegates. I guess they are all spineless and brainless. hmmm How pathetic is that? VERY!!!!

Posted by: Divamore2003 | April 24, 2008 8:20 PM | Report abuse

heres why....
posted on the Huffington Post two weeks ago .. why THIS didn't make the news... I'll never know. But it gives a real insight in to the mindset of this diluted witch.

In January 1995, as the Clintons were licking their wounds from the 1994 congressional elections, a debate emerged at a retreat at Camp David. Should the administration make overtures to working class white southerners who had all but forsaken the Democratic Party? The then-first lady took a less than inclusive approach.

"Screw 'em," she told her husband. "You don't owe them a thing, Bill. They're doing nothing for you; you don't have to do anything for them."

Talk about an elitism!!!

Vote for her Hoosiers... and see what you get
(Can some one tell me what a Hoosier is BTW?
Just curious ... Guess I'll look it up on Wikipedia.)

Posted by: Hate that Woman | April 24, 2008 8:02 PM | Report abuse

Gary, try to think just a little bit harder, will you? First, your blanket statement about blacks not knowing anything about Obama except that he is black is the definition of prejudice. The polls you refer to are from one or maybe two states, and they only say that race was a factor in the way people voted. Does that mean that it was the only factor? No. So wake up and quit with the sweeping racial stereotypes. They insult everybody's intelligence, including yours.

Second, on health care: Obama's plan will cover everybody, as long as everybody wants to be covered. That means you, Gary. If you want to be covered, under Obama's plan, you will be. And yes, of course his plan includes a mandate for children (which he proudly points out), otherwise how would they be covered? When they reach the age of 25, they then decide if they want to buy into the plan and continue coverage. It's called common sense. Under Clinton's plan, no such deciding power would be granted to adults.

Third, do you really think that Obama's message is just about going around and saying "I hope, I hope, I hope" all the time? That's just dumb, Gary. Look into it a little, and you'll see that he has very pragmatic, detailed policy plans for his presidency, and his message is that in order for the deadlock on issues like health care to be broken, the way Washington works needs to change. His argument is that cynicism and playing to people's fears and prejudices is crippling our democracy, and we as a people need to unite behind our common goals and values.

Finally, I'm not sure where you got your capital gains figures, but Clinton would most likely raise the tax as well. Here's what Obama said on the matter:

"Here's my belief, that we can't go back to some of the, you know, confiscatory rates that existed in the past that distorted sound economics. And I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28 percent. I would--and my guess would be it would be significantly lower than that."

Posted by: Willis P | April 24, 2008 7:51 PM | Report abuse

Why listen to Bayh? Voters Ask Hoosier Reps

Posted by: RTM | April 24, 2008 7:39 PM | Report abuse

Come on congressmen, stand up and endorse Senator Obama. Did Hillary come to Indiana and campaign for you? NO. Who did? Senator Obama. All state leaders know that if Hillary were the nominee, she would bring every republican out from under the rocks to vote against her and it would hurt everyone on down the ticket. So, what do you do? Endorse Obama.

Posted by: Carolyn Grace | April 24, 2008 7:38 PM | Report abuse

I live in Brad Ellsworth's district, and I will tell you what Bayh knows but will not tell you. Brad Ellsworth was an extremely popular Sheriff in Vanderburgh county and is extremely well liked in this usual republican stronghold. His endorsement would be a huge deal to the people voting in this area, which includes the state's third largest city, and would definitely make an impact on the vote. Obviously that's why Bayh is ACTIVELY and OPENLY seeking to repress the free expression of his fellow statesmen.

To my fellow Hoosiers: I have personally written Senator Bayh several letters informing him that his tactics for the Clintons over the past weeks has strongly convinced me to never vote for him again. I have also written letters to my congressman, Brad Ellsworth, strongly urging him to freely and openly express his views on this matter. I urge each and every one of you to do the same.

Posted by: BitterHoosier | April 24, 2008 7:26 PM | Report abuse

The Daily Show - Jon Stewart on Hillary's assertion that "The Tide Is Turning"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DJjp9Bi3f0

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

Rev Wright just happens to be black, all the anger doesn't matter, from slaver to segragation to abuses because of color, all he has to say is portrayed as coming from an angry black man, i guess black will always be second class citizen, and whatever a black man says, it will be link to Obama if what he says is going against mainstream, the other side disolve itself because we got what is so called Emancipation, nobody is supposed to say what is going wrong, he said what he said i don't agree with it, it is hateful (those snipets are)but his whole life is just compressed into 30s, maybe just because he is black that's why, look at this Iowa, look at this, you saw that it doesn't matter the color but the ideas you bring, they are trying to destroy it. Thanks MSM for that making people more stupid.

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

I now officially can not stand Hillary Clinton nor Evan Bayh. I actually voted for the guy before and now I see he's just the same as all the status quo Washington politicians. I, as one of his voters, sent him an email expressing the divisiveness of Hillary's comments when she was bringing up the "elitist" crap with him in tow. He didn't even have the decency to acknowledge my email with a standard generic reply. That shows me he doesn't care about the voters in Indiana. He's pushing hard and I would say it's because he definately is on the short list for VP. Thats okay because I'll never vote for him or Hillary because I am sick of all the BS.

Posted by: Brenda in Indiana | April 24, 2008 6:47 PM | Report abuse

OOOOOO BBBBB AA M M AA
O O B B A A M M M A A
O O BBBBB A A A M M M M AAAA
O O B B A A M M A A
OOOOOO BBBBBB A A M M A A


SSSSSS U U CCCCCC K K SSSSS
S U U C K K S
SSSSSS U U C K K SSSSS
S U U C K K S
S U U C KK K S
SSSSSS UUUUUU CCCCCC K K SSSSS

Posted by: HUSSIEN FROM ILLIONIS | April 24, 2008 6:44 PM | Report abuse

I so agree with Renee I thought I had misread this article. Is not endorsing what politics is all about. I am an Obama supporter and I have once been in love with the Clinton's, yes the Clinton's because I feel like we are running 3 candidates for the democratic party. Enough of that, but I was hoping that Mr. Bayh could offer an explaination maybe there is some method to his maddness. I campaigned for a former Mayor in Akron, Ohio and I have some working knowledge as to how this all works. One politician offers another politician its constiuents just like Rendell offered Hillary. That is part of the game, and she won. Please someone who may be a little more in tune advise me if I have potentially miss something or did he not intend for this comment to be published? Thanks

Posted by: KLB | April 24, 2008 6:36 PM | Report abuse

Renee, I am sorry that you feel the way you do. Being a white American male here in Indiana, I do feel that it has been more racially one sided. 92% of all blacks have went towards Obama. The majority of blacks do not even realize what Obama is all about except that he is black. Polls so that most blacks are voting for that very reason. I do feel that any man or woman has the right to run for president and I for one do not contend that I would not vote for Obama because he is black. I look first at what I think that the nominee could do for me, my family and my country. I could go around saying "I Hope" "I Hope" "I Hope" until I was blue in the face. It takes more than that. Hope is a good thing but not when it comes to the mortal expense of the U.S. Citizen. Obama has a healthcare plan that does not cover everyone. Hillary does. Obama says that Hillary will have a mandate. Well, heres some news for you.....so does Obama. Obama wants to increase my capitol gains tax from 15% now to 28%. That sucks for people like me. Obama says he wants to do away with the "OLD POLITICS" of Washington but he enlists the support of Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Bill Richardson among others that have been in Washington as long as most others. What a hypocrit Obama is. Maybe you should check the facts out.

Posted by: Gary in Indiana | April 24, 2008 6:29 PM | Report abuse

Bayh, your endorsement may look good to people back home in Indiana but you are killing the rest of us in the party all across the country.

Obama is the better candidate for future party building reasons and for the country.

Hillary is a 50% plus 1 candidate. Her antiquated campaign math depends on it. She takes boat loads of lobbyist money. She voted for the war.

We can do better than this, Bayh.

I am sorry Bayh, but Obama makes a play on having a filibuster proof house and senate with his huge coattails in tough states with senate elections.

Texas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Colorado, Minnesota, Alaska, New Hampshire, Oregon, North Carolina, Virginia, Idaho... These are the tough states with senate elections where Obama does better and helps all the other down ticket candidates more than Hillary.

You are supposed to be a leader for the party and you don't even see this most important fact.

Obama also changes the demographics by bringing out younger voters. A young Democratic Party full of voters that will vote Democratic another 50 years is good for the party.

Obama is getting his supporters from other demographics as well. Obviously the younger voters aren't the ones loading his coffers with campaign donations, and giving him a 2 to 1 majority in fundraising over Hillary.

Obama has a message of being more inspirational and democratic. He inspires people to be the change they wish to see. To be more active in politics.

Hillary has a message that she will fix everything on her own. And that is THE problem in politics today. There is not enough civic involvement in politics. People need to be in their communities being leaders and participating more. She makes fun of Obama for inspiring rhetoric which inspires people to aim towards civic engagement.

Obama is a good example for all of us. He just barely paid of his student loans after being in debt for years. He was raised by a single mother in a lower middle class income home.

Somehow Obama now gets the elitist and rich guy charges from McCain and Clinton even though they are both worth $100 million each. McCain is loaded from his wife's beer money and Hillary is rich from Bill's presidential status.

Obama isn't rich. Isn't elitist. Maybe he is just overeducated. Obama graduated near the top of his class at Harvard Law and taught Constitutional Law at U of Chicago. Someone who respects the Constitution and has taught Constitutional Law might be important after 8 years of President Bush, Addington, Cheney and Yoo breaking it. Keep that in mind.

I am from a poor working class blue collar family. My family is 'bitter' because we aren't making our house payments and can't put gas in our car.

I am bitter because I am $50000 in debt and about to graduate from college, I don't have health insurance and I am low on job prospects.

My grandparents are 'bitter' because their social security checks are worth nothing after inflation and rising energy costs.

Everyone in my family is bitter, poor and voting for one man in November. (except for my uncle who works for Halliburton)

It is still the economy, stupid.

Obama '08

Posted by: Matthew in Idaho | April 24, 2008 6:27 PM | Report abuse

Bayh knows what he is talking about. Hillary is going to win Indiana.


I voted for Baron Hill but if he supports Obama in the primary, my vote will change from Baron Hill as well. Keep this in mind Baron, there are many of us who feel this way, espcially down in south Indiana.

Posted by: Gary in Indiana | April 24, 2008 6:19 PM | Report abuse

Tony: As an African American I have yet to hear that when White Americans vote for Hillary that African Americans feel this is some sort of racial bias.

This is indeed a media created bias.

Was is it not Iowa that first laid down the hammer for Obama? This majority Caucasian state voted in mass for Obama while some 65% of African Americans were supporting Hillary Clinton.

It was not UNTIL White Americans started voting for Obama that African Americans felt the need to take a second look and vote for Sen. Obama.

But then again you have politicians such as Ed Rendell of Penn state who comes right out and says that some White Americans in his state would not vote for Barack Obama under any circumstances due to the color of his skin.

Please get your facts straight!

Posted by: Renee Osterwalder | April 24, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

I am afraid I am one of the 50% who finds Clinton untrustworthy. Too many lies and underhanded deals to get my vote. Has anyone been keeping up with the false ads going out in Indiana and also the bogus polling calls?

Posted by: Workman3344 | April 24, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

I agree with with what this post says,
Senator Bayh is a hipocrite if he doesn't step aside and retract his endorsement to.

What a JOKE he IS


Interesting. So why didn't Senator Bayh wait until HIS state have voted before he endorsed anyone? Something about geese and ganders come to mind, Evan? Methinks thou dost protest too much. If you're serious, retract your endorsement, get off the campaign trail, and sit on the sidelines. Else, quit being a hypocrite!

Posted by: 33rdSt | April 23, 2008 7:51 PM

Posted by: rickster | April 24, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse


Why shouldn't they endorse?

He did.

Posted by: Deborah Cunningham | April 24, 2008 5:48 PM | Report abuse

This is absurd on so many levels, the most obvious being that here's a superdelegate that has already endorsed telling other superdelegates that endorsing is a bad idea. And then, if the impact of endorsements are so marginal, than why is going out of his way to convince them not to do it? And how does his head not explode from cognitive dissonance when he says that congressional superdelegates should "follow the voters of [their] district" when Clinton's campaign is arguing the exact opposite everywhere else? If all of the elected superdelegates were to follow their district's or state's voters, Obama would be the nominee, silly! You don't want that, do you?

Posted by: Willis P | April 24, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Dear Tony,
I live in Philly. According to exit polls, 250,000 white voters stated that race was an important factor in their choosing Clinton. Of those, 60,000 said it was the main factor.

If you want to make a correct comparison, then you should compare women voting for Clinton with African Americans voting for Obama, not White v. Black. Maybe you are one of the 60,000 who could never wrap your head around voting for a Black man? Wake up, and see the movement in this Country. I am Barack Obama!

Posted by: Jack | April 24, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Bayh is as honest as Hillary, which is to say, not at all. This is a really sleazy move on his part. Bayh is a DINO who has betrayed the Democratic Party and its voters on almost every issue that is important to us.

This Hoosier is voting for Obama.

Posted by: Bubba Heinze | April 24, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, Senator Bayh. Your advice rings hollow and hypocritical. I live in Indiana, and loathe having to vote for DLC Democrats such as Bayh or Baron Hill. Progressive Democrats are on the rise here, and could use your support.

Check out Gretchen Clearwater (IN-09) http://www.clearwaterforcongress.com/ and Barry Welsh (IN-06) http://www.barrywelsh.org/ as two fine examples of what the Democratic Party can be with your support.

Posted by: Frank | April 24, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

First off, I would like to know if this is a blog for Adults or mentally challenged young people? Whats up with all the Hillary war, Obama Wright crap?

One would think that you could come onto the blog of such a highly regarded newspaper as the Washington Post and folks would know how to behave themselves!

Anyway I have a question if anyone would like to answer it "in an ADULT" fashion.

Why is it that Bayh wants the delegates in his state to wait and not endorse Obama, when he could have just as easily spoken out to his counterparts in Penn state and ask them to wait and not endorse Hillary until the race was over! ? Is she a lady now to whom we should show deference?

Now granted I am an Obama supporter( Ex Hill supporter) , but I just think that it is really a bit much to ask others to wait in endorsing Sen. Obama , while it was ok with Bayh to endorse her himself BEFORE THE PRIMARY; and he had no problems when his bud Ed Rendell and the entire Democratic Comm. of Penn state came out early and strong for the Hill.

Am I the only one who see's a double standard here?

Thank you in advance for your replies!

Renee

Posted by: Renee Osterwalder | April 24, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

An impartial, objective, and probably totally accurate view, from the London Times :

Yes it's politically incorrect but race matters
The Democrats must admit it: Obama would lose to McCain
Anatole Kaletsky

American Presidential elections have been compared with reality TV series or game shows, in which a gaggle of jumped-up nonentities aspiring to be celebrities are ritually humiliated in public and offered entertaining opportunities to self-destruct, until only one survivor remains. But this time round, a much more elevated analogy is sadly apposite.

The 2008 US election has all the makings of a Greek tragedy, in which noble heroes and heroines are forced to follow a course to catastrophe, divinely preordained as punishment for sins and blunders committed by their forefathers in the dim and distant past. In acting out their ineluctable doom, the eloquent protagonists do not just destroy themselves but also their cities, their nations and even their entire civilisations.

If this description sounds too grandiose, consider yesterday's results from the Pennsylvania primary. The outcome seemed to be precisely calibrated by the gods to maximise the agony of the Democrats. It gave Hillary Clinton just the support she needed to stay firmly in contention, but not quite enough to turn the tide in her favour.

Worse still, this result underlined the fear that senior Democrats have long been aware of, but have never dared to express in public: America may not yet be ready to elect a black President. Worst of all, it has created conditions for the possible election victory of a militarily belligerent and economically unqualified Republican candidate who supports many of President Bush's worst policies. Given the Bush Administration's domestic and foreign failures, the disasters in Iraq and Afghanistan and, most recently, the slump in the economy, the possibility of a Republican victory in November would seem to overturn every principle of proper democracy - and also the hope of America and its system of government being rehabilitated in the eyes of the world after the Bush years. The fact that Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton are both such impressive candidates, intelligent, sincere, articulate and in command of the issues, while John McCain does not qualify on any of these criteria only makes matters worse.

That Mrs Clinton will now carry on with her campaign is not just probable but essential. For the voting in Pennsylvania confirms that she has a much better chance than Mr Obama of winning the White House for the Democrats. According to the Associated Press exit polls published yesterday, 16 per cent of white Democratic voters considered race an important factor in the Presidential election and 43 per cent of these said they would either vote Republican or not vote at all, if Mr Obama were the Democratic nominee.

Given that Mrs Clinton's clear victory over Mr Obama in Pennsylvania followed similar results in other "must-win" states with large working-class constituencies, such as Ohio, Florida, New Jersey, Michigan and even New York and California, the conclusion would be fairly obvious, were it not for the political correctness that makes it almost impossible for American politicians or commentators to express such a view: Mr Obama may by unable to carry large industrial states with socially conservative white working-class populations simply because of his race. This is especially true now that the televised rantings of Rev Jeremiah Wright and Mr Obama's own gaffe about the "bitter" white working-class culture of "guns and God", have reminded Americans that race is not just a matter of skin colour. Rev Wright embarrassingly revealed in his "God damn America" and "Chickens come home to roost" sermons that his African-American vision of America is be profoundly at odds with the white majority view.

The latest polls in the two most important swing states show Mr McCain easily beating Mr Obama in both Florida and Ohio, while Mrs Clinton comfortably beats the Republican in Ohio and is neck and neck in Florida.

Mr Obama has, of course, apologised for his condescension towards working-class church-goers and hunters - probably the most important group of floating voters in the electorally critical mid-Western states. He has tried even harder to dissociate himself from Rev Wright's anti-American tirades, which really have to be seen (on YouTube) to be believed. And Mr Obama's supporters have chastised Mrs Clinton for turning to "negative campaigning" and "scorched-earth" strategies in her desperation to stay in contention.

The trouble is that Mr Obama's efforts to suppress the race issue are doomed to failure. For the influence of Rev Wright on him is a matter of public record. Indeed, the phrase "Audacity of Hope", which is the title of Mr Obama's political autobiography as well as his presidential leitmotif, is attributed in that book to a sermon by "my pastor, Rev Jeremiah Wright". The Republican political machine, which demonstrated its mastery of the arts of character assassination in the two Bush presidential contests, will have no compunction in exploiting the Wright relationship and portraying Mr Obama as an anti-American in the general election, even if the Clinton campaign and the media observe a self-denying ordinance on the race and patriotism issues, as they broadly have so far.

The certainty of a no-holds-barred attacks by the Republicans brings us to the potentially most tragic aspect of this election. If ever there was an election the Democrats ought to win this is the one. Yet on the basis of the primary results so far, they are all too likely to lose it. Mr Obama may be marginally ahead of Mrs Clinton in the popular vote but the Democrats seem to have forgotten that all the votes cast so far have been by their own supporters. In the general election their candidate will have to win over Republicans and right-leaning floating voters. Most of the evidence so far suggests that the Repulicans will find it much easier to frighten voters about the prospect of a President Obama than a President Clinton.

Professional Democratic politicians now have the casting vote in their party's nomination and could yet force the two candidates into a "dream ticket" led by Mrs Clinton with Mr Obama as Vice President which would sweep all before it and would probably make Mr Obama unbeatable as a presidential candidate in 2012 or 2016. Yet the Democratic superdelegates who could now secure years of hegemony for their party seem to consider it "unfair" to use their professional judgment to overturn the "democratic" verdict of primary voters.

The Republicans will have no such compunctions about the fairness of launching personal attacks against a potentially vulnerable Democratic candidate. In this respect this Presidential contest may again manifest the tragedy of left-wing politics through the ages. Parties which care more about fairness than about power, end up achieving neither.

Posted by: Patrick Richardson | April 24, 2008 5:27 PM | Report abuse

I am a 61 yr. old woman, Hillary's "demographic", but she will never get my vote. The above article is just one of many reasons. It is the height of hypocrisy to tell others not to endorse before the primary when you have done that yourself. I pray that these three officials will follow their consciences and endorse whomever and whenever they choose.

Posted by: Carrie | April 24, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Rhetorical question: Why can't Hillary win college educated voters?

Posted by: James | April 24, 2008 5:16 PM | Report abuse

Every time I see Evan Byah on tv, my first thought is that he is insincere. It is kind of hard to respect and listen to a person who you know is being deceptive in their conversation with you. That is the way he impresses me. And believe me, there is something in this for Byah and Ed Rendell.

Posted by: Celina | April 24, 2008 5:16 PM | Report abuse


"WashingtonPost...L...I...C...K...S........Hillary's...B...A...L...L...S"--Hey, does somebody know something about Billary I haven't already heard?

Posted by: Gugenheim | April 24, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Gotta love that supression of free speech. I'd be proud to have supporters that use such strong-arm methods.

Posted by: Progressive Patriot | April 24, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Evan Bayh apparently believes that a mid-1980s DLC campaign can win a presidential election. The electorate and objective social conditions have changed substantially in 20 plus years.

Clinton's DLC inspired campaign has even failed to win the primary election, despite her huge advantage going into the campaign.

Posted by: Chris Brown | April 24, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Amazing... once again the rules for Clinton are different than for Obama. Bayh can endorse, but those favoring Obama can't? Give us all a break... Stop making fools of yourselves backing the Bosnian War hero, Ms. Clinton. D.

Posted by: David G. | April 24, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

It's amazing how it's considered pride when African Americans
vote 90 percent for Obama, but White Americans voting for
Clinton is considered racism. I have nothing against African Americans, but they could stand to be more objective in this campaign. One last thing, I also find it interesting that they keep saying the better educated are voting for Obama. Is it perhaps that they have better jobs and just don't realize how bad things really are for blue collar workers? One thing we have learned from this election is that there are far to many self-indulged folks in America. Personally. I find Clinton's solutions for America to contain far more substance then Obamas and I
could careless about color or gender.

Posted by: Tony | April 24, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

I am totally disgusted. What gives Sen. Bayh the right to try to control their votes, just because they are not for Hillary. He has already endorsed and so what makes him better than the House members. Sen. Bayh is playing politics and there is great question as to his motive. No, there's no question. I respected him before, but now he has proven that he is nothing but slime. Hillary had an army of support in PA. but now she is worried because some people want to endorse Obama in Indiana. The DNC needs to sstep in right now and check Sen. Bayh and deter him from trying to threaaten superdelegates. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

Posted by: Margie Harris | April 24, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Don't listen to Evan Bayh Superdelegates, endorse Barack Obama now!! Thank you.

Posted by: RuthieM | April 24, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Why are people even talking about Hillary?
She was gone way back on super Tuesday.
Don't anybody know their math.

Posted by: frank | April 24, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

So, let me understand....

sen Bayth endorsed Hillary, and he wants the other superdelegates to be quiet so Hillary has a greater chance of winning???

Dindn't she have enough help in Pennsylvania???

The Clinton people really thinks she is superior. i guess she is, she is white!!!

I'm a white female, 43 year old

Posted by: eli | April 24, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Why should they hold back on their endorsement? You didn't!

Posted by: Cassandra; Mad in Michigan | April 24, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Why should they hold back on their endorsement? You didn't!

Posted by: Cassandra in Michigan | April 24, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Obama Aides Deny They Will Use
White House Controversies Against Clinton
Barack Obama's campaign pushed back hard against suggestions from a Democratic strategist, made in today's Washington Post, that the Illinois senator's campaign may dredge up controversies from the Clinton White House years in the run-up to the May 6 Indiana and North Carolina primaries. --

THIS IS PATHETIC!! HILLARY CAMPAIGN STAFF ARE AFRAID OBAMA WILL TELL ON THEM ABOUT HILLAY'S PAST LIE AND FBI INVESTIGATIONS!!


OH NO!! TELLING TRUTH WILL GET YOU IN TROUBLE AND ELECTED...

WASHINGTON AND THE WHITE HOUSE ARE SCRAMBLING FOR SUPERDELEGATES FOR OBAMA, JUST TO SHUT HIM UP...


THIS IS GETTING GOOD, WHERE'S MY T.O POPCORN!!

Posted by: ROFLMAO!! | April 24, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

It seems to me that Mr. Bayh wasn't against Mayor Nutter of my Philadelphia endorsing Hillary Clinton, even though, as demonstrated, Obama had over 30% higher support in our City... Why doesn't he just stop opposing the will of the people? The people of this Country have spoken, and Hillary Clinton can't catch up because in PA she didn't win by enough. Game over, go home, and let people support whomever they want.

Posted by: Jack | April 24, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons will try anything to win (hook or crook). Did Billary show the votes in FLA/Michgan should count before she was losing. (NOPE) I know that if the Clintons steal this election (any backdoor trickery) that they will the African-American vote. Hillary keeps saying that a Obama can't win the election without Blue-collared, white men and the elderly. He has won more support from those groups than she has from the African-americans. Check the numbers.

Ask yourself if you had a near death experience(car accident, heart attack, or BEING SHOT AT WITH YOUR CHILD) would you misspeak(LIE) or tell the truth?

Now is Obama perfect(HECK NO) Pastor Wright(listen to the entire speech), Bitter(I understand what he was saying but it is how you say things) , and the last debate. But ask yourself when was the last time that we had so many people of different races and background.(Tiger). Something that the country needs.

Do we want the same old experience running this country or is it time for something diffent.(CAN'T KEEP DOING THE SAME THINGS EXPECTING DIFFERENT RESULTS)What so much more experience does she that Obama does not? He has been a elected official longer than she has. Ask your self can your wife do your job just because you are married and you dicuss what happened on your job today.


Posted by: Derrick | April 24, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Of course he would say that...he's vying for VP and he can't win Indiana of others endorse Senator Obama... so everyone please step aside... they are holding royal court and don't want anyone getting in their way...sheeesh!!!!!

It's time for the superdelegates to endorse and move this race forward.
Senator Obama will be our nominee and we can move on to defeating John McCain.

I have moved beyond losing all respect for Senator Clinton to being completely disgusted wih the Clintons and their campaign....

I am so grateful that Senator Obama is a man of integrity and character even if it makes it harder for him to win more quickly and more decisively... I respect him.

Obama '08

Posted by: LB | April 24, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Of course he would say that...he's vying for VP and he can't win Indiana of others endorse Senator Obama... so everyone please step aside... they are holding royal court and don't want anyone getting in their way...sheeesh!!!!!

It's time for the superdelegates to endorse and move this race forward.
Senator Obama will be our nominee and we can move on to defeating John McCain.

I have moved beyond losing all respect for Senator Clinton to being completely disgusted wih the Clintons and their campaign....

I am so grateful that Senator Obama is a man of integrity and character even if it makes it harder for him to win more quickly and more decisively... I respect him.

Obama '08

Posted by: LB | April 24, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

The loser in all this in-fighting and hatred?

liberalism and the democratic party. This is what happens when you try and take in all the "victims" of a nation. Those that can't do for themselves so they expect a bigger government to do it for them. What a bunch of babies, grow up and get a job.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 3:58 PM | Report abuse

Lets talk about votes. How bad would it be for Obama without that crazy Texas system where she kicks his "arse" but gets only slightly more dels because of the lunatics who will and have the time to spend all day voting and revoting. Give it up. Don't want to lose in Nov. because of you morons. We need stability. What do you have invested? Why does Casey such a weiney need his no nothing, no skin in the game, daughter to make up his mind? He doesn't, he's just doesn't have a backbone.

Posted by: becaucus | April 24, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse


I read all this talk by superdelegates and the media and the Clinton campaign that Obama has a problem with white, blue-collar voters. Thus, Clinton is the more electable candidate.

Apparently there are no other demographic groups that are important to a general election.

Gov Rendell said, and I feel many supers agree, that "Senator Clinton is the best standard-bearer for us in the fall, and superdelegates need to take a deep breath and think about that."

Apparently he feels that the best standard-bearer is the one who loses the most elections.

And now there is all this talk about how the primary system is not fair because it's not winner-take-all and there are caucuses. "Hillary would be winning if this were the GOP primary," her husband said. Apparently Bill Clinton is confused and thinks Hillary is a republican because of the smear campaign she's running.

This just floors me. It's totally absurd. The Clinton's will do anything to draw doubt on the leader because they are losing. And if Obama wins, they want him to be tainted, as if he somehow cheated his way through the primary, so he will lose support. It's her or nobody in her mind.

Is that the standard-bearer for the democratic party? The one who's way behind in national polling, and the one whose negatives are through the roof? Is that where Democrats want to go? I remember a time when the Democratic Party dominated the House and the Senate, controlled the majority of State legislatures, and Governorships. Then the Clintons took over the party in 1992. Within two years we lost control of the Congress, and lost races across the country. Is that the standard-bearer we want?

Is Barack Obama a Muslim? "No, he is not a Muslim...as far as I know." Is this the person we want to represent the Democratic Party?

We are the Democratic Party. We are the party that said count every vote in the 2000 election, the party that had the candidate with the most votes lose. So we continue with the primaries but the candidate who emerges the winner should then lose the nomination because he is the weakest candidate?

Last time I checked the most electable candidate was the one who had won the most elections, the most delegates and the most popular vote. Even if you add in Fla, she's behind. And of course the Clintons would like to add Mi, even though Obama wasn't on the ballot.

If Clinton were given the nomination because she won Ohio and Penn where there are old, blue-collar voters, then there is no reason to hold primaries in other states. And the past six months have been a complete waste of time and money. I mean, the Clinton logic is nonsense, but stupid enough for the democratic party to buy into. The Democratic Party is obsessed with what the Republicans might exploit. Oh, no, Barack Obama lives in the same city as Minister Farrakhan. Therefore, Obama must be a Muslim.

And now it all comes down to Indiana. If Clinton wins that she should be the nominee? Or,wait, it all comes down to the popular vote. Whoever wins that should be the nominee. Okay, so if she loses that then it all comes down to who wins the states with the most electoral votes.

(By the way, there is no proof that because you won a primary that you will win that state. Last time I checked, McCain won the Penn primary, too.)

I will say this: I cannot support a political party that would ever overturn the results of six months of elections. And if Obama were to come out of these primaries ahead in all three metrics and lose, the democratic party would not only lose me, but African-Americans, new voters, young voters and liberals.

I am not a Clinton hater. I object to the way she practices politics. I object to the fact that she voted for the Iraq war to prove she was tough on national security. I object to the lies she tells about her service in order to pad her CV. I object to her walking around talking about obliterating Iran. But if she were to win the most votes and the most delegates and the most states I would support her.

But ask yourself this: Where do we as a party want to go? Clinton's supporters are over 50 and earn under 50 grand. In either case, does the party want to trade in the young that have come into the political process by the millions thanks to Obama for a bunch of blue-collar voters who abandoned the Democratic Party for Ronald Reagan?

I don't think so.

Posted by: edzo2 | April 24, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

"Don't endorse"? That's his idea of leadership? WHAT A THUG! Get on the bus or get out of the way. Bayh, your career is history.

Posted by: Emmanuel Winner | April 24, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

what the f? Idiots like this will assure a victory for Obama.

Democratic Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh -- a strong supporter of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton -- has been leaning on the Hoosier State's freshman House members to stay on the sidelines rather than endorse Sen. Barack Obama.

Posted by: bobby b | April 24, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

So, I was at this fund raising gig in Baltimore a few weeks back and an acquaintance mentioned that Senator Bayh was at the top of the Clitons "short list" You ask why Evan Bayh does what he does?

Posted by: J. E. Hoover | April 24, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Message to Congressman Baron Hill, State Representative Dennie Oxley and State Senator Richard Young: Endorce Obama! He is going to be our next president.

Posted by: From Tell City, Indiana | April 24, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

BAYH IS A FREAKING HYPOCRITE - HE'S ALREADY FREAKIN' ENDORSE MUSHMOUTH CLINTON.

That's like a parent telling thier kids to not smoke while lighting up a butt.

BAYH IS AN EMBARSSMENT TO HIMSELF AND INDIANA.

If Barack is such a bad candidate, and he is so unelectable, and it is such a bad idea to have him as the Democratic nominee, why can't Hillary beat him?

Why is she behind him in every conceivable metric? Why is she behind in pledged delegates? Why is she behind in the popular vote (and don't insult my intelligence by trying to pass that sheer nonsense the morons at certain pro-Clinton blogs are lapping up)? Why are super delegates flocking to Obama, while Hillary has picked up only a handful in the past few months. Why has she won fewer states? Why is she trumpeting her narrow delegate pickup in PA, when it is less than the number of net delegates Obama picked up in a variety of other states? Why is she behind in fund raising? Why was she unable to turn her double digit lead a year ago into any actual primary wins? Why, with her starting financial advantage and name recognition, was she held to a tie on Super Tuesday?

Why to those questions and a hundred more like them. If your candidate is so much better, why is Obama kicking her ass? Why?


Posted by: Jimmy Crackcorn | April 24, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Is Bayh taking back his endorsement of Hillary? Yeah, right! Quit whining, Bayh! Your days are numbered, too!

Posted by: tom | April 24, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

I used to think E Bayh had some integrity...I was wrong...Bayh is just another shill for the Neocons...His days are numbered as "the most Powerful Democrat in the state"...OH YEAH, Baby!

Posted by: Robert A | April 24, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

"Why should they get crosswise with some of their friends if they really don't need to?" asked Bayh, perhaps the most powerful elected Democrat in the state.
--------------------------
Perhaps the most powerful democrat in the state, for now.
The depth of his support for Hillary in the face of such a ground swell of support for Obama raises some questions concerning his motivations.
In the meantime he can keep on swimming upstream if it makes him happy.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Bayh will never get my vote again.

Posted by: Indiana pilgrim | April 24, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

It gets tiresome to see the Clinton campaign constantly switching gears. It must be true when she says she will "do anything" to get herself elected. Bayh's endorsement, followed by his suggestion not to endorse, is just part of the pattern. Wasn't it just a few months ago that Mrs. Clinton urged the party to follow the will of the voters (oh, wait, that's when she was the frontrunner)?

Posted by: mz40 | April 24, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Washington Post...L...I...C...K...S...Hillary's...B...A...L...L...S

Posted by: Robert A | April 24, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Hillary likes to talk about all she has done in the Senate to bring health care to the uninsured--why in blazes has she not been able to do anything for all the poor New Yorkers dying from breathing post 9/11 pollution?! Brave and selfless people are still dying from respiratory illnesses and cancer brought on from tirelessly working to clean up that toxic pit. Soon, they will be gone.

I have no faith in any of her endeavors. Obama for President!

Posted by: Rebecca | April 24, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

Evan Bayh grew up in Washington, D.C., lives in Washington, D.C., his children have grown up in Washington, D.C. (or environs)and the only time he shows up in IN is when he's stumping, as far as I know. Oh, he makes the round of the big factories from time to time to shore up support. He was a decent governor but for the life of me I can't figure out what he's done in the Senate that makes Hoosiers swoon. I think he endorsed too early for his own political gain (promised an administration job?. I think it was his suggestion originally that instead of delegates, they award the nomination based on electoral college votes. He's become clintonesque in his desire to change the rules in the middle of a nominating process. I've lost even more respect for him with this latest suggestion that others not endorse although he has.

Hope someone gives him a run for his money in the next election. Between his father and him, we've had a Bayh in the Senate for too, too many years.

Posted by: Indiana Girl | April 24, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

LMAO!! HILLARY SUPPORTERS LOVE THIS VILE WOMAN.. TAKE THE COUNTRY DOWN THIS ROAD AND WE ALL WITH BE ZOMBIES!!!

LOOK AT THE LOOK IN THESE HILLARY SUPPORTERS EYES..


LOST SOULS AND ZOMBIES!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Not only did Hillary vote for the war, she voted against the Levin amendment that would halt or stop Bush from going to war and she voted against it! Hillary was with a number of Senators, in my opinion, that voted for the war to look strong on national security, and position themselves for a run for the white house. Young men and women have lost their lives, and a number of injured and mamed soldier because a white house run? I don't want this type of person in the white house!

Posted by: Mama 4 Obama | April 24, 2008 3:10 PM | Report abuse

HILLARY CLINTON HAS NO CLUE ON FOREIGN POLICY

Clinton New Zealand Joke
The Latest In Series Of Foreign Policy Slips
Huffington Post | April 24, 2008 12:51 PM


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like this story? Get Alerts of big news events. Enter your email address

Hillary Clinton offered Newsweek an off-putting joke that has the New Zealand press in a tizzy:

You have any good jokes?

Here's a good one. Helen Clark, former prime minister of New Zealand: her opponents have observed that in the event of a nuclear war, the two things that will emerge from the rubble are the cockroaches and Helen Clark. [Laughs]


In addition to it not being nice to tell jokes about former heads of states, it is also not nice to refer to Helen Clark -- the current prime minister of New Zealand -- as the former prime minister.

Of course one bad joke doesn't derail a campaign. But this season, Hillary has had a series of gaffes that hurt her image as a foreign policy guru.

Britain: Clinton makes Gordon Brown a spokesman for Tibet

During the heyday of Clinton's call for leaders to boycott the opening ceremonies of the Beiing Olympics, Hillary declared an unwilling ally:

Gordon Brown became an unintentional standard-bearer for pro-Tibet campaigners today after being wrongly praised by Hillary Clinton for boycotting the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics.

The British media have treated the confirmation by No 10 yesterday of his plans not to attend the opening ceremony as an important foreign policy move, leading to reports around the world that he had snubbed China.


Pakistan: Clinton suggests Musharraf was behind Benazir Bhutto's death

Following the death of Benzair Bhutto, Clinton received a sharp response from the president of Pakistan after these comments:

And for the second time in as many days, she cast doubt on Musharraf's contention that the suicide bombing that led to the death of the country's most popular opposition leader was masterminded by al-Qaida.

"There are those saying that al-Qaida did it. Others are saying it looked like it was an inside job -- remember Rawalpindi is a garrison city," she said.


Russia: Clinton claims that Putin has no soul

She was riffing on the danger of inexperience, and reliance on personal relationships, in foreign affairs, indirectly comparing Obama to George W. Bush, who notoriously looked into Vladimir Putin's soul and liked what he saw.

"I could have told him -- he was a KGB agent. By definition he doesn't have a soul," Clinton joked.


The statement prompted Putin's response: "At a minimum, a head of state should have a head."

Russia redux: Hillary refers to Medve-whatever

In one of Tim Russert's famous gotcha moments, Clinton is caught not knowing the name of Russia's recently elected president, Dmitry Medvedev.

Iran: Clinton says U.S. would "obliterate" them

Not a gaffe, per se, but certainly a comment that pricked the ears of the foreign policy community. Clinton warns Iran before the Pennsylvania primary:

Clinton further displayed tough talk in an interview airing on "Good Morning America" Tuesday. ABC News' Chris Cuomo asked Clinton what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons.

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton said. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

ABC also points out that the rhetoric contradicts earlier statements by Clinton not to engage in hypothetical speculation.

Posted by: Sara | April 24, 2008 3:09 PM | Report abuse

go hillary!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WE LOVE YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Maca | April 24, 2008 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Obama black vote 2008 92%

Bill Clinton black vote 1992 over 90%

don't play that card people, black people have supported Dem's blindly for years even when it wasn't in their best interest.

Posted by: GA | April 24, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Wait a minute. Bayh has endorsed. And he wants other SDs to just sit around on their hands because it benefits his chosen candidate? What an outrageous hypocrite. Yeah, leave the forum to Bayh. Don't endorse...sit back. Wait. Because your voices will help your candidate, and Bayh fears that candidate will be Obama. ENDORSE NOW.

Posted by: Megan | April 24, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Why am i not surprised by a Clinton supporter speaking out of both sides of his mouth, where does this crap stop, they are infected by Billary flu or something. These people have no sruples no shame...

Posted by: GA. | April 24, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

What a elite Hypocrite. He can endorse and others can't. Clinton made Gore lose cause he cared more up him then us. At least I can trust Obama.

Posted by: Bill | April 24, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Margaret Ray | April 24, 2008 2:31 PM

You fell off the Whitewatergate, travelgates,vince fostergate,troopergate,rose law firmgate,taxgate,arafat moneygate,plo funds gate, monicagate, healthcare lie-gate to get elected but never did squat after that, white house experience gate, but made tea and held dinners with no security clearancegate, Bosniagate, pregnant no insurancegate, take name off Michigan ballotgate...


Hillary and Bush are seperated at Birthgate..

LIES ,LIES LIES LIES TO GET ELECTED AND DUPED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE..


WHY DO THESE HILLARY SUPPORTERS SUPPORT THIS VILE WOMAN'S LYING DECIEVING WAYS!!!

I GUEST STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES...

Posted by: NATIVEEYES | April 24, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

So Harridan Clinton has her boy toy Evan Bayh resorting to extortion to head off Obama endorsements. Clintons and extortion.... Hmmm... Why does that not surprise me one bit!!!

Posted by: Victor Shaw | April 24, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

A ps. from John from Phila.
To all black people. When the DRAFT comes, who do you think will be chosen first? To the 92% of you that have voted in every primary for Obama,is race worth your childs life?

Posted by: John from Phila. | April 24, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

The immaturity of the Obama supporters is mindboggling. Two-year olds holding their breath until they get their own way. Toddlers in the sandbox hitting each other with shovels.

Come to think of it, their candidate shows his immaturity every time he gets a tough question. He cannot take his glass jaw into a general election campaign and his baggage of friends and win. He cannot win.

Obama is not ready for prime time, no matter how loud his supporters scream. He needs to season, mature, grow up a little.

GO HILLARY. A CANDIDATE WHO IS TOUGH ENOUGH TO WIN.

Posted by: Margaret Ray | April 24, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Who is the idiot who posted this: "White people should start doing what the black people are doing - vote based on the color of a persons skin -- However, unlike the racist black people, white people are generally not racist - thus Obama gets some of their votes. What does this all say about the black community?" Do you have any idea how many white candidates, including your candidate's husband, that "the racist black people" have voted for? You must be the uneducated, uniformed, unsuccessful, probably old voter that makes up Hillary's base. She can have you. Stupid hick.

Posted by: whatsaute | April 24, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Hillary has Bill and Chelsea campaigning in ID as well as other States that are coming next. Obama has himself. He's a one man crew of his own. He has held his own and has taking this race by storm.

The SuperDelegates are the poison pill and REPUBLICANS WET DREAM.

The Superdelegates are now the problem, not the solution.

If they continue to look for hand outs and what are you going to do for me, they will cause any Choice to beat Mccain..

Mccain is getting a free ride and a head of steam thank to the DEMOCRATIC SUPERDELEGATES.

The Superdelegates that are not going with the front runner in Delegates, State wins, populist or the will of the people should have their arse kick'd. They are sitting their watching a disgrace happen and need to stop being lazy and get in the game or stay on the sidelines and wash Hillary destroy the democratic party as we know it..

Don't blame Obama or Hillary is Mccain wins..


I guest Democratic SuperDelegates don't have math skills.. Or they just didn't do well in school in simple adding and subtractions. This is a no brainer, do the math, She can't win. Do the math, she can't win. Mccain will destroy her in the General.. Atleast Obama will destroy Mccain on many fronts. Obama has the numbers on his side. Obama has the people on his side. Obama has more support on his side.

Obama has all the money.

DO THE MATH SUPERDELEGATES!

Don't make yourself look that silly and foolish.

You are just looking lazy and Hillaryish!! Deceitful

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

I guess Evan Bayh and Ed Rendell didn't get that message---or is this another exemplar of the constant rule changing the Hillary camp has been using

Posted by: stanblock | April 24, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Senator Bah is of the 'do as I say, not as I do' political school. The answer would be ' to preserve the democratic party? duh

Posted by: james d granata | April 24, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

The big lie of 1934: "Jews stabbed the Fatherland in the back".

The big lie of 2008: "Obama is a racist."

Interestingly, Adolf Hitler, were he alive, would be as comfortable uttering the big lie of 2008 as he was saying the big lie of 1934.

Posted by: gbooksdc | April 24, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

It appears Clinton's propanganda operatives are not only busy calling superdelegates. They are busy posting most of the comments on this site. It is very easy to spot the handiworks of these paid
manipulators

Posted by: chuck | April 24, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

You are an idiot if your name is Jake Smith.

Posted by: kamenwati | April 24, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

I have been reading some of your comments.War seems to be the big issue.It's the young people who are voting for Obama. With us Hillary people, a vote for Obama is a vote for McCain. McMain wants the war to go on for 100 years. Where's the soldiers going to come from.We were drafted. Maybe they will bring back the DRAFT again. All you young people that votes for Obama might be in that first draft class. think about that.

Posted by: John from Phila. | April 24, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

As Bush enjoys the gas prices going up with his family's Carlyle Groups stake in the OIL MARKET with the Bin Laden's. It's no wonder he won't release the OIL RESERVES to stem off OIL GAUGE'S by hedge funds and the Commodities market. Bush is making millions a day as the prices soar.

When ask in public about gas prices hitting $4 dollars. He said where, laughed and said that's news to me.

That alone let's me know that he has a huge stake in the OIL increases.

Bush will never hunt or Capture Osama Bin Laden.

He would never kill a family member of the family that he is the closest too in the Middle East and are business partners.

Mccain knows this and Mccain will never hunt down Bin Laden..

Hillary won't go after Osama because Bill's close ties with the Dubai Sheikhs who are in bed with the Bin Laden's also..
Check Billary's tax paperwork and you will see the connection. They own our ports TOO..
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,265925,00.html


Obama has sworn to invade Paki if he needs to to get Osama.

Obama wants to unite the Aisle.

Obama represents real change.

No Lobbyist or special interest in his pockets or Washington's with his ETHIC'S BILL.

Now if America will just get over it's ancestral racism, I think we can become a GREAT NATION..

Then old Glory will FLY AS A GOOD SYMBOL OF AMERICA not just reduced to a flag pin talk of small minded rhetoric annals'...

Posted by: NATIVEEYES | April 24, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

wander how the vote would be now in states obama won. the more we find out about obama the least likely he is to win. we still have a chance to avoid a train wreck called obama.

Posted by: democratsaint | April 24, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

Seems to me the congressmen should endorse the next president of the united states. That will garner favor not just of the POUS but watch Bayh suddenly sing kum ba yah.

Posted by: josh lamp | April 24, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Native Americans are voting for Obama too because he's a half breed..


So that makes us racist too?

How do stupid people sleep at night, lol!!

Posted by: NATIVEEYES | April 24, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Obama dislikes, disrespects and basically looks down his nose at middle income white people especially in rural areas.
He's a metro sexual elitist.

White people should start doing what the black people are doing - vote based on the color of a persons skin -- However, unlike the racist black people, white people are generally not racist - thus Obama gets some of their votes. What does this all say about the black community?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

do you know how childish this all is and how it looks to outsiders. come on people.get a grip.
whatever about bayh.let it go.
do all of obama supporters have adhd?

Posted by: teresa | April 24, 2008 2:10 PM | Report abuse

What a hypocrite.

Those in the three districts need to e-mail and call their reps to tell them to support obama. At the same time, those people should call or e-mail their governor's office and tell him to withdraw his endorsement from Hillary or shut up about others giving their support to Obama.

Posted by: Ann Clark | April 24, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Its funny that a man that has already endorsed a candidate before the Indiana primary tells other politicians that they shouldn't endorse a candidate.

Posted by: reggie23 | April 24, 2008 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Every remaining primary state will get this kind of attention and pressure because this candidate fully intends to go to the convention saying that she won Florida and Michigan. She answers to no one and to no standard and to no other consideration than her raw ambition. She's a scorpio.

Posted by: Gaias Child | April 24, 2008 2:04 PM | Report abuse

I am an Obama supporter (black man)and I am finally starting to see the light after reading all the blog comments of the HRC supporters. I think they may be right. Pennsylvania has proven it to me. Obama probably won't win against McCain. Why have I changed my opinion? Simple. This country was founded on racism, built and controlled by racist,and a great percentage of its population is still racist whether you want to believe it or not. I read posts that Obama got trounced in PA. IMO being down 25% and cutting that margin in half given the demographics and with the entire Pa. Dem party on HRC's side is amazing in and of itself. But look at the exit polls at it clearly tells you the story. No matter what he says, no matter how smart he is, now matter what his policy's are, he is still a black man. And to the majority of this country that will not due. Since they (code worded white blue colar workers) outnumber blacks and non-racists whites, well there is just no mathematical chance.(Iowa and those other Mid west states he won are flukes and most will be Rep anyway) All these issues with lapel pins and rev Wright (For God's sake the man was a Marine and in the Navy and fought in Vietnam 2x. How many of you can claim that? Is that not the ultimate sign of Patriotism?)just gives them an excuse, and out if you will, to vote for Clinton. It just eases their conscious. I think America does want change, just not too much at one time.

Posted by: America is not ready | April 24, 2008 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Senator Bayh is a HYPOCRITE. He'd endorsed senator Clinton before his own state has voted but urge others to stay on the side. Bayh and Clinton are of the same kind, say whatever to serve their own interests however contradicting it was.
It is a great insult to the citizen's that he think we can not parse this false logic of his.

Posted by: CriticalVoter | April 24, 2008 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Why didn't Byah sit on the sidelines like he expects Ellsworth, Hill & Donnolly. Sounds to be like being a two-face; that's it's okay for him to do it. Clinton has played an angle in every town to manipulate her trying to win. I remember all the turmoil when they were in. It was not that great when Bill was in either. People needs to wake up; Its not about
"oh we need a woman; it will be the last chance in our lifetime"(how pathetic) & to bring up race esp. the media is not only hurting democrats but everyone. We are to suppose to be one country; people needs to act like that or our country will be divided & pulled apart. People should remember history; it should not be about if you are black or white or whether you wear a label pin or not. How riducilous? By the way, none of the others were NOT wearing a label pin; includin Clinton & alot of the news media on all the channels. A lot of people are patroitic & don't wear a pin. I think its a shame when you have a man who is willing to put himself before all the people & is willing to pull everybody together; & you have people playing race card & all other kind of nonsense. It is really a shame. A house divided cannot stand.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Don't listen to the press or to the politicians. Listen to the candidates and find what appeals to you. I am sure you will be inspired by Obama's speeches but the country is in such bad shape we need someone with a vision and with the guts and determination to get stuff done. The only person who can accomplish all of this is Senator Clinton. She is also the only one who can beat John McCain in November. Listen and you will vote smart, vote Clinton.

Posted by: Tobias | April 24, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

I'll tell you what, Hillary now scares me more than McCain (belive me that man scares the crap out of me!). She has proven to me that she will do what it takes to prove somehow she is tough, like vote for stupid wars or initiate one herself, lie about being in the face of danger (Bosnia fire), scream, shout and act inconsistent. Her temperament is certainly undesirable to lead this country at such a defining moment. She can take the heat alright and she needs to take it all the way back to Chappaqua most certainly not to the white house. No offense to the Hillary supporters but please let's call it as it is. She is not the woman we want in the white house. She diminishes us women, she does not lift us. I don't see any justification in her assuming her husband's experience as hers. So basically if that were true then women will be doomed in this country as the single criteria for us holding this office is to be married to the man in office or maybe being the daughter of one. I'm even gettig a headache from all this mess. The Clintons may want to consider retiring from public office after this charade. Will do everyone a whole lot of good!

Posted by: simple facts | April 24, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Ok I get it he is allowed to endorse but no one else is, I think Clinton's Hypocrisy is contagious. and he is a Blooter.

Posted by: Mrwilliams2u | April 24, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

RetiredNavyMan-Delegates do generally have to vote the way their constituents do. Superdelegates don't. Superdelegates are not necessarily people that are currently in elected office. They are often just party loyalists and dinosaurs. That's the most undemocratic part of all of this.

Posted by: Indiana resident | April 24, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

HILLARY VOTED FOR THE IRAQ WAR
HILLARY VOTED FOR A IRAN WAR
HILLARY IS A WARMONGER
A VOTE FOR HILLIRY IS A VOTE FOR MCCAIN
HILLARY WANTS MORE WAR AND MORE JOBS SOLD TO CHINA AND COLUMBIA
You people that lost your jobs to offshore deserves to jobless for voting for the clintons who started NAFTA AND CFTA

Posted by: Dcarr | April 24, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse


The Super Delgates should feel more than comfortable speaking their support for Obama given:

"The delegate math gives Barack Obama a mortal lock on the nomination"

http://www.jedreport.com/2008/04/the-delegate-ma.html

Posted by: AC | April 24, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's Terrorist Ties

Monday, April 21, 2008 9:52 AM

By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann Article Font Size

In this week's debate, Hillary Clinton said all of her "baggage" has been "rummaged through" for years. But important features of her close relationship with known terrorist sympathizers and Hamas supporters are still opaque to the public view.


Her relationship with terrorists began in the mid-1980s when she served on the board of the New World Foundation, which gave funds to the Palestine Liberation Organization, at a time when the PLO was officially recognized by the U.S. government as a terrorist organization.


In 1996, the first lady initiated an outreach program to bring Muslim leaders to the White House. But, as terrorism expert Steve Emerson noted in The Wall Street Journal "Curiously, nearly all of the leaders with whom Mrs. Clinton elected to meet came from Islamic fundamentalist organizations.


"A review of the statements, publications, and conferences of the groups Mrs. Clinton embraced shows unambiguously that they have long advocated or justified violence. By meeting with these groups, the first lady lent them legitimacy as 'mainstream' and 'moderate.'"


Among these radical groups was the American Muslim Alliance (AMA) and the Council on American-Islamic Relations, both groups that support Hamas, who attended a White House reception hosted by Hillary in February, 1996.


Emerson says that its leaders "have sanctioned terrorism, published anti-Semitic statements, and repeatedly hosted conferences that were forums for denunciations of Jews and exhortations to wage jihad."


The American Muslim Alliance was headed in the '90s by Abdulrahman Alamoudi who met with Clinton and Gore in 1995. Emerson notes that "Mrs. Clinton [allowed] the American Muslim Alliance to draw up the Muslim guest list for the first lady's . . . White House reception."


Alamoudi, Emerson says was "the primary defender of Musa Abu Marzug, the Hamas political bureau chief responsible for creating the group's death squads." Marzug took "credit" when Hamas brigades sprayed machine gun fire into a crowded Jerusalem mall. But less than three days after Marzug was arrested by the FBI in July of 1995, Alamoudi said that Marzug "had never been involved in terrorism" and called his arrest "an insult to the Muslim community. Emerson reports that he "elicited contributions fro Marzug's defense fund" and called him a "political prisoner."


Then, Hillary ran for Senate on her own and suddenly it was payback time. On June 13, 2000, the American Muslim Alliance's Massachusetts Chapter held a very successful fundraiser for her candidacy. Tahir Ali, the chairman of the chapter, said "we must support all who have [Muslim] interests at heart."


Perhaps conscious of how controversial the contribution would be, Hillary or someone on her staff, tried to pull a fast one, recording the donation on federal filing forms as being from the "American Museum Alliance." But alert observers weren't fooled and Senate candidate Clinton was forced to acknowledge who the real donor was and, four months after getting the money, she returned it.


But by then, a few weeks before the election, she had abjured the use of soft money in her Senate campaign, so the donation was, in practical terms, useless, since it was well over the limits for hard money contributions.


The Palestinian terrorists know that Hillary hears their point of view. WorldNetDaily.com reported on Oct. 7, 2007, that leading terrorists have publicly called for her election. Aaron Klein, WorldNet Daily's Jerusalem correspondent, wrote, in his wonderful book "Schmoozing with Terrorists," Ala Senakreh, West Bank chief of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terrorist group said "I hope Hillary is elected in order to have the occasion to carry out all the promises she is giving regarding Iraq."


Senakreh has high hopes for a Hillary presidency. He told Klein "I hope also that she will maintain her husband's policies regarding Palestine and even develop that policy."


Abu Hamed, leader of the Al Aqsa Brigades in Gaza, noting that "the Iraqi resistance is succeeding," said that "Hillary and the Democrats call for withdrawal." Then he added, helpfully, "Her popularity shows that the resistance is winning and that the occupation is losing. We just hope that she will go until the end and change American policy."


He explained that "President Clinton wanted to give the Palestinians 98 percent of the West Bank territories. I hope Hillary will move a step forward and give the Palestinians all their rights."


Clearly Barack Obama should not have stayed in Rev Wright's church and his campaign should not maintain a "friendly" relationship with William Ayers. But what about Hillary's service on a board that gave money to a terrorist organization? And her hosting of a terror supporting group in the White House? And her acceptance of a $50,000 contribution from that group? And the statements of terrorists that they are hoping for her to win?


These are far more serious connections than have been established for Obama and either Wright or Ayers.


Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 1:47 PM | Report abuse

THIS IS SO MO'RONIC OF BAYH.. BAYH ENDORSED BILLARY A MONTH AGO AND THEN TELLS ALL OTHERS SUPERDELEGATES NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA JUST YET.

MORE CRIMES AGAINST AMERICANS INTELLIGENCE.

HE REALLY THINKS AMERICANS AND THE PEOPLE OF INDIANA DIDN'T EVOLVE OR WAKE UP TO THE BS COMING FROM THE CLINTOON CAMP..

I GOT TWO ISLANDS AND A BRIDGE TO SELL YA TOO..

IT HAS SNIPERS IN THE HILLS...

Posted by: NATIVEEYES | April 24, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Some of the comments made after my
earlier posting provide further
evidence of the type of persons
supporting Obama and posting here.
It is apparent that there is a
reading deficiency in some of you.
Let me take you by the hand and
show you how to understand things.

When I say that the delegates should
follow the will of their constituents,
that means the people who put them in
office--Therefore, "They" ARE the
voice of the people.
Reread my posting or have someone
read it to you and explain it to
you line by line.

Second, to the writer who said I would
support a Republican for president
because I'm a Republican is another one
with a reading disabilitY. Reread my
posting (if you can) and you will see
that I am an Independent.

Since Obama supporters are supposed to
be the "educated" elite, I guess those
backers are not the ones posting here.

Posted by: Retired Navy Man | April 24, 2008 1:45 PM | Report abuse

I agree with Sen. Bayh. Those Congressmen should stay out of the race until the people get to vote. However, the same rule should apply to Sen. Bayh so he needs to go back to the uncommitted columm and do not campaign for Hillary.

Posted by: Eros Wong | April 24, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Hillary has Bill and Chelsea campaigning in ID as well as other States that are coming next. Obama has himself. He's a one man crew of his own. He has held his own and has taking this race by storm.

The SuperDelegates are the poison pill and REPUBLICANS WET DREAM.

The Superdelegates are now the problem, not the solution.

If they continue to look for hand outs and what are you going to do for me, they will cause any Choice to beat Mccain..

Mccain is getting a free ride and a head of steam thank to the DEMOCRATIC SUPERDELEGATES.

The Superdelegates that are not going with the front runner in Delegates, State wins, populist or the will of the people should have their arse kick'd. They are sitting their watching a disgrace happen and need to stop being lazy and get in the game or stay on the sidelines and wash Hillary destroy the democratic party as we know it..

Don't blame Obama or Hillary is Mccain wins..


I guest Democratic SuperDelegates don't have math skills.. Or they just didn't do well in school in simple adding and subtractions. This is a no brainer, do the math, She can't win. Do the math, she can't win. Mccain will destroy her in the General.. Atleast Obama will destroy Mccain on many fronts. Obama has the numbers on his side. Obama has the people on his side. Obama has more support on his side.

Obama has all the money.

DO THE MATH SUPERDELEGATES!

Don't make yourself look that silly and foolish.

You are just looking lazy and Hillaryish!! Deceitful

Posted by: NATIVEEYES | April 24, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Really think HRC has a chance? Here's a great analysis of just how slim to none her chances really are.

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

Posted by: LW | April 24, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Hello to the blogger named Joyce. I get such pleasure in responding to bloggers like you who eat up Hillary's talking points and regurgitate it without researching the truth. The Bosnia sniper fire story (and Northern Ireland negotiation, to name a few)should have convinced you that because Hillary or anyone for that matter says so does not make it so.
For your information, Hillary completely and totally misrepresented Obama's position and the socalled cheney energy bill. First of all the bill is called the Energy policy act of 2005 and you can find it here http://www.epa.gov/OUST/fedlaws/publ_109-058.pdf, second of all Hillary is a seasoned politician and so she is extremely skilled at using misleading words to make people believe something they know for a fact is false and question their own very knowledge of it. We don't need seasoned politicians. Not this time. They are and will always be bad for our system. She added the name Cheney to make the bill sound negative so you won't even bother checking it you just assume it must be bad for the country.

Check yourselves before you wreck us all! It's one thing to be uneducated, it's something else entirely when one chooses to remain ignorant and regurgitate words of others without actually finding out the amount of "truthiness" in it. Please do your homeworks. We have the power here not the seasoned politicians. Remember that!

Posted by: simple facts | April 24, 2008 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Pennsylvania is home to an enormous amount of Klans men.........Go Hillary!!!! These are your supporters!!!!!

Posted by: svreaderjr | April 24, 2008 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Why Endorse? Bayh Asks Hoosier Reps

I can agree with this title with just a little modification.
Bayh speaking, "Why Endorse I say, I will lead the charge on this question." "I will renounce my Clinton endorsement to show I am serious about this."
"I believe like any good leader I should lead by example and so I hear today renounce my Clinton endorsement."

Posted by: TjustSaying | April 24, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

What we are seeing is PURE acts of the fat lady singing to BILLARY and her supporters..


Say goodbye Billary..

DING DONG THE WITCH IS DEAD

Posted by: NATIVEEYES | April 24, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

What we are seeing is PURE acts of the fat lady singing to BILLARY and her supporters..


Say goodbye Billary..

DING DONG THE WITCH IS DEAD

Posted by: NATIVEEYES | April 24, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

His state? He was born there but does NOT live there nor was he raised there nor is he elected from( or to serve) from there. Where do you get off Washington Post saying "His State"???
The man is asking them to do what he didn't do himself which was to wait to endorse.
One would hope those people have the brains to figure out what is going on. If not? I pity the people who elected themt o serve their best interest...and one would have to wonder if they too are waiting to be "Bought" like so many who want Hillary to be the nominee so the status quo dosen't change in Washington. They see their perks of office going out the window under an Obama Presidency.

Posted by: Deanna | April 24, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

What we are seeing is PURE acts of the fat lady singing to BILLARY and her supporters..


Say goodbye Billary..

DING DONG THE WITCH IS DEAD

Posted by: NATIVEEYES | April 24, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Bayh is just like the Clintons -- doing one thing and saying another. I did not have sex with that woman, I landed in Bosnia under sniper fire and had to run to my car....

Vote Change - Vote Obama 08!!

Posted by: Dem4Life | April 24, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton On Southern Working Class Whites In 1995: "Screw 'Em"
April 16, 2008 02:21 PM
-------------------------------------------

During the past week, Sen. Hillary Clinton has presented herself as a working class populist, the politician in touch with small town sentiments, compared to the elitism of her opponent, Sen. Barack Obama.

But a telling anecdote from her husband's administration shows Hillary Clinton's attitudes about the "lunch-bucket Democrats" are not exactly pristine.

In January 1995, as the Clintons were licking their wounds from the 1994 congressional elections, a debate emerged at a retreat at Camp David. Should the administration make overtures to working class white southerners who had all but forsaken the Democratic Party? The then-first lady took a less than inclusive approach.

"Screw 'em," she told her husband. "You don't owe them a thing, Bill. They're doing nothing for you; you don't have to do anything for them."

The statement -- which author Benjamin Barber witnessed and wrote about in his book, "The Truth of Power: Intellectual Affairs in the Clinton White House" -- was prompted by another speaker raising the difficulties of reaching "Reagan Democrats." It stands in stark contrast to the attitude the New York Democrat has recently taken on the campaign trail, in which she has presented herself as the one candidate who understands the working-class needs.

"I don't think [Obama] really gets it that people are looking for a president who stands up for you and not looks down on you," she said this week.

But those who were at the event say the 1995 episode fits into her larger viewpoint. As Harry Boyte, the director of the University of Minnesota's Center for Democracy and Citizenship who was at the retreat, told The Huffington Post: "[Hillary Clinton] sees herself as the champion of the oppressed, but there is always a kind of good guy versus bad guy mentality. The comment before that was that 'the Reagan Democrats are our enemies and they weren't on our side,' and she was agreeing with that comment. She said we should write them off: screw them."

A spokesperson for Clinton said the quote was taken out of context and did not reflect her true political philosophy. "This quote differs from the recollection of others who were in the room at the time this comment was allegedly made," said Jay Carson. "To be clear, that's not how she felt then and it's not how she feels now, and the proof is in how she has lived her life, the work she has done and the policies she has pushed and pursued over the last 35 years."

Asked to produce a witness who would say that Clinton had been misquoted, Carson wrote: "So, you've got two guys we've barely heard of remembering a verbatim quote from 13 years ago?... Sounds totally and completely reliable."

(Carson eventually put me in touch with a source who claimed to not have heard the quote -- see below). Barber's book was published in 2001.

Perhaps even more telling than Hillary Clinton's proclamation, however, were the words from her husband that followed. As reported by Barber, Clinton "stepped in, calm and judicious, not irritated, as if rehearsing an old but honorable debate he had been having with his wife for decades."

I know how you feel. I understand Hillary's sense of outrage. It makes me mad too. Sure, we lost our base in the South; our boys voted for Gingrich. But let me tell you something. I know these boys. I grew up with them. Hardworking, poor, white boys, who feel left out, feel that our reforms always come at their expense. Think about it, every progressive advance our country has made since the Civil War has been on their backs. They're the ones asked to pay the price of progress. Now, we are the party of progress, but let me tell you, until we find a way to include these boys in our programs, until we stop making them pay the whole price of liberty for others, we are never going to unite our party, never really going to have change that sticks.
If the tone and tenor of the above sounds familiar, it's because the message, Boyte says, is remarkably similar to what Obama was trying to convey in his now controversial remarks about small town America.

"Well, yeah, absolutely," said Boyte, when asked if Obama and Bill Clinton were expressing the same political viewpoint (Boyte said he and his organization are neutral in the presidential race). "I think Obama's better-or-worse versions of this have always been that people are complicated. It comes from an organizing perspective. You don't write off people, everyone is complicated. It just depends on the issue. And that's what Bill Clinton was saying. He was a sentimental populist."

Not to be lost in all this, as Boyte notes, is that Hillary Clinton has consistently been a "champion for the people who were helpless and powerless." But there is a political component to the mindset.

"Hillary Clinton has a very strong customer view: the citizen is the customer and the government the vendor," said Boyte. "You can see it in Mark Penn's frame. In fact, last Christmas she had an ad of herself writing checks to different groups."

Update: Jake Tapper, over at ABC, had highlighted the "screw em" quote back in October. His article was in reference to comments Sen. Clinton had made about Mississippi. Considering events this past week, the issue has taken on increased relevance.

Late Update: The Clinton campaign put me in touch with Don Baer, President Clinton's speech writer at the time, who had attended the same meeting. He says: "I don't remember anything along those lines, at all. And I certainly don't remember Senator Clinton saying anything like that... they have their recollections of that, that is their business. The conversation, from my perspective, was moderated in tone."

He did not, it should be noted, directly challenge the interpretations of Barber and Boyte.

Baer's comments came at roughly the same moment that The New Republic published a blog post by Alan Wolfe, a professor of political science at Boston College, who was also at the retreat and says he too heard the quote. Noting Carson's remark -- "So, you've got two guys we've barely heard of remembering a verbatim quote from 13 years ago?... Sounds totally and completely reliable" -- Wolfe writes: "Make that three. I was there. I hope people have heard of me. And Barber and Boyte have it right."

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

"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."

Hey Jack -- it's time to face facts, no matter how right or wrong you are (oh so wrong), Hillary can't win the primary.

It's over.

Pull out your violin already and get maudlin.

At this point Hillary is just dragging our party through the mud for an empty dream. It's over. It's done. She will not win.

Sorry.

Posted by: YoungLaw | April 24, 2008 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton On Southern Working Class Whites In 1995: "Screw 'Em"
April 16, 2008 02:21 PM


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


During the past week, Sen. Hillary Clinton has presented herself as a working class populist, the politician in touch with small town sentiments, compared to the elitism of her opponent, Sen. Barack Obama.

But a telling anecdote from her husband's administration shows Hillary Clinton's attitudes about the "lunch-bucket Democrats" are not exactly pristine.

In January 1995, as the Clintons were licking their wounds from the 1994 congressional elections, a debate emerged at a retreat at Camp David. Should the administration make overtures to working class white southerners who had all but forsaken the Democratic Party? The then-first lady took a less than inclusive approach.

"Screw 'em," she told her husband. "You don't owe them a thing, Bill. They're doing nothing for you; you don't have to do anything for them."

The statement -- which author Benjamin Barber witnessed and wrote about in his book, "The Truth of Power: Intellectual Affairs in the Clinton White House" -- was prompted by another speaker raising the difficulties of reaching "Reagan Democrats." It stands in stark contrast to the attitude the New York Democrat has recently taken on the campaign trail, in which she has presented herself as the one candidate who understands the working-class needs.

"I don't think [Obama] really gets it that people are looking for a president who stands up for you and not looks down on you," she said this week.

But those who were at the event say the 1995 episode fits into her larger viewpoint. As Harry Boyte, the director of the University of Minnesota's Center for Democracy and Citizenship who was at the retreat, told The Huffington Post: "[Hillary Clinton] sees herself as the champion of the oppressed, but there is always a kind of good guy versus bad guy mentality. The comment before that was that 'the Reagan Democrats are our enemies and they weren't on our side,' and she was agreeing with that comment. She said we should write them off: screw them."

A spokesperson for Clinton said the quote was taken out of context and did not reflect her true political philosophy. "This quote differs from the recollection of others who were in the room at the time this comment was allegedly made," said Jay Carson. "To be clear, that's not how she felt then and it's not how she feels now, and the proof is in how she has lived her life, the work she has done and the policies she has pushed and pursued over the last 35 years."

Asked to produce a witness who would say that Clinton had been misquoted, Carson wrote: "So, you've got two guys we've barely heard of remembering a verbatim quote from 13 years ago?... Sounds totally and completely reliable."

(Carson eventually put me in touch with a source who claimed to not have heard the quote -- see below). Barber's book was published in 2001.

Perhaps even more telling than Hillary Clinton's proclamation, however, were the words from her husband that followed. As reported by Barber, Clinton "stepped in, calm and judicious, not irritated, as if rehearsing an old but honorable debate he had been having with his wife for decades."

I know how you feel. I understand Hillary's sense of outrage. It makes me mad too. Sure, we lost our base in the South; our boys voted for Gingrich. But let me tell you something. I know these boys. I grew up with them. Hardworking, poor, white boys, who feel left out, feel that our reforms always come at their expense. Think about it, every progressive advance our country has made since the Civil War has been on their backs. They're the ones asked to pay the price of progress. Now, we are the party of progress, but let me tell you, until we find a way to include these boys in our programs, until we stop making them pay the whole price of liberty for others, we are never going to unite our party, never really going to have change that sticks.
If the tone and tenor of the above sounds familiar, it's because the message, Boyte says, is remarkably similar to what Obama was trying to convey in his now controversial remarks about small town America.

"Well, yeah, absolutely," said Boyte, when asked if Obama and Bill Clinton were expressing the same political viewpoint (Boyte said he and his organization are neutral in the presidential race). "I think Obama's better-or-worse versions of this have always been that people are complicated. It comes from an organizing perspective. You don't write off people, everyone is complicated. It just depends on the issue. And that's what Bill Clinton was saying. He was a sentimental populist."

Not to be lost in all this, as Boyte notes, is that Hillary Clinton has consistently been a "champion for the people who were helpless and powerless." But there is a political component to the mindset.

"Hillary Clinton has a very strong customer view: the citizen is the customer and the government the vendor," said Boyte. "You can see it in Mark Penn's frame. In fact, last Christmas she had an ad of herself writing checks to different groups."

Update: Jake Tapper, over at ABC, had highlighted the "screw em" quote back in October. His article was in reference to comments Sen. Clinton had made about Mississippi. Considering events this past week, the issue has taken on increased relevance.

Late Update: The Clinton campaign put me in touch with Don Baer, President Clinton's speech writer at the time, who had attended the same meeting. He says: "I don't remember anything along those lines, at all. And I certainly don't remember Senator Clinton saying anything like that... they have their recollections of that, that is their business. The conversation, from my perspective, was moderated in tone."

He did not, it should be noted, directly challenge the interpretations of Barber and Boyte.

Baer's comments came at roughly the same moment that The New Republic published a blog post by Alan Wolfe, a professor of political science at Boston College, who was also at the retreat and says he too heard the quote. Noting Carson's remark -- "So, you've got two guys we've barely heard of remembering a verbatim quote from 13 years ago?... Sounds totally and completely reliable" -- Wolfe writes: "Make that three. I was there. I hope people have heard of me. And Barber and Boyte have it right."

Posted by: Concerned Indiania | April 24, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons have taken $15 million (w/ ano 20 on account) from the Emir of Dubai. This while HRC sat in the US Senate. Dubai is a repressive antisemitic anti Israel oligarchy and no friend of the US. While Christians can have churches in Dubai, proselytizing is a crime.
The Emir does not give away money out of the goodness of his heart. He owns the Clintons.
Now HRC announces that she wants to include the United Arab Emirates under the same security umbrella as Israel. Presumptively that she will "obliterate Iran" if it attacks her patrons. This is not influence peddling. It's treason.

Posted by: Miri | April 24, 2008 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Bayh threw his hat into Hillary's ring early because he believed she would win big and early and he would get a high level job out of it. Now he's desperate and is willing to say anything. Birds of a feather sure flock together. Bayh and Hillary seem to have been counting the chickens a little early. Stupid politics.

Posted by: Indiana Resident | April 24, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Bayh threw his hat into Hillary's ring early because he believed she would win big and early and he would get a high level job out of it. Now he's desperate and is willing to say anything. Birds of a feather sure flock together. Bayh and Hillary seem to have been counting the chickens a little early. Stupid politics.

Posted by: Indiana Resident | April 24, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Bayh threw his hat into Hillary's ring early because he believed she would win big and early and he would get a high level job out of it. Now he's desperate and is willing to say anything. Birds of a feather sure flock together. Bayh and Hillary seem to have been counting the chickens a little early. Stupid politics.

Posted by: Indiana Resident | April 24, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Problem is, Bayh jumped on a losing ship that sunk some time ago. Only because of the Clinton brand does the Democratic party, superdelegates and media allow this charade to go on! Indiana delegates and superdelegates should save the Democratic party and make their choice known -- right now!

Posted by: Wanakee | April 24, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Problem is, Bayh jumped on a losing ship that sunk some time ago. Only because of the Clinton brand does the Democratic party, superdelegates and media allow this charade to go on! Indiana delegates and superdelegates should save the Democratic party and make their choice known -- right now!

Posted by: Wanakee | April 24, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Problem is, Bayh jumped on a losing ship that sunk some time ago. Only because of the Clinton brand does the Democratic party, superdelegates and media allow this charade to go on! Indiana delegates and superdelegates should save the Democratic party and make their choice known -- right now!

Posted by: Wanakee | April 24, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

What must the working class white people in Kansas, Nebraska, Utah, Iowa, Wisconsin be thinking when it is said that Obama can not reach working class whites. If you know anything about these states very few blacks live there.

"Why endorse?" is a question that Senator Bayh should be asking himself.

Posted by: T | April 24, 2008 1:15 PM | Report abuse

The Senator should wash his mouth out with SOAP......what a selfish, intimidating thing to say.
To tell someone not to do exactly what he has already done is shameful!!
Are we NOT entitled to hear from these folks? This sounds dictatorial to me!!!Shame on the Senator

Posted by: DickNH | April 24, 2008 1:14 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Is A Cooked Goose, She Can't and She Won't Win Or Steal This Election. Sorry Monster Fans. Bye! Bye!

Posted by: Kate | April 24, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Retired Navy Man~

Why would you mind having a Republican President when you are a Republican? This would seem to be an obvious choice for you. And because of that it is little surprise that you would not have a prolem overturning the will of the People (remember 2000?). What is truly convoluted is how you then state that we only get good legislation when opposing parties are in office and in the Senate Majority. How has that worked for us the last few years under Bush and his newly minted unlimited power?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

With that same thinking, why didn't Mayor Nutter stay away from endorsing Hillary Clinton. He didn't and his city of Philly voted overwhelmingly for Obama. He basically told his base, the people who put him in office that he's knows better than they do. Why do we even vote for these idiots if they are just going to get into office and act on their own interest and their friends interest instead of the interest of "the people". Politics - We need to start over from scratch. These current politicians are ineffective and don't really serve "the people". We're all stupid for supporting them.

Posted by: Jaye | April 24, 2008 1:12 PM | Report abuse

That there is fear in a suit and tie. He is dishing out a veiled threat in his folksy manner. This thing is cooked. Do the math. Endorse Obama and follow your heart.

Posted by: jim chap | April 24, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Just a Thanks to Jacksmith and Retired Navy Man.

Posted by: NickGreek | April 24, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Just a Thanks to Jacksmith and Retired Navy Man.

Posted by: NickGreek | April 24, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

"Their testimonials highlight Senator Clinton's QUALIFICATIONS, EXPERIENCE & STRENGTH OF CHARACTER."

Elena, you must be joking - HRC HAS NO CHARACTER, NO STRENGTH, AND CERTAINLY NO QUALIFICATIONS. Since you seem to think so much about her, please list her qualifications - what dates, job titles and job descriptions has she stated? I have seen none! Since you seem to think she has so much character are you stating that being a LIAR is 'CHARACTER'? As for strength, she's a fat cow so I don't see any strength - I just see FAT.

Seems to me you have not done your homework and need to do some research. The clintons are LIARS, CHEATERS, and SNAKES. How much did they pay the soldiers to support her? I'm sure there is a list somewhere to prove she had to buy their support! If you think for one minute she can WIN the GE, not happenin' - no Black and no Obama supporter votes - that means McCain (Bushco) wins again. And we will not forget so if she runs again as an old hag in 2012, it ain't happenin' then either!!!

Posted by: ObamasLady | April 24, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Am I missing something here....Bayh has endorsed Hillary but is telling others to not endorsed....This is just insane, insane

Posted by: Dee, Tx | April 24, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Thank you Jacksmith and RetiredNavyMan for the refreshing,intelligent post

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

It appears the politics of fear is hard at play here. Bayh tells people not to endorse Obama so Hillary can win! Then a blogger here says if those people endorse Obama they will be voted out in the next election as Bayh controls the entire state. This sounds like George Bush saying that the American people will be doomed if congress does not sign FISA to protect the phone companies not the American people. SO much crap going on in this country it is becoming sickening. This is becoming more and more like 3rd world politics. Democracy or dem-all-crazy!

Posted by: simple facts | April 24, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

I'm also a retired Navy Man and I must disagree with the one that piped up above. If experience is your qualifier then please tell me exactly what Hillary Clinton is experienced in, or John McCain for that matter. They are experienced in digging in their heels and working the system. They love the system because they are entrenched in it and there are many people willing to fawn over them because they have "persevered". But what have they actually accomplished? Meanwhile the average Joe's wages are actually in decline. We are in a war in Iraq that was "planned" (if you want to call it that) by some of the most experienced people in government. Experience is great. I'm sure that there are alot of experienced typewriter repair people in this country, but where are they now since the PC has taken over. We need a system fixer and not a system operator. Obama does not have huge experience in government, thank God, he has experience on the streets working with real people. Vote Obama. He sure as heck won't pound his chest to look tough because he doesn't need to. He has faced real challenges in life and still manages to be level headed and not screaming and yelling at me all the time to make his point.

Posted by: Indiana resident | April 24, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

I'm also a retired Navy Man and I must disagree with the one that piped up above. If experience is your qualifier then please tell me exactly what Hillary Clinton is experienced in, or John McCain for that matter. They are experienced in digging in their heels and working the system. They love the system because they are entrenched in it and there are many people willing to fawn over them because they have "persevered". But what have they actually accomplished? Meanwhile the average Joe's wages are actually in decline. We are in a war in Iraq that was "planned" (if you want to call it that) by some of the most experienced people in government. Experience is great. I'm sure that there are alot of experienced typewriter repair people in this country, but where are they now since the PC has taken over. We need a system fixer and not a system operator. Obama does not have huge experience in government, thank God, he has experience on the streets working with real people. Vote Obama. He sure as heck won't pound his chest to look tough because he doesn't need to. He has faced real challenges in life and still manages to be level headed and not screaming and yelling at me all the time to make his point.

Posted by: Indiana resident | April 24, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

I'm also a retired Navy Man and I must disagree with the one that piped up above. If experience is your qualifier then please tell me exactly what Hillary Clinton is experienced in, or John McCain for that matter. They are experienced in digging in their heels and working the system. They love the system because they are entrenched in it and there are many people willing to fawn over them because they have "persevered". But what have they actually accomplished? Meanwhile the average Joe's wages are actually in decline. We are in a war in Iraq that was "planned" (if you want to call it that) by some of the most experienced people in government. Experience is great. I'm sure that there are alot of experienced typewriter repair people in this country, but where are they now since the PC has taken over. We need a system fixer and not a system operator. Obama does not have huge experience in government, thank God, he has experience on the streets working with real people. Vote Obama. He sure as heck won't pound his chest to look tough because he doesn't need to. He has faced real challenges in life and still manages to be level headed and not screaming and yelling at me all the time to make his point.

Posted by: Indiana resident | April 24, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

I'm also a retired Navy Man and I must disagree with the one that piped up above. If experience is your qualifier then please tell me exactly what Hillary Clinton is experienced in, or John McCain for that matter. They are experienced in digging in their heels and working the system. They love the system because they are entrenched in it and there are many people willing to fawn over them because they have "persevered". But what have they actually accomplished? Meanwhile the average Joe's wages are actually in decline. We are in a war in Iraq that was "planned" (if you want to call it that) by some of the most experienced people in government. Experience is great. I'm sure that there are alot of experienced typewriter repair people in this country, but where are they now since the PC has taken over. We need a system fixer and not a system operator. Obama does not have huge experience in government, thank God, he has experience on the streets working with real people. Vote Obama. He sure as heck won't pound his chest to look tough because he doesn't need to. He has faced real challenges in life and still manages to be level headed and not screaming and yelling at me all the time to make his point.

Posted by: Indiana resident | April 24, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

So why isn't Sen. Evan Bayh not on the sidelines waiting.

Oh right the rules don't apply to Clintons

Posted by: Steph | April 24, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

With that same thinking, why didn't Mayor Nutter stay away from endorsing Hillary Clinton. He didn't and his city of Philly voted overwhelmingly for Obama. He basically told his base, the people who put him in office that he's knows better than they do. Why do we even vote for these idiots if they are just going to get into office and act on their own interest and their friends interest instead of the interest of "the people". Politics - We need to start over from scratch. These current politicians are ineffective and don't really serve "the people". We're all stupid for supporting them.

Posted by: Jaye | April 24, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Do as I say not as I do.What a hypocrite. He
endorses Hillary and campaigns for her and tells others they should stay out of it.Why not give Hillary some advice and tell her to
give it up before she destroys the Democratic
Party. Who gave you the right to advise grownups to stay out of it and you're right
in the middle.


Posted by: E1944 | April 24, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

It appears the politics of fear is hard at play here. Bayh tells people not to endorse Obama so Hillary can win! Then a blogger here says if those people endorse Obama they will be voted out in the next election as Bayh controls the entire state. This sounds like George Bush saying that the American people will be doomed if congress does not sign FISA to protect the phone companies not the American people. SO much crap going on on this country it is becoming sickening. This is becoming more and more like 3rd world politics. Democracy or dem-all-crazy!

Posted by: simple facts | April 24, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

With that same thinking, why didn't Mayor Nutter stay away from endorsing Hillary Clinton. He didn't and his city of Philly voted overwhelmingly for Obama. He basically told his base, the people who put him in office that he's knows better than they do. Why do we even vote for these idiots if they are just going to get into office and act on their own interest and their friends interest instead of the interest of "the people". Politics - We need to start over from scratch. These current politicians are ineffective and don't really serve "the people". We're all stupid for supporting them.

Posted by: Jaye | April 24, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

This is ridiculous. How can he tell the others to wait while he has already come forward and is heavily campaigning for Hillary. Does the word "hypocritical" come to the mind?

Obama '08 for President!

Posted by: Lee | April 24, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

This is ridiculous. How can he tell the others to wait while he has already come forward and is heavily campaigning for Hillary. Does the word "hypocritical" come to the mind?

Obama '08 for President!

Posted by: Lee | April 24, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

She really can take the heat - When she was complaining about having to answer questions first.... Most NY politicians want her out of our state - she came to NY for only one purpose - to run for President.. We can't wait to see her leave..

Where exactly is Hillary from? It depends on what time of the day and the next political plan - Arkansas, Chicago, Scranton, New York... who knows these days?

Posted by: New Yorker | April 24, 2008 12:37 PM | Report abuse

It's nice of Mr Weisman to provide Sen Obama the benefit of endorsements he has not received. The Post has demonstrated a consistent pattern of doing this for Sen Obama. I wonder why they feel this is appropriate.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

If the comments I've seen posted by the
Obama followers are any indication of
what their personalities are, God help
this country. After over thirty years
of active duty, I now wonder whether or
not it was worth fighting for people
like that to have the right to vote.
It's fair to argue policy matters, but
it isn't fair or right to distort the
facts or just make them up. Some of
these postings show absolutely no
knowedge of the political systems in
this country. For instance, they keep
saying "play by the rules." However,
they really don't know what the rules
are. In the Democratic party, the rules
for the presidential primary election
states that a candidate has to have
2025 delegate votes to be the nominee.
Elected delegates are "supposed" to
vote according to their constituents'
vote, at least on the first ballot at
the convention. If after the first
ballot there is no candidate with the
required number of votes, delegates
are free to cast their ballots for
any candidate until one has acquired
the necessary total. Their vote doesn't have to be for one of the candidates that was in the primary race. There is nothing
in the Democratic rules saying that
the superdelegates must or should
follow the national vote. However, it
is expected that they will vote for
the best candidate for the general
election and at the very least vote
according to the wishes of their
constituents. That would indicate
that the superdelegates should express
the will of their "local" constituents
and not the national position. In that
case, since Massachusetts supported
Clinton, those super delegates who have
endorsed Obama (Kennedy, Kerry, Governor
Patrick) must vote the way the people of
Massachusetts voted-for Clinton.
As an Independent, I have no dog in the
Democratic nomination race. My vote will
be based primarily on experience. In that
regard, I could support McCain or Clinton,
depending on what happens between now
and November. In my opinion, Obama has
a very promising future, but he's not
ready at this time to be the leader of
the free world. I personnaly favor having
the Congress and Presidency filled by
opposing parties. When we have that
situation, we only get good legislation.
So, since it appears that the Democrats
whill carry Congress, I wouldn't mind
having a Republican president. However,
it would be vitally important that the
Democrats control at least 60 seats in
the Senate to prevent the Republicans
from creating roadblocks to any good legislation.

Posted by: Retired Navy Man | April 24, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton On Southern Working Class Whites In 1995: "Screw 'Em"
April 16, 2008 02:21 PM


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


During the past week, Sen. Hillary Clinton has presented herself as a working class populist, the politician in touch with small town sentiments, compared to the elitism of her opponent, Sen. Barack Obama.

But a telling anecdote from her husband's administration shows Hillary Clinton's attitudes about the "lunch-bucket Democrats" are not exactly pristine.

In January 1995, as the Clintons were licking their wounds from the 1994 congressional elections, a debate emerged at a retreat at Camp David. Should the administration make overtures to working class white southerners who had all but forsaken the Democratic Party? The then-first lady took a less than inclusive approach.

"Screw 'em," she told her husband. "You don't owe them a thing, Bill. They're doing nothing for you; you don't have to do anything for them."

The statement -- which author Benjamin Barber witnessed and wrote about in his book, "The Truth of Power: Intellectual Affairs in the Clinton White House" -- was prompted by another speaker raising the difficulties of reaching "Reagan Democrats." It stands in stark contrast to the attitude the New York Democrat has recently taken on the campaign trail, in which she has presented herself as the one candidate who understands the working-class needs.

"I don't think [Obama] really gets it that people are looking for a president who stands up for you and not looks down on you," she said this week.

But those who were at the event say the 1995 episode fits into her larger viewpoint. As Harry Boyte, the director of the University of Minnesota's Center for Democracy and Citizenship who was at the retreat, told The Huffington Post: "[Hillary Clinton] sees herself as the champion of the oppressed, but there is always a kind of good guy versus bad guy mentality. The comment before that was that 'the Reagan Democrats are our enemies and they weren't on our side,' and she was agreeing with that comment. She said we should write them off: screw them."

A spokesperson for Clinton said the quote was taken out of context and did not reflect her true political philosophy. "This quote differs from the recollection of others who were in the room at the time this comment was allegedly made," said Jay Carson. "To be clear, that's not how she felt then and it's not how she feels now, and the proof is in how she has lived her life, the work she has done and the policies she has pushed and pursued over the last 35 years."

Asked to produce a witness who would say that Clinton had been misquoted, Carson wrote: "So, you've got two guys we've barely heard of remembering a verbatim quote from 13 years ago?... Sounds totally and completely reliable."

(Carson eventually put me in touch with a source who claimed to not have heard the quote -- see below). Barber's book was published in 2001.

Perhaps even more telling than Hillary Clinton's proclamation, however, were the words from her husband that followed. As reported by Barber, Clinton "stepped in, calm and judicious, not irritated, as if rehearsing an old but honorable debate he had been having with his wife for decades."

I know how you feel. I understand Hillary's sense of outrage. It makes me mad too. Sure, we lost our base in the South; our boys voted for Gingrich. But let me tell you something. I know these boys. I grew up with them. Hardworking, poor, white boys, who feel left out, feel that our reforms always come at their expense. Think about it, every progressive advance our country has made since the Civil War has been on their backs. They're the ones asked to pay the price of progress. Now, we are the party of progress, but let me tell you, until we find a way to include these boys in our programs, until we stop making them pay the whole price of liberty for others, we are never going to unite our party, never really going to have change that sticks.
If the tone and tenor of the above sounds familiar, it's because the message, Boyte says, is remarkably similar to what Obama was trying to convey in his now controversial remarks about small town America.

"Well, yeah, absolutely," said Boyte, when asked if Obama and Bill Clinton were expressing the same political viewpoint (Boyte said he and his organization are neutral in the presidential race). "I think Obama's better-or-worse versions of this have always been that people are complicated. It comes from an organizing perspective. You don't write off people, everyone is complicated. It just depends on the issue. And that's what Bill Clinton was saying. He was a sentimental populist."

Not to be lost in all this, as Boyte notes, is that Hillary Clinton has consistently been a "champion for the people who were helpless and powerless." But there is a political component to the mindset.

"Hillary Clinton has a very strong customer view: the citizen is the customer and the government the vendor," said Boyte. "You can see it in Mark Penn's frame. In fact, last Christmas she had an ad of herself writing checks to different groups."

Update: Jake Tapper, over at ABC, had highlighted the "screw em" quote back in October. His article was in reference to comments Sen. Clinton had made about Mississippi. Considering events this past week, the issue has taken on increased relevance.

Late Update: The Clinton campaign put me in touch with Don Baer, President Clinton's speech writer at the time, who had attended the same meeting. He says: "I don't remember anything along those lines, at all. And I certainly don't remember Senator Clinton saying anything like that... they have their recollections of that, that is their business. The conversation, from my perspective, was moderated in tone."

He did not, it should be noted, directly challenge the interpretations of Barber and Boyte.

Baer's comments came at roughly the same moment that The New Republic published a blog post by Alan Wolfe, a professor of political science at Boston College, who was also at the retreat and says he too heard the quote. Noting Carson's remark -- "So, you've got two guys we've barely heard of remembering a verbatim quote from 13 years ago?... Sounds totally and completely reliable" -- Wolfe writes: "Make that three. I was there. I hope people have heard of me. And Barber and Boyte have it right."

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Hillary would work hard. Hillary has done her homework. But if she doesn't have a majority to lead how can she possibly get anything done? Look at her "experience" with healthcare. A complete and utter failure. Not because she didn't completely understand and believe her set of facts, but because she was unwilling to bring in people with differeing viewpoints. She's the same now. It doesn't matter if she is academically correct. She just doesn't have what it would take to even get the conversation going with the naysayers. Vote for Hillary and you can all sit around for the next 4 to 8 years congratulating yourselves on how right you are while nothing gets done. Sounds like the current occupant. Vote Obama-the only candidate who is willing to have a discussion. More like Bill than Hillary, that's for sure.

Posted by: Indiana resident | April 24, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Despite the Obama camp hurling one false accusation after another at Hillary, accusing her of being negative, when in fact the insults and threats have all come from the Obama camp and his media pundits; for the last 5 months, Hillary not only withstood the attacks, she's demonstrated again that SHE can take the heat, Obama cannot.

Vote Hillary is the only way to go. She's proven she's got what it takes!

Posted by: Daina | April 24, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Why doesn't he take his own advice? Laughable.

Posted by: DVS | April 24, 2008 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Hillary and her fellow backers seem to question very little. So as an Obama supporter I decided to do you guys a favor since it is unlikely you bother to fact check erroneous allegations against your candidate since you do not verify claims your candidate makes rather accept them as gospel.

Little do you Hillary supporters know that an advantage of checking out your candidate's record is you can fight false claims also instead of hoping and praying factcheck.org does your work for you.

Here is the claim by NewsMaxx likely to find its way on Fox.

http://www.newsmax.com/morris/hillary_terrorists_ties/2008/04/21/89653.html

They try to tie Hillary to
Talks about Hillary and fundrasing ties to a group supporting Hamas. I could not find any info backing up that claim they support Hamas but I do know they were one of the groups that supported the 9/11 victims.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks
Check under Muslim American reaction.

Saddly to say Hillary not only is comfortable spreading such rumors about Obama she fails to vet the same rumors about herself. I guess at this point as long as it does not cost her politically she could give a damn about her reputation.


Posted by: TjustSaying | April 24, 2008 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton On Southern Working Class Whites In 1995: "Screw 'Em"
April 16, 2008 02:21 PM


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

Read More: Bill Clinton Regan Democrats, Clinton 1995, Clinton Attacks Obama, Clinton Regan Democrats, Clinton Screw Em, Clinton Small Towns, Clinton Working Class, Obama Small Towns, Breaking Politics News Politics Show your support.
Buzz this article up. Buzz up!
About Sam Stein
Sam Stein is a Political Reporter at the Huffington Post, based in Washington, D.C. Previously he has worked for Newsweek magazine, the New York Daily News and the investigative journalism group Center for Public Integrity. He has a masters from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and is a graduate of Dartmouth College. Sam can be reached at stein@huffingtonpost.com.


Like this story? Get Alerts of big news events. Enter your email address

During the past week, Sen. Hillary Clinton has presented herself as a working class populist, the politician in touch with small town sentiments, compared to the elitism of her opponent, Sen. Barack Obama.

But a telling anecdote from her husband's administration shows Hillary Clinton's attitudes about the "lunch-bucket Democrats" are not exactly pristine.

In January 1995, as the Clintons were licking their wounds from the 1994 congressional elections, a debate emerged at a retreat at Camp David. Should the administration make overtures to working class white southerners who had all but forsaken the Democratic Party? The then-first lady took a less than inclusive approach.

"Screw 'em," she told her husband. "You don't owe them a thing, Bill. They're doing nothing for you; you don't have to do anything for them."

The statement -- which author Benjamin Barber witnessed and wrote about in his book, "The Truth of Power: Intellectual Affairs in the Clinton White House" -- was prompted by another speaker raising the difficulties of reaching "Reagan Democrats." It stands in stark contrast to the attitude the New York Democrat has recently taken on the campaign trail, in which she has presented herself as the one candidate who understands the working-class needs.

"I don't think [Obama] really gets it that people are looking for a president who stands up for you and not looks down on you," she said this week.

But those who were at the event say the 1995 episode fits into her larger viewpoint. As Harry Boyte, the director of the University of Minnesota's Center for Democracy and Citizenship who was at the retreat, told The Huffington Post: "[Hillary Clinton] sees herself as the champion of the oppressed, but there is always a kind of good guy versus bad guy mentality. The comment before that was that 'the Reagan Democrats are our enemies and they weren't on our side,' and she was agreeing with that comment. She said we should write them off: screw them."

A spokesperson for Clinton said the quote was taken out of context and did not reflect her true political philosophy. "This quote differs from the recollection of others who were in the room at the time this comment was allegedly made," said Jay Carson. "To be clear, that's not how she felt then and it's not how she feels now, and the proof is in how she has lived her life, the work she has done and the policies she has pushed and pursued over the last 35 years."

Asked to produce a witness who would say that Clinton had been misquoted, Carson wrote: "So, you've got two guys we've barely heard of remembering a verbatim quote from 13 years ago?... Sounds totally and completely reliable."

(Carson eventually put me in touch with a source who claimed to not have heard the quote -- see below). Barber's book was published in 2001.

Perhaps even more telling than Hillary Clinton's proclamation, however, were the words from her husband that followed. As reported by Barber, Clinton "stepped in, calm and judicious, not irritated, as if rehearsing an old but honorable debate he had been having with his wife for decades."

I know how you feel. I understand Hillary's sense of outrage. It makes me mad too. Sure, we lost our base in the South; our boys voted for Gingrich. But let me tell you something. I know these boys. I grew up with them. Hardworking, poor, white boys, who feel left out, feel that our reforms always come at their expense. Think about it, every progressive advance our country has made since the Civil War has been on their backs. They're the ones asked to pay the price of progress. Now, we are the party of progress, but let me tell you, until we find a way to include these boys in our programs, until we stop making them pay the whole price of liberty for others, we are never going to unite our party, never really going to have change that sticks.
If the tone and tenor of the above sounds familiar, it's because the message, Boyte says, is remarkably similar to what Obama was trying to convey in his now controversial remarks about small town America.

"Well, yeah, absolutely," said Boyte, when asked if Obama and Bill Clinton were expressing the same political viewpoint (Boyte said he and his organization are neutral in the presidential race). "I think Obama's better-or-worse versions of this have always been that people are complicated. It comes from an organizing perspective. You don't write off people, everyone is complicated. It just depends on the issue. And that's what Bill Clinton was saying. He was a sentimental populist."

Not to be lost in all this, as Boyte notes, is that Hillary Clinton has consistently been a "champion for the people who were helpless and powerless." But there is a political component to the mindset.

"Hillary Clinton has a very strong customer view: the citizen is the customer and the government the vendor," said Boyte. "You can see it in Mark Penn's frame. In fact, last Christmas she had an ad of herself writing checks to different groups."

Update: Jake Tapper, over at ABC, had highlighted the "screw em" quote back in October. His article was in reference to comments Sen. Clinton had made about Mississippi. Considering events this past week, the issue has taken on increased relevance.

Late Update: The Clinton campaign put me in touch with Don Baer, President Clinton's speech writer at the time, who had attended the same meeting. He says: "I don't remember anything along those lines, at all. And I certainly don't remember Senator Clinton saying anything like that... they have their recollections of that, that is their business. The conversation, from my perspective, was moderated in tone."

He did not, it should be noted, directly challenge the interpretations of Barber and Boyte.

Baer's comments came at roughly the same moment that The New Republic published a blog post by Alan Wolfe, a professor of political science at Boston College, who was also at the retreat and says he too heard the quote. Noting Carson's remark -- "So, you've got two guys we've barely heard of remembering a verbatim quote from 13 years ago?... Sounds totally and completely reliable" -- Wolfe writes: "Make that three. I was there. I hope people have heard of me. And Barber and Boyte have it right."

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

I'm sure Evan Bayh will no doubt be withdrawing his own endorsement then.

Posted by: Josh | April 24, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Evista,
He made that war comment to protect Kerry and Edwards. Lay off it and go back to loving your family, this race is over.

Posted by: Al Gore | April 24, 2008 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Shorter Evan Bayh:

I've already endorsed Hillary, but you shouldn't endorse Barack yet because that would presuppose a decision of the voters.

Posted by: Media Browski | April 24, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Get off their case. This decision will be made after factoring in loyalty to someone who helped them in their campaign, who their district likes, and who they think will make a better president (or who's politics they prefer). If they are willing to risk reelection by going against their district by supporting a candidate based on loyalty or judgment of who's best, that's to be admired.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Hillary did the right thing when she voted for the war.
It was the Bushman who LIED to the United Nations and the USA.
Obama was not in the Senate!!!!!!!!!!
REMEMBER?

He has supported the war and voted for every bill that Hillary has.

He also said he did not know what he would have done had he been in the Senate when the vote for war was presented.

So buzz off with that excuse it doesn't work anymore.

Posted by: Evista | April 24, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Hillary voted for the war in Iraq. Put $1 trillion in Halliburton's pocket.

Posted by: Joyce | April 24, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Please vote the Clintons for a third term. We do not deserve better - The Clintons and the Bushes forever.

Why are Republicans attacking Obama relentlessly and holding their fire on the Clintons as if they do not have a pile of "****" on the Clintons? Because they would rather face the Clintons in the general:

Clintons pardoned terrorists
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120277819085260827.html

Clinton Library Fund Scandal

Clinton Pardon for Cash Scandal

Sandy Berger stealing Clinton Admin papers from National Archives - What is he trying to hide?

Hope the Clintons have returned the stolen plates they took from the white house on their way out?

Posted by: Indy guy | April 24, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Hypocrisy knows no limits with the Clinton campaign.

Posted by: hypocrite Bayh | April 24, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Bayh is just like Hillary and the rest of the "I'll tell you what's best for you" type politicians. What is so ironic about him laying down the gauntlet is that he has clearly endorsed FAR in advance and is now wanting those lowly Represenatives to hold off. What a joke.

Posted by: Ron | April 24, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA VOTED FOR THE BUSH/CHENEY ENERGY BILL.

PUT $6MIL IN HALLIBURTON'S POCKET

Posted by: Joyce | April 24, 2008 12:19 PM | Report abuse

HYPOCRITE!! A true Clinton supporter. Why would he say that and then turn around and campaign for someone who signed a piece of paper agreeing that MI and FL votes would not be accepted. She is a disgraceful woman and mothers all over the world should teach their daughters that this is not how you conduct yourself. Lying, cheating and manipulating the system is the Clinton mantra.
Please Obama do not sink to their level.

Posted by: fmlndn71 | April 24, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA VOTED FOR THE BUSH/CHENEY ENERGY BILL.

PUT $6MIL IN HALLIBURTON'S POCKET

Posted by: Joyce | April 24, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Huh???

Did he not Endorse Hilary or am I missing something here???

Wasn't he suppose to run?
Hillary promised him the VP position so he back out.

Gov Bayd, with all due respect, you endorsed the wrong candidate... Hilary got Baracked!

Next Stop - Barakalization of the Mccain camp....

OBAMA - 08

Posted by: Jim | April 24, 2008 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Change is Good!!

Putting Change in My Pocket is Better!!

Vote HILLARY for a BETTER ECONOMY!!!!

$$$$$$$$$$$

Posted by: Beverly | April 24, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse

It seems that Hillary's political supporters would say or do anything for "the cause". Would these poloticians be top picks for an HRC cabinet? hmmm.. an administration full of "yes" people... Sound familiar?

Posted by: VAReader | April 24, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse

I suggest Bayh should take his own advice. I won't elect anyone that steers me towards more duplicity in the executive branch. How many lies do we need to catch the Clintons in before we recognize the old pattern again? Is this what your all about Evan?

Posted by: Ed | April 24, 2008 12:13 PM | Report abuse

I suggest Bayh should take his own advice. I won't elect anyone that steers me towards more duplicity in the executive branch. How many lies do we need to catch the Clintons in before we recognize the old pattern again? Is this what your all about Evan?

Posted by: Ed | April 24, 2008 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Change is Good!!

Putting Change in My Pocket is Better!!

Vote HILLARY for a BETTER ECONOMY!!!!

Posted by: Beverly | April 24, 2008 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Change is Good!!

Putting Change in My Pocket is Better!!

Vote HILLARY for a BETTER ECONOMY!!!!

$$$$$$$$$$$

Posted by: Beverly | April 24, 2008 12:13 PM | Report abuse

I suggest Bayh should take his own advice. I won't elect anyone that steers me towards more duplicity in the executive branch. How many lies do we need to catch the Clintons in before we recognize the old pattern again? Is this what your all about Evan?

Posted by: Ed | April 24, 2008 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Change is Good!!

Putting Change in My Pocket is Better!!

Vote HILLARY for a BETTER ECONOMY!!!!

Posted by: Beverly | April 24, 2008 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Change is Good!!

Putting Change in My Pocket is Better!!

Vote HILLARY for a BETTER ECONOMY!!!!

$$$$$$$$$$$

Posted by: Beverly | April 24, 2008 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Change is Good!!

Putting Change in My Pocket is Better!!

Vote HILLARY for a BETTER ECONOMY!!!!

$$$$$$$$$$$

Posted by: Beverly | April 24, 2008 12:13 PM | Report abuse

But.. but.. according to Hillary, they should vote for the best choice, not succumb to voter pressure? Why should they just keep their opinion silent now? Could it be because they are admittedly leaning towards endorsing someone apart from Clinton?

Nah, they'd never play that game of hypocrisy.

Posted by: BLR | April 24, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

V-O-T-E- HILLARY!!!
NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, WEST
SHE'S THE BEST!!!!

GO, GO HILLARY!!!!

Posted by: Beverly | April 24, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

V-O-T-E- HILLARY!!!
NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, WEST
SHE'S THE BEST!!!!

GO, GO HILLARY!!!!

Posted by: Beverly | April 24, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

V-O-T-E- HILLARY!!!
NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, WEST
SHE'S THE BEST!!!!

GO, GO HILLARY!!!!

Posted by: Beverly | April 24, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

V-O-T-E- HILLARY!!!
NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, WEST
SHE'S THE BEST!!!!

GO, GO HILLARY!!!!

Posted by: Beverly | April 24, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Pradeep Srivastava, you are obviously no statistician. You have a future as a propagandist though. Good luck to you.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

V-O-T-E- HILLARY!!!
NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, WEST
SHE'S THE BEST!!!!

GO, GO HILLARY!!!!

Posted by: Beverly | April 24, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

That's right -- Hillary was in the UNITED STATES Senate, and she knew about the classified information that Barry Hussein did not have access to -- she made the right call.

Seriously uninformed talk right here, just like Hillary was at the time of the vote. She hadn't read the NIE on Iraq. She is repeating her mistake by not reading the NIE on Iran and threatening to nuke them when they have effectively been deterred, according to the estimate. Do we really need another President who is going to ignore the intelligence and act in a brazen, war-mongering way? If that's what you want, vote Hillary "Obliterate 'em" Clinton. And good luck to us all.

And it's Barack. You confuse being clever for intellect.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 12:00 PM | Report abuse

I find it interesting that Sen. Bayh is discouraging super delegates to endorse a candidate when he himself has already drawn his line in the sand. Thats kinda hypocritical and typical of the Clinton machine.

Posted by: QUINCY | April 24, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse

In other words...

"Do as I say, not as I do."

Jerk.

Posted by: SZnoodles | April 24, 2008 11:51 AM | Report abuse

Wow, what happened to every voice needs to be heard?

These people will do or say anything to secure this nomination. Every day it is more bizarre and polarizing.

Hand her a big, fat loss, Hoosiers! Let's end this slow death of the Dem party.

Posted by: Susan in PA | April 24, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

It's too bad that the senator did not take his own advice. Why endorse? It would seem that you would endorse so that you could then campaign for the candidate you support, like Senator Bayh is doing for Senator Clinton.

Posted by: Shawn | April 24, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Hillary sock puppets are in a lather again...good to see that the life support measures have succeeded. Welcome back to the world. Now perhaps your campaign can pay some of its debts. I loved that post from Jack Smith. Since when is an 8-point loss crushing? Hillary gained nine pledged delegates. I loved his longer post even more where he uses Bill Clinton as an example for Hillary's "experience." WOW, if I vote for Hillary I'll be voting for governance by osmosis. Using Jack Smith's logic, the TV news crews who were tasked with covering Bill Clinton can probably run the government even better than Hillary since they spent more time with him. And Hack, er, Jack, the criticism over Hillary's failed health care plan in 1993 didn't have anything to do with the idea or her pushing it. The problem is how angry she became when it was clear she'd have to work a little harder, come up with some redrafted and play politics if she wanted to get it passed. She did neither. Instead, she threatened other Democratic leaders and basically, like a four-year-old, took her ball and went home. When the Democratic-controlled congress can't get your pet project passed, that's when you know you have a problem. The lack of style and leadership qualities Hillary showed then were a big reason why the Democrats lost the House and Senate the following year.

Posted by: Mark Billingsley | April 24, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Obama is a dud. He'll be like George W. (Deer in the headlights look).

Obama = Gollum

Posted by: Simon | April 24, 2008 11:32 AM | Report abuse

Evan Bayh is himself a political crook and asking I don't know on which moral ground to Reps. Brad Ellsworth, Baron Hill and Joe Donnolly not to endorse Obama rather wait and watch. Why the hail he didn't do the same rather jumping on Clinton. Now Obama has to prove immediately that he has the capacity (or tough enough)to get the support from Reps. Brad Ellsworth, Baron Hill and Joe Donnolly within 24 hours

Posted by: Democrat-21st century | April 24, 2008 11:30 AM | Report abuse

I have to laugh now when I read all these comments. Interesting is that with the idea to stop endorsing are coming only HRC supporters like Sen.Bayh. Remember after Texas and Ohio it was some from HRC camp too who whispered stop endorsing to the super delegates and they listened and stopped. I hope it is not the case now because math is absolutely clear. Even some right wing pundits on CNN or MSNBC saying race is over.(I am sure they would love to see it different way)

Posted by: Jarda1 | April 24, 2008 11:30 AM | Report abuse

See, this is the very problem with Senator Clinton's campaign.They are sooo hypocritical.Is BAYH paying attention to his own call?OH, THIS CAMPAIGN SHOWED PEOPLE'S TRUE COLORS.I think Senator Obama put up a real strong showing in PA. The man was there for only six weeks.Senator Clinton was a hometown girl so she had the advantage. Another thing, the Media needs to stop being so divisive.Black voters,White voters,Catholic voters, Educated voters, Blue collar voters!!!I thought these voters were just American voters.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 11:29 AM | Report abuse

It has been proven over and over again that Hillary attracts white voters without college education much better than Obama does.
There are 69.1% non-Hispanic whites in this country (refer to: www.censusscope.org) out of which only 25.9% have college education, which implies that 74.1% of them have no college education (refer to: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/american_community_survey_acs/001802.html). This means that 51.2% (74.1% of 69.1%)of US population is comprised of non-Hispanic whites with no college education. That's more than half of the US population! You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that you cannot win if more than half of the population refuses to vote for you! In the general election, many of the whites without college education may decide to vote for a white male guy, McCain, creating a new voting block, called McCain Democrats, akin to Reagan Democrats. In a nutshell, Hillary will be lot more electable in the general election than Obama will be! I hope the superdelegates, especially the Obamamaniacs, will recognize this "inconvenient truth" and vote for the most electable candidate instead of worrying about political correctness or heeding to the forces of the "affirmative action"

Posted by: Pradeep Srivastava | April 24, 2008 11:29 AM | Report abuse

I was a very strong supporter of Evan Bayh and had met and spoke with him and Susan at numerous events. How dare he intimidate the new members of congress when he is Hillary's biggest shill in the state of Indiana. I guarantee i will never vote for him again and I am sure he will never get President Obamas endorsement. Give it up Evan.

Posted by: Ron | April 24, 2008 11:27 AM | Report abuse

Evan your being suckered too. She's not going to pick you for the VP - number one she lost the nomination and two she's using you for votes dear. And what a hypocrite telling the others not to endorse. What did you do? Gee and these are our leaders in Washington folks. No wonder our country is in the shape it's in.

Posted by: Jey | April 24, 2008 11:26 AM | Report abuse

As a Hoosier, I just want to say that I love Evan Bayh and respect him and everything he's done for my state. He would be a great VP and maybe a great president someday.

However, he's come down on the wrong side this time. I know he has strong Clinton ties, but now it's almost certain the nom will go to Obama.

I've already voted absentee for Obama, but don't worry, Evan--I still like you.

Posted by: JBS | April 24, 2008 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Maybe they will endorse Obama since he helped campaign for them in Indiana, Bayh says simply do as i say not as i do another goalpost mover for the clintons

Posted by: Obama 08 | April 24, 2008 11:18 AM | Report abuse

Why do the Obama supporters post with facts and clarity while the Hillary supporters post with speculation and bable?
I guess they learn from their respective candidates.

P.S putting it in ALL CAPS does not make it sound any more intelligent, it still ranks as bable and speculation.

Posted by: TjustSaying | April 24, 2008 11:16 AM | Report abuse

I WOULD NEVER VOTE FOR OBAMA - I WOULD CROSS THE LINES AND VOTE MCCAIN BEFORE OBAMA

Posted by: rc | April 24, 2008 11:12 AM | Report abuse

Bayh is a hypocrite telling the Congressmen not to endorse when he is a stalwart Hillary supporter campaigning vigorously for her. Just more of the politics of fear going on here. What is HE so afraid of? That Sen. Obama just might be electable? Didn't Obama already prove that in PA where he lost by just 9.2 points, and even Rendell agreed that he could take the state in the GE?
Obama 2008!
Let's get behind a winner, not a scandalous liar!

Posted by: grainne75 | April 24, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

obama - bitter bitter bitter - unpatriotic unpatriotic unpatriotic - elitist - elitist - elitist

Posted by: sm | April 24, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

Bayh trying to suppress support for Obama. Maybe he should have followed his own advice and stood neutral until his state spoke. Rendell , Bayh I wonder who else Hillary has offered the VP spot too. I always respected Birch Bayh . Is Evan more like "W "

Posted by: Vin | April 24, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

Hillary had the most money on day one.

She had the most super delegates on day one.

She had highest ranking democrate Bill Clinton in her corner on day one.

She had the most solid Democratic machinary in many states behind her one day one.

Now on day two she is almost in the red financially, lossing by states won, delegates, and popular vote.

And she has been trying to change the rules to make it seem she is the only one that is ready on day one.

She is the one that finally after over 365 day ones finally figured out that getting small donations as Obama did on day one was a better way to raise cash.

Or should I say she finally decided to get partially on board the Obama change campaign.

But she learned the wrong lesson again cause I do not recall Obama begging for donations during his campaign speeches. I do not recall him on tv begging for donations off the stump either.

I do not recall him bragging to wipe Iran off the map if they attacked Isreal. They already know we will attack them if Iran attacks Isreal but being bold enough to say it so cavilar on national tv means that even if they were not trying to get nuclear weapons before they sure have a reason to be affraid enough to seek them now. When a country our size makes such a threat to a small country I think the candidate who claims to be ready on day one does not understand the implications of such a move.

Ready on day one sounds like a fictional novel piece because the facts of this campaign season just do not bear that out.

Posted by: JustSaying | April 24, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

"A woman candidate for the most powerful political post in the world brings out the patriarchal big guns firing some fairly basic, personally abusive, ammuntion.

They seem to deprecate the very prospect of a woman president."

If Hillary voted against the war and Obama supported it, I would vote for Hillary. There isn't that much daylight between them on other issues. The irony is that Hillary's desire to appear tough, perhaps a consequence of her gender, perhaps a consequence of her lack of conscience, led to her UNAPOLOGETIC Iraq war vote and doomed her campaign. Ask Rudy Guiliani how well having a position that 80% of your party finds repugnant works out for you. In fact, if it were not that Hillary is the wife of a former president and running a historical campaign as the first woman, she never would gotten traction to begin with.

And she can ponder for years to come how different things would be if she had had the moral courage to oppose the war when it was unpopular like Barack Obama did. If she had, she would have won in a walk. It all has very little to do with gender, sorry.

Posted by: Hey Hillary, those stains won't come out. | April 24, 2008 11:09 AM | Report abuse

Oh, I am laughing now. I hope the other Indiana House members blast him back. It's okay for Bayh to endorse Clinton but tell the others to hold off? What a crock....Indiana please end this contest...I hope you vote for Obama....do you really want more scandals in the White House....You might want to read the Paul versus Clinton Fraud trial coming up as we speak, as matter a fact it starts tomorrow....

Posted by: Susan, TX | April 24, 2008 11:09 AM | Report abuse

OBAMA IS APPLYING FOR COMEDIAN'S JOB AT SNL*

AFTER HUFFING PUFFING AND WHINING ABOUT HIS BRUISING DEFEAT AND RUNNING FOR COVER AFTER ABC JOURNALIST SNIPER FIRE, OBAMA HAS FOUND ASYLUM ON STAGE 'FLIPPING OFF' (covert fingering) SEN. HILLARY CLINTON DURING HIS DAY AFTER SPEECH--MUCH TO THE DELIGHT OF HIS 'IN ON IT' N.C. AUDIENCE, SOME TOO SHOCKED TO EVEN APPLAUD FOR HIS OBVIOUS MIMIC AND COMEDIAN TALENTS!!

SUCH JUNIOR HIGHSCHOOL COMPETENCE IN THE COVERT FINGERING OF CIVILITY AND GOOD MANNERS FROM THIS WOMAN-BASHING RAPPER WANNABE INSPIRES HOPE AND CONFIDENCE IN HIS PRESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE.

SEN. OBAMA SHOULD REVISE HIS RESUME IMMEDIATELY AND SEND IT OFF TO SNL FOR THE TOP MIME-COMEDY SPOT AVAILABLE! HE'S A SHOO-IN! REFERENCES FROM HIS AUDIENCE!

Posted by: mary | April 24, 2008 11:08 AM | Report abuse

OBAMA IS APPLYING FOR COMEDIAN'S JOB AT SNL*

AFTER HUFFING PUFFING AND WHINING ABOUT HIS BRUISING DEFEAT AND RUNNING FOR COVER AFTER ABC JOURNALIST SNIPER FIRE, OBAMA HAS FOUND ASYLUM ON STAGE 'FLIPPING OFF' (covert fingering) SEN. HILLARY CLINTON DURING HIS DAY AFTER SPEECH--MUCH TO THE DELIGHT OF HIS 'IN ON IT' N.C. AUDIENCE, SOME TOO SHOCKED TO EVEN APPLAUD FOR HIS OBVIOUS MIMIC AND COMEDIAN TALENTS!!

SUCH JUNIOR HIGHSCHOOL COMPETENCE IN THE COVERT FINGERING OF CIVILITY AND GOOD MANNERS FROM THIS WOMAN-BASHING RAPPER WANNABE INSPIRES HOPE AND CONFIDENCE IN HIS PRESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE.

SEN. OBAMA SHOULD REVISE HIS RESUME IMMEDIATELY AND SEND IT OFF TO SNL FOR THE TOP MIME-COMEDY SPOT AVAILABLE! HE'S A SHOO-IN! REFERENCES FROM HIS AUDIENCE!

Posted by: mary | April 24, 2008 11:08 AM | Report abuse

Evan Bayh is himself a political crook and asking I don't know on which moral ground to Reps. Brad Ellsworth, Baron Hill and Joe Donnolly not to endorse Obama rather wait and watch. Why the hail he didn't do the same rather jumping on Clinton. Now Obama has to prove immediately that he has the capacity (or tough enough)to get the support from Reps. Brad Ellsworth, Baron Hill and Joe Donnolly within 24 hours.!

Posted by: Democrat-21st century | April 24, 2008 11:08 AM | Report abuse

The idea of the military supporting Hillary as Commander and Chief is simply ridiculous. Yes there are some ex-military general officers who have crawled out of the woodwork to endorse her candidacy. But, let's get real. These are the same political hacks whose promotions were approved by Bill Clinton while he was in office. Think they don't have a debt to repay to the Clintons... then think again. Their endorsements are bought and paid for by the Clinton campaign and their services are for hire. Who do you think will earn millions of dollars in government consulting fees if Hillary is elected. Forget about these ex-military triple-dippers. Many of them are responsible for the mess Obama or McCain will have to clean up next January.

When the phone in the White House rings at 3AM do you really want Hillary to push the button and NUC Iran or any other country ??? In pandering to the Jewish vote, Hillary has said that she will unleash nuclear war on Iran or anyone else that attacks Israel with weapons of mass destruction. Here is a candicate who is politically embarrassed about her vote to send our troops into Iraq and who now has a declarative policy to wage nuclear war in the Middle East. Sounds to me like she is right up there with Kim Yong Il from North Korea or Hugo Chavez from Venezuela when it comes to saber rattling and international diplomacy. Perhaps some of those ex-military general officers she has on her payroll should give her some good advice about a global power like the US threatening nuclear war like a maniacal Third World dictatorship.

Ready to be Commander in Chief ??? Not now, not ever.

Posted by: GetReal | April 24, 2008 11:07 AM | Report abuse

What is his new name "Do as I say, not as I do Bayh?"

Most of these pols are clowns, especially the second generations.

Posted by: jeffp | April 24, 2008 11:06 AM | Report abuse

What a hypocrate! By his own reasoning, he shouldn't have endorsed months ago!

Posted by: Rory | April 24, 2008 11:06 AM | Report abuse

HILLARY HAS A CREDIBILITY PROBLEM - much deeper than Senator Obama's can ever by. BOSNIA LIES - she flatout lied to us and insulted our military. Her recent statements puts the entire middle east on NUCLEAR notice. Bill Clinton - well let's just say HE has questionable ties that will return to the white house. HE will be influentian in the White House,

Posted by: Jennie | April 24, 2008 11:03 AM | Report abuse

Bayh + Hillary = Republicans in Democrats suits.

We don't like Bayh all that much in Indiana. Press gives him too much credit

Posted by: Kyle from Indy | April 24, 2008 11:01 AM | Report abuse

If the tide is turning, it's turning red. She is lying about not supporting NAFTA. Even David Gergen who was Bill's consultant in the White House said she raised questions BUT not about NAFTA in principle but because she thought they would lose union voters. I don't know why the 2nd half of his statement is never quoted. Oh, wait. Yes, I do. Anyway, who knows what she really thinks about anything.

jackwhoever--You post the same thing in multiple blogs so I guess you really like it. Personally I think it shows who the 'it takes a village' idiot is.

Posted by: Lil Red Hen | April 24, 2008 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Oh, wait, Bayh is telling superdelegates to hold off their endorsements when he's already endorsed someone? If he believes that so much then maybe he should pull his endorsement from HRC and wait until Indiana votes. What an idiot!

How on earth do you expect Hillary to get anything done in Washington? SHE IS BOUGHT AND PAID FOR BY WASHINGTON LOBBYISTS! She is not "for the people", she is fighting for her own self-interest and ego.

Posted by: kp | April 24, 2008 10:55 AM | Report abuse

I am sure Governor Evan Bayh would not be making this comment if Hillary was the front runner. His partisan comments have no place in this primary.

Barack Obama for President in 2008. Sorry governor, no VP for you this time around.

Posted by: Robin | April 24, 2008 10:54 AM | Report abuse

NAH, SCREW IT. I WOULD SOCK HER IF I SAW HER ON THE STREET. NOW YA'LL CAN BAN ME.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 10:47 AM | Report abuse

A woman candidate for the most powerful political post in the world brings out the patriarchal big guns firing some fairly basic, personally abusive, ammuntion.

They seem to deprecate the very prospect of a woman president. Contrary to this view I think the gender issue in the American presidential election is what makes it fascinating.

Senator Hillary Clinton is the first woman to have a chance to fill the most powerful political post in the world. That in my opinion is a momentous chance for American women to exercise their collective political muscle on behalf of women everywhere. They are a majority in all democracies yet have derisory political representation in most.

A woman president of the United States of America would be a real change. I hope she wins.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 10:47 AM | Report abuse

Comeon, Indiana Supers. Show Mr. Bayh how much you think of his "Do as I say, not as I do." philosophy.

Posted by: VAReader | April 24, 2008 10:47 AM | Report abuse

Here is what is, was, aand always will be wrong with Hillary.
http://www.cnn.com/2006//POLITICS/01/20/ivins.hillary/index.html

Not the rest of that Bush-lite DLC group, which then included old Joe Lieberman, now McCainn's best pal.
What has happened since? Well, Hillary started getting cozy with Murdock who raises funds and runs Fox freakishnerss for her. She joined that vast right wing conspiracy headed by Scaife, who used to dislike her annd hasn't changed. So mayber she has --- and to his liking!

We don't hear much about the two top issues: war and economics.
But our candidates differ there. Hillary not only voted for the invasion of Iraq, but she voted permission for Bush to attack Iran as well. I reckon warmongers should like her best.
I note that the Financial Times has endorsed Obama. That publication is not haqppy with Bush. If you are, you should vote for Hillary.
I am going to vote for Obama.

Can he win in the fall? Well, frankly, do you think McCain will be any tougher for him than Clinton? He has beaten her and the crown that will support McCain in the fall.

Along the Dixie Highway, folks like John Mellencamp who likes Barack Obama. Let's party!

Posted by: Buck Burris | April 24, 2008 10:46 AM | Report abuse

If he can endorse, they why shouldn't they? He is the most powerful voice of all, so shouldn't he have stayed on the sidelines and "let the voters speak"?

Posted by: KLewis | April 24, 2008 10:46 AM | Report abuse

IF I SAW HER ON THE STREET, I WOULD SAY, HOW DO YOU DO, YOUNG LADY? I TAKE BACK THE COMMENT ABOUT SOCKING HER.

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

Hilary's ship is sinking and no one can save her. Obama will be a great President.

Posted by: Bonny | April 24, 2008 10:45 AM | Report abuse

SORRY. HILLARY IS A NICE LADY. ( I JUST THREW UP IN MY MOUTH)

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 10:43 AM | Report abuse

So according to Bayh,

You only vote how your friends want you to vote.

Wow!

What happened to thinking for yourself?

Posted by: X | April 24, 2008 10:41 AM | Report abuse

Why couldn't he wait as well until his state has decided. This type of selfish attitude is too blatant for him to be a representative of the people.

Now I regret having voted for him.

Posted by: RJ | April 24, 2008 10:33 AM | Report abuse

Hillary has threatened Iran with nuclear obliteration. What ever happened to speak softly and carry a big stick?

Posted by: John Talbutt | April 24, 2008 10:33 AM | Report abuse

Wait a minute, Bayh - who HAS ENDORSED PRIOR TO THE ELECTION - wants everyone else to Wait?!

I think he is afraid that Hillary may NOT take all three districts if the House members endorse Obama.

Posted by: Mel | April 24, 2008 10:31 AM | Report abuse

So, if Senator Bayh believes what he says, when will he retract his endorsement of Senator Clinton?

Posted by: Bruce | April 24, 2008 10:30 AM | Report abuse

He's telling them to stay out - but he didn't. He endorsed Hillary before his state decided... yeah, that's fair.

STUPID.

Posted by: Shawn | April 24, 2008 10:29 AM | Report abuse

"Why should they get crosswise with some of their friends if they really don't need to?" asked Bayh, perhaps the most powerful elected Democrat in the state."

Maybe because, even though they're politicians, they have a SHRED of integrity to their own beliefs. No one had a problem with hundreds of supers endorsing Hillary right after she announced she was running, well before we saw Obama start to beat the pants off her. But now..."wait?" Give me a break. We are taking Indiana. Hillary's divide and conquer strategy will not serve her there.

Posted by: Megan | April 24, 2008 10:26 AM | Report abuse

The fact that Hillary voted for the war is a very important fact of her candidacy and needs to be considered by people who say they are against this war. I don't know how to impact on all you Hillary supporters that the death of 4,000 young men and women from the US, and countless Iraqis (by some estimates as many as 1,000,000)is a terrible terrible loss, just so this person could further her political career. She has no ideology. She just wants to win, at any cost. There is some basic humanity missing from Hillary's character. She scares me to death.

Posted by: rzan | April 24, 2008 10:23 AM | Report abuse

Sen. Bayh is a hypocrite. He is a Clinton insider, and doesn't need to be telling other people who to support. These people should go ahead and show they support Obama just like Bayh did with Clinton. Show the people of Indiana they have the guts to use their own judgment, not do what someone tells them to. Is that what's going to happen when they get to Washington? They will vote when they are told to. Typical Washington politics. Stand up for what you believe in now. Send Clinton packing. I guess the Governor from Penna will get a seat on the cabinet if Clinton does make it. Look how he scared all those mayors into backing Clinton. Probably told them forget any money to your towns if you don't push for Clinton. That's the way the Clinton machine works. When are people going to realize that? Then of course you had your racists in Penna. I don't believe Indiana is like that. They will see thru Clinton and do what's right.

Posted by: Eddie | April 24, 2008 10:18 AM | Report abuse

HILLARY IS DOOMED;TOUGH ON CRIME?WATCH:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMfUajhL24I&feature=related

YOU CAN'T BE A GREAT PRESIDENT WHILE SPENDING VALUABLE TIMES IN COURTS BECAUSE OF PAST DEALS...

Posted by: Clintonfatigue | April 24, 2008 10:15 AM | Report abuse

Oh yeah, we really want another Commander in Chief who does not tell us the truth. Its amazing that Hillary says she is ahead in the popular vote when Obama was not even on the ballot in Michigan.

And she could be the leader of the free world? NOT

Evan Bayh you ought to be ashamed of yourself for endorsing her.

And the other superdelegates should show some courage and endosre Obama who is clearly the more honest and otherwise superior candidate.


Posted by: Doug M | April 24, 2008 10:14 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: HillaryFan | April 24, 2008 10:13 AM | Report abuse

Evan Bayh: Don't take sides like I did. Glass house?

Posted by: Ed G | April 24, 2008 10:11 AM | Report abuse

And exactly why did YOU endorse Sen. Bayh? Why didn't you wait until your state voted to see who they wanted? Typical hypocrite Clinton supporter.

Posted by: Debra | April 24, 2008 9:58 AM | Report abuse

None of us who the winner is, we are just going to have to wait and see.

Posted by: Cheryl L | April 24, 2008 9:46 AM | Report abuse

"Why should they get crosswise with some of their friends if they really don't need to?" asked Bayh. Ooh, I'm sure their shaking in their boots, Senator Milquetoast.

Posted by: RollaMO | April 24, 2008 9:42 AM | Report abuse

"That's right -- Hillary was in the UNITED STATES Senate, and she knew about the classified information that Barry Hussein did not have access to -- she made the right call.

Posted by: | April 23, 2008 10:09 PM"

LOL at idiotic hillary supporters. She didn't read the NIE. Go ahead and google it so you know what it is. And she didn't even have anyone on her staff with the security clearance to read it. Meanwhile, Obama was capable of analyzing the situation correctly based solely on publicly available information. Who is the better leader?

Posted by: Hey Hillary, those stains won't come out. | April 24, 2008 9:28 AM | Report abuse

No-body can doubt Hillary Clinton's determination or her knowledge. Her basic problem is that she is deceitful and because of many duplicitous episodes she just isn't trusted. That is a hard reputation to overcome, and Bayh's endorsement doesn't turn the trick -- it simply makes me more suspicious of him and his motives.

It's hard to imagine being comfortable when your Commander in Chief is dishonest, when you have a falsifier (or more than one) in the White House.

William Safire called Hillary Clinton a "congenital liar" some years back. You don't have to go that far to doubt that there must be a better alternative as our President.

Posted by: Old White Guy | April 24, 2008 9:24 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Voted for War
HILLARY VOTED FOR THE WARHILLARY VOTED FOR THE WARHILLARY VOTED FOR THE WARHILLARY VOTED FOR THE WARHILLARY VOTED FOR THE WARHILLARY VOTED FOR THE WARHILLARY VOTED FOR THE WARHILLARY VOTED FOR THE WARHILLARY VOTED FOR THE WARHILLARY VOTED FOR THE WARHILLARY VOTED FOR THE WARHILLARY VOTED FOR THE WARHILLARY VOTED FOR THE WARHILLARY VOTED FOR THE WARHILLARY VOTED FOR THE WARHILLARY VOTED FOR THE WARHILLARY VOTED FOR THE WARHILLARY VOTED FOR THE WARHILLARY VOTED FOR THE WARHILLARY VOTED FOR THE WARHILLARY VOTED FOR THE WARHILLARY VOTED FOR THE WARHILLARY VOTED FOR THE WARHILLARY VOTED FOR THE WARHILLARY VOTED FOR THE WARHILLARY VOTED FOR THE WARHILLARY VOTED FOR THE WARHILLARY VOTED FOR THE WARHILLARY VOTED FOR THE WARHILLARY VOTED FOR THE WARHILLARY VOTED FOR THE WARHILLARY VOTED FOR THE WARHILLARY VOTED FOR THE WARHILLARY VOTED FOR THE WARHILLARY VOTED FOR THE WARHILLARY VOTED FOR THE WARHILLARY VOTED FOR THE WARHILLARY VOTED FOR THE WARHILLARY VOTED FOR THE WARHILLARY VOTED FOR THE WAR

Posted by: james Indian | April 24, 2008 9:16 AM | Report abuse

"Let's rise above the divisiveness of the Obama campaign."

LOL
I'd say let's rise above the divisiveness of the Clinton campaign, which has its strongest Indiana superdelegate telling other Indiana superdelegates they shouldn't endorse until after the state votes. The hypocrisy is absolutely disgusting. I hope these Reps. show Bayh they have every right to endorse whenever they want and do so before the primary. And I hope Obama wins both primaries on May 6 so Hillary's "tide" will stop turning and she can get over herself.

Posted by: willdh | April 24, 2008 9:10 AM | Report abuse

Bayh sounds like he is making a veiled political threat to me.
Which just confirms for me that bully Hillary brings out the bully in her all her supporters.

Posted by: Obamavoter | April 24, 2008 9:02 AM | Report abuse

Obama did Larry Sinclair wrong!

Posted by: Shame | April 24, 2008 8:53 AM | Report abuse

I think Bayh has given good advice: your vote as a superdelegate should follow the votes of your people. That's fine with me.

Posted by: Isabella | April 24, 2008 8:51 AM | 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 8:24 AM | Report abuse

==============================================
-------------------------------------------------------------------


HILLARY VOTED FOR THE WAR


-------------------------------------------------------------------
==============================================

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 8:15 AM | Report abuse


.


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

.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 8:14 AM | Report abuse

Wow. The Hillary campaign in serious desperation mode. Must be smelling a defeat coming!

Posted by: Bob, DC | April 24, 2008 6:57 AM | Report abuse

The Rev had all the original ideas.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 6:49 AM | Report abuse


OBAMA IS A GOOD MAN, BUT HE'S NO MESSIAH AND HE'S TURNING OUT TO BE ONE DIMENSIONAL.

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


NO OBAMA IS NO MESSIAH, JUST A GUY WHO NEEDS HIS REV FOR INSPIRATION AND DIRECTION.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 6:40 AM | Report abuse

OBAMA NEEDS HIS MENTOR.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 6:38 AM | Report abuse


OBAMA FOLLOWS THE LEAD OF REV.W.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 6:37 AM | Report abuse

I just looked up the word "hypocrite" in the dictionary. Here's what it said:

With his state's critical primary in two short weeks, Democratic Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh -- a strong supporter of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton -- has been leaning on the Hoosier State's freshman House members to stay on the sidelines rather than endorse Sen. Barack Obama.

Posted by: Mark F | April 24, 2008 6:36 AM | Report abuse

Rev. Wright had all the original ideas, folks.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 6:35 AM | Report abuse

Many Senators voted for protecting America, non of which were influenced by Pastor Wright but Barrack.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 6:34 AM | Report abuse

I wonder why Harry Reid keeps implying the race will be resolved by voters breaking clearly to one candidate or the other? This hasn't happened yet, and is unlikely to happen. I don't see Clinton making inroads into Obama's base, the well educated, the blacks, at all. She can't close the deal or win in November without these loyal voters. She is courting the Reagan Democrats, the Bush Democrats, the Silent Majority, who will turn out to be McCain Democrats in November. You don't win elections without your base. I think I am disenchanted with Clinton not only because she has coursened the political debate but because she really is a Republican in disguise. I didn't like Nixon, Reagan, or George W. Bush, and she's got a lot in common with them. I don't find McCain that bad, and if I do, I'll vote for Nader or other third party. I expect more from a Democratic nominee than she has to offer. The superdelegates could provide us with a nominee who can win: John Edwards, if Obama is too much of a problem. But Clinton must face as high a bar as Obama. She's got to close the deal, and all she does is invent the deal she's closing to show she is winning according to her rules. Don't talk about big states. That's not closing the deal. She wins Oregon, and she's closed the deal. I don't think it is going to happen. She is as unelectable as she claims Obama is. She's just a confirmed daydreamer. It's pretty bad when a newspaper that has endorsed her, all but backs away from their support. The NYT is just reflecting the reality that many voters in early voting states, such as California, who originally voted for her, now have a huge case of buyer's remorse. She has won no hearts with her bash'em, mash'em approach. A lot of people are just plain sick of her. And these were people with open minds. Obama has done nothing to her, but we've seen how she is with her back against a wall and it's ugly, even though she thinks it is 'fun'

Posted by: Tina | April 24, 2008 4:48 AM | Report abuse

JTS

Actually Washington post did a story on this and said the caucaus's are the only reason this is lingering.
They said in that article Hillary would have closed the deal on super Tuesday if it would have just been primaries.

I think I'll take Washington Post's word on this.

Posted by: Us Voter | April 24, 2008 4:35 AM | Report abuse

Say what you want but you can not dispute the fact he has to be a believer in Black Liberation Theology to attend the church for twenty years. You also cannot his church teaches the principals. "white people" are the reason for all thats wrong with for blacks.


Yes, some one's racist alright Barack Obama is. Dispute that. Read the links. No matter what you say or what you do what I have said is completely true. try.

I don't have to be racist to spot a racist or point one out.

Posted by: Us Voter | April 24, 2008 4:27 AM | Report abuse

If Clinton had an insurmountable lead in pledged delegates this race would have been over.

Posted by: John james | April 24, 2008 4:23 AM | Report abuse

John Adkisson: YES YES YES. Thank you for speaking up for us caucus states. The popular vote is a farce.

Delegates. That's what it's all about. That's what the rules say, so that's what candidates strategize to. If all were primaries, then surely Obama would have run his campaign differently.

Posted by: JTS | April 24, 2008 3:11 AM | Report abuse


(((((())))))))))))))))

THE WEATHERMEN FOR OBAMA

(((((((()))))))))))))))

Posted by: EAST SIDE LOVE | April 24, 2008 2:49 AM | Report abuse

**************************************

BARRACK OBAMA IS THE MESSIAH
**************************************

Posted by: East Side Love | April 24, 2008 2:48 AM | Report abuse

re: "God, Hillary, yuk, can't stand that person. I've always voted Democratic, but, God as my witness, I will never, never, vote for that person... ever!"

Amen to that. As an independent who is passionate about change, you will never get me to cross over to the Clinton status quo. Hillary is bad blood and entrenched in the establishment. I don't want that on my conscience. Barack is your only chance to engage the middle and the young. Tomorrow is the vision that matters.

However, if the world can't change now, tomorrow looks pretty bleak (War, economy, environment...). It's going to take a team effort people - and there's only one candidate talking about real change. No one else is even on the same channel. Wake up before it's too late.

Posted by: DonJulio | April 24, 2008 1:53 AM | Report abuse

New York Times Editorial Re: Clinton

Editorial
The Low Road to Victory
April 23, 2008

"...She (Hillary Clinton) undercuts the rationale for her candidacy that led this page and others to support her...."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/opinion/23wed1.html?em&ex=1209182400&en=57404e1a3ecbecb7&ei=5087%0A

Posted by: nyt | April 24, 2008 1:38 AM | Report abuse

You get the idea that after today's New York Times Editorial, that maybe that paper is thinking of pulling the rug out from beneath Mrs. Clinton.

New York Times Editorial

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/opinion/23wed1.html?em&ex=1209182400&en=57404e1a3ecbecb7&ei=5087%0A

Posted by: nyt | April 24, 2008 1:34 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Bayh;

Your irrational "popular vote" strategy is a bit of a con. Consider these six points, and consider them carefully.

(1) Some states did not keep track of popular votes. The 500,000 advantage for Obama does not count several entire states that held caucuses and did not release statistics on the number of voters who participated. This would boost Obama significantly but we won't ever know the numbers.

(2) All of the other caucus states where Obama won handily (often by 2-1 margins) have hugely deflated numbers since, by definition, many fewer voters participate in caucuses. These states were bamboozled if the "popular" vote was supposed to count over delegates. For example, if Washington state, one of many caucus states in this category, knew that some superdelegates were going to decide who would be nominated according to the "popular" vote -- they would never have chosen the sanctioned caucus method. This would have dilluted their power enormously.

(3) In fact, for example, in Washington state, (a state where the caucus voter numbers are not reported) the popular vote went overwhelmingly for Obama in a "beauty contests" (a primary that didn't count) held after the official caucus. This huge advantage for Obama is simply not counted in Hillary's phony popular vote count.

(4) When all the states are taken together, Obama has overwhelmingly beaten Clinton, congressional district by congressional district (where the party rules count the results) in terms of percentage support. Percentage support is a far better metric of voter support than the selectively counted "popular" vote from primaries.

(5) With respect to Michigan and Florida, the arguments have been made over and over again. Agreeing not to campaign, voting with only one name on the ballot, and claiming afterward that those results should count, is simply fraudulent; and

(6) Post-Pennsylvania is Hillary's high point. She is going to be beaten badly in North Carolina (making up at least 150,000 of the vote margin lost in Pennsylvania) and will probably lose more votes in the remaining states. In any event, she can't catch up.

This should be easy for anyone to accept if they would simply apply a little unemotional logic. Hillary's surrogates are simply manipulating irrelevant numbers in order to get impressionable donors to keep sending money. It's a con game because the superdelegates have already decided behind the scenes to let her run out her string, but they know they can't deny the nomination to Obama.

Just as easy to understand is that the popular vote is utterly meaningless. Rules are rules. If I assumed, for example, (which I don't) that Bush won Florida in 2000, he would be entitled to be president even though he lost the popular vote to Gore.

It's fine to change rules, but not in the middle of the game.

Posted by: John Adkisson | April 24, 2008 1:21 AM | Report abuse

Evan Bayh what a waste! Everybody thought he would run for president this year. Instead, the big man allowed himself to be bullied out of the race by the Clintons, like General Clark. Now he wants to play the local party boss.

Tuzla Jane and her lieutenants should know that voters have already spoken. There is no way she will be the nominee.

I had it. It is time for Barack to throw the whole kitchen to Clintons and their Kazakhs and Saudi financiers.

Posted by: tchanta | April 24, 2008 1:15 AM | Report abuse

This contest will now be decided by the Super delegates. The remaining primary contests are still important; Obama needs less than 100 more Supers,while Hillary needs nearly 150. Its time to get on with the most serious business of running against the disastrous 8 year war legacy of GWBush and McCain's pledge to keep us at war for another 100 years. HRC's war rhetoric now extends to the obliteration of Iran. Lets not waste any more time. Now is the time to stop irrational war mongering. The Super delegates have a moral imperative to get off the Fence. Time is the most limited resource. The whole world watches as we squander it.

Posted by: Mike Rainy in Kenya | April 24, 2008 1:13 AM | Report abuse

==============================================
-------------------------------------------------------------------


HILLARY VOTED FOR THE WAR


-------------------------------------------------------------------
==============================================


Posted by: MAD AVE AD | April 24, 2008 1:09 AM | Report abuse

This contest will now be decided by the Super delegates. The remaining primary contests are still important; Obama needs less than 100 more Supers,while Hillary needs nearly 150. Its time to get on with the most serious business of running against the disastrous 8 year war legacy of GWBush and McCain's pledge to keep us at war for another 100 years. HRC's war rhetoric now extends to the obliteration of Iran. Lets not waste any more time. Now is the time to stop irrational war mongering. The Super delegates have a moral imperative to get off the Fence. Time is the most limited resource. The whole world watches as we squander it.

Posted by: Mike Rainy in Kenya | April 24, 2008 1:09 AM | Report abuse

Hey "US voter", seems like somebody has been RACIST don't you think so? You can cry as you want but Barack Obama is going to me nominee even if HRC connects with devil to steal the nomination. Dumb asses like Bayh are not going to help her and her new friends from GOP will be very said when McSame loose general elections to Obama.

Posted by: Jarda1 | April 24, 2008 1:05 AM | Report abuse

Better you have to know that Romania was an important link in business of sclavery. If you are interested who was responsible for tragedy of Darfur/Sudan ( EU embargo 1994/165/CFSP), Sierra Leone, Rwanda, DR.Congo read the documents of my page : http://www.myspace.com/val2002
I was in jail because I declasified the doccuments. May be it worth. But the extermination regime of Romanian authorities in my case is sclavery also.
Best regards,
Valentin Vasilescu
http://www.cdep.ro/pls/parlam/structura.mp?idm=315&cam=2&leg=2000&pag=0&idl=2

Posted by: Valentin Vasilescu | April 24, 2008 1:02 AM | Report abuse

Obama himself said he did not have enough experience to be president. He told this to Chicago voters who put him in the US Senate. So far as the above article is concerned, Senator Evan Bayn is not up for election this time as the junior senators are. He is only trying to help them keep their democrat seats.

Posted by: pcdent | April 24, 2008 1:00 AM | Report abuse

First of all, nobody is forgetting that legislators in Michigan and Florida created this mess and Clinton decided they were important once Obama started leading. Until that time, she is recorded as saying that Michigan didn't count anyways. It's amazing how many times this lady has changed the rules.

You cannot count votes that were made under these conditions. Florida voters did have Obama on the ballot, but he did not have the name recognition that Clinton did and voters knew their votes wouldn't count. In Michigan, his name wasn't even on the ballot. This argument is both null and void and frankly needs to go away; it is ludicrous.

Regarding his church, Trinity in Chicago is only one of many churches in the United Church of Christ that boasts a nationwide membership of over 1.2 million. Trinity is one of the few predominantly black congregations in this grouping of 5,518 nationwide.

I think his church is a ridiculous thing to hold onto, especially if you truly read up on the messages that dominate the sermons at this church and the great things this congregation does for the people in the area.

Bloggers say the phrases "open up your eyes" or "you're turning a blind eye." Maybe their eyes are just telling you what they want to see. It's always easy to say "judge a person by the company you keep" until you evaluate the company you personally keep.

We all have friends that do things we don't like or don't agree with. Do you disown your friends for their actions?? Or do you just choose to change the relationship a bit??

Considering the Clinton baggage that is being ignored because it has been "sifted through before", I think some are too quick to look for something to hang Obama for.

How dare a candidate offer us something as audacious as hope?

Posted by: Dani girl | April 24, 2008 12:58 AM | Report abuse

.


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

.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 12:54 AM | Report abuse

.


Hillary voted for the war


.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 12:53 AM | Report abuse

The party of change cannot also be a party to corruption ...

Hillary's poll negatives on honesty and integrity make her the Democrats' Richard Nixon in pumps!

Time to move on ...

Posted by: martin edwin andersen | April 24, 2008 12:47 AM | Report abuse

People are losing site of the fact Hillary would be ahead if Micigan and Florida voters were counted. They will be in November and they will remember being disqualified.

Racism, yes it's alive and well and has been taught at Trinity church since 1979. Black Theology has been taught there since 1979. Black Theology teaches black people their problems are because of "white" people. Look it up, please. Also look up Nation of Islam, wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_of_Islam, Black Muslim
and read the platform, this is in line with Black Theoeogy. Look at this link it shows Trinity has been teaching/preaching :http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/000316/hopkins.shtml , Why is everyone turning a blind eye to this?

Black Theology and Black Muslim have nothing to do with religon. Black Theology and Black Muslim is a MOVEMENT. Please read the links and decide for yourself. Black preachers of all dominations are teaching Black Theology, again, not a religon a movement.

Posted by: Us Voter | April 24, 2008 12:34 AM | Report abuse

Hmmmm - what a tangled we weave when we practice to deceive. Why is it okay for Senator Bayh to endorse Clinton, but others representing Indiana can't??

Hopefully, these representatives will ask Senator Bayh the same question.

I'm going independent after this election and I'm a registered Democrat. I've determined that the Democrats suck almost as bad as the Republicans.

This primary has become a joke. Tell Howard Dean (like he'll listen).

Posted by: Dani girl | April 24, 2008 12:27 AM | Report abuse

Typical of the Clintons ... they take a leak on the Democratic Party and its chances in November, and claim they are rainmakers and that they've turned a tide ...

Great work, Full Metal Jacket Hillary (the Bosnia heroine) and The Dear Hunter Bill (would-be First Philanderer)!

You've gone from tilting windmills against the "vast rightwing conspiracy" to being the Democratic team touted by the Republican talking heads as the toughest candidate McCain could face ...

and they do it with a straight face.

Posted by: martin edwin andersen | April 24, 2008 12:23 AM | Report abuse

Bayh, did not stay on the side lines. Sounds like strong arming to me. This is very sad.

Posted by: Vance McDaniel | April 24, 2008 12:15 AM | 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 12:12 AM | Report abuse

Can someone please post Hillary's vote on the Iraq Resolution? I cant' find anywhere how she voted and the curiosity is torturous.

Posted by: JTS | April 24, 2008 12:10 AM | Report abuse

.

HILLARY VOTED FOR THE WAR

.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 12:06 AM | Report abuse

.

HILLARY VOTED FOR THE WAR

.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 12:06 AM | Report abuse

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/opinion/23dowd.html?em&ex=1209096000&en=83fddc90bd8c3c70&ei=5087%0A

"The time has come. The time has come. The time is now. Just go. ... I don't care how. You can go by foot. You can go by cow. Hillary R. Clinton, will you please go now! You can go on skates. You can go on skis. ... You can go in an old blue shoe.

Just go, go, GO!"
Next Article in Opinion (5 of 15) »
Tips

Posted by: Muareen Dowd | April 23, 2008 11:51 PM | Report abuse

Bayh and Hillary, peas in a pod.

Hillary is a habitual liar:
-signed pledge to MI/FL would not count, now says they should;
-said at debate Obama could win general election (yes yes yes), now says he can't;
-DUCK, SNIPERS! This was a lie of the most cold and calculated form

Posted by: JTS | April 23, 2008 11:39 PM | Report abuse

"Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history"?

Ronald WILSON Reagan.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 23, 2008 11:20 PM | Report abuse


... if you think being the wife of the dear leader is experience.

You might be an idiot.

Shall I unzip?

Posted by: jackoffsmith | April 23, 2008 11:15 PM | Report abuse

MY FELLOW "BITTER", STUPID, WORKING CLASS PEOPLE :-)

If you think like Barack Obama, that WORKING CLASS PEOPLE are just a bunch of "BITTER"!, STUPID, PEASANTS, Cash COWS!, and CANNON FODDER. :-(

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary's than they had ever been before or since.

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. :-)

Best regards

jacksmith... Working Class :-)

p.s. You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you don't know that the huge amounts of money funding the Obama campaign to try and defeat Hillary Clinton is coming in from the insurance, and medical industry, that has been ripping you off, and killing you and your children. And denying you, and your loved ones the life saving medical care you needed. All just so they can make more huge immoral profits for them-selves off of your suffering...

You see, back in 1993 Hillary Clinton had the audacity, and nerve to try and get quality, affordable universal health care for everyone to prevent the suffering and needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of you each year. :-)

Approx. 100,000 of you die each year from medical accidents from a rush to profit by the insurance, and medical industry. Another 120,000 of you die each year from treatable illness that people in other developed countries don't die from. And I could go on, and on...

Posted by: jacksmith | April 23, 2008 11:13 PM | Report abuse

It seems like when Obama supporters are dealing with a big loss, they get bitter. And rightfully so. They cling to what they know. name calling and trying to spin a loss into a positive. They also lobby to get votes cast not to count. I mean I can understand their frustrations. W. Bush tried the same stuff and it worked for his last two elections. I don't think the voters like being pushed into voting for someone with the threat of name calling. Racist this time vs. Unpatriotic for the republican machine. see the similarities. So do the majority of democrats. That's why the vote count went that way in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Have a good night.

Posted by: Mike Roberts | April 23, 2008 11:09 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 23, 2008 10:55 PM | Report abuse


.

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

.

Posted by: MAD-AVE-AD | April 23, 2008 10:49 PM | Report abuse

Inasmuch as Iraq was is just one issue and that McCain is still for the war, I would rather vote for him than vote for Obama. Having no experience is not a qualification. Voting present is not taking a position. Then Obama voted "present", and now he missed 40% of the votes, and he wants a promotion. Somehow the fairy tale can only last for long.

Posted by: CP Cook | April 23, 2008 10:45 PM | Report abuse


+- LET'S REALLY CHANGE THINGS

.
+ ------- O B A M A

------------------------------------------------------------->
------------------------------------------------------------->

Posted by: MAD-AVE-AD | April 23, 2008 10:41 PM | Report abuse

H I L L A R Y - - - WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR

WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR

WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR

_______________________________________________________________

Posted by: NO-WAR | April 23, 2008 10:37 PM | Report abuse

No more of an idiot that someone who can't figure out the "Caps Lock" button ...

Posted by: Anonymous | April 23, 2008 10:35 PM | Report abuse

Why didnt Bayh himself stay on the sidelines if he thought it is the right thing to do. He is actively campaigning for Clinton why shouldn't any lawmaker make up their own minds. I think this is the hypocrisy people detest. If you are for my candidate its ok, if you are for the other candidate its not ok.
Everyone remembers the Gov Richardson endorsement.

Posted by: DJ | April 23, 2008 10:34 PM | Report abuse

... one can imagine how the military loves a power hungry wife telling stories about her combat zone experience.

Posted by: Mr Judgment | April 23, 2008 10:33 PM | Report abuse

SO LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT ...... BAYH ENDORSES CLINTON, BUT HE ASKS THESE OTHER GUYS TO WAIT BEFORE THEY ENDORSE OBAMA...
ARE THESE GUYS IDIOTS ?

Posted by: Ron | April 23, 2008 10:31 PM | Report abuse

She'll Take The Endorsements.....all 2000

Our vets/military know Who They Want Answering That Phone at 3:00 AM. Sen. Clinton now has the endorsement of over 2000 vets/military personnel...

One of our nation's top military figures, General Shelton served two terms as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush. In announcing his endorsement, General Shelton said, "I've been with Senator Clinton when she has been with our military men and women. I know from those experiences that she understands the demands and sacrifice of military life. I am confident she will always put the readiness and well being of our troops first. SHE IS READY TO BE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF".
General Shelton joins General John Shalikashvili as the second former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to have endorsed Senator Clinton. General Shelton is the fourth flag officer to endorse Senator Clinton.In a conference call with reporters, former Admirals, Generals, and senior defense officials gave their reasons for supporting Senator Clinton to be our next Commander-in-Chief. Their testimonials highlight Senator Clinton's QUALIFICATIONS, EXPERIENCE & STRENGTH OF CHARACTER.

Why They Support Hillary Clinton to be the Next Commander-in-Chief:

General Wesley Clark
"She Has Done Her Homework On National Security and I know from my personal discussions with her and with many other friends that go in and brief her in her role in the Senate Armed Services Committee. She knows the facts, she knows the details, plus she has the big picture. She is a strategic thinker but she has the building blocks of the strategy in her personal knowledge. This is someone that when she is president our military is going to respect very highly, and when our Senior Officers brief her and meet with her they are going be very, very impressed by what she knows and the intelligence that she brings to these problems."

Brigadier General John Watkins, Jr.
"As I think about the challenges facing the nation and having been in uniform for almost thirty years, worked with a number of presidents to include the last four, I can't think of a single person - those generals included - who s better qualified to walk into the Oval Office than Hillary Clinton. I don't make that statement very lightly. She is more qualified, in my view, than her husband Bill was when he entered the office. It is no surprise to me that you would have as many flag officers who serve this country and Secretaries of the Army and Navy who have served this country who would come out and support Hillary."

Major General Paul Eaton
"On a personal note, I have a Special Forces Captain son and a Sergeant Paratrooper both in Afghanistan and I find Senator Clinton the perfect choice to be their Commander-in-Chief and to display the loyalty to command our armed forces and to rebuild them after the conflicts in which we are engaged right now."

Lieutenant General Claudia Kennedy
"I support her because I trust her. I trust Hillary Clinton because of her judgment and her leadership. I have confidence that she is responsive to the needs of people. I believe that she understands leadership the way we do in the Army and that is that it's about building connections and relationships and establishing guidance and leadership for others. I think she'll rebuild relationships with other countries that have been suffering for the last seven or eight years; those relationships have really been strained beyond anything I would have anticipated. Another part of Hillary Clinton that I think is just tremendous is that she knows our reality. She is in touch with people, she listens to people. She decides what she believes about policy based on what's right, she has integrity, and on what works, so she's practical."

Lieutenant General E. Vollrath
"I support Senator Clinton because I believe it's time for change in our country, a new direction. And I know change carries with it risks. Senator Clinton is the candidate, in my opinion, with the proven experience that truly understands the risks and how to possibly cope with those risks to get the job done. We shouldn't shirk from change because of the risks, but we absolutely have to have a leader with the proven experience. America, in the area of national defense, must be successful and Senator Clinton has that experience to create change, to understand the risk, and to get the job done."

Admiral William Owens
"In this world that we face today, very complex as all of us know, I think experience will be really at a premium, especially at the level of the Commander-in-Chief. There's not time to learn. The phone rings and you have to be ready. You have to ready with intuition, with experience and with skills. And this world will have the complexities that perhaps we've never before seen. I've been impressed with and admire Hillary Clinton for her work in the Senate. And we need people with great judgment. I think she brings the best of talent, intuition and experience to handle these unknown threats in the future."

Hlllary`s also gotten the endorsements of two distinguishedand retired admirals, Vice Admiral Donald C. Arthur and Rear Admiral Stuart F. Platt. They join an eminent group of 30 retired admirals and generals who have endorsed Senator Clinton to be our nation's next Commander-in-Chief...and the list continues to grow:General Wesley Clark General John M. Shalikashvili General Henry Hugh Shelton General Johnnie E. Wilson Admiral William Owens Lt. Gen. Joe Ballard Lt. Gen. Robert Gard Lt. Gen. Claudia J. Kennedy Lt. Gen. Donald L. Kerrick Lt. Gen. E. Vollrath Vice Admiral Donald C. Arthur Vice Admiral Joseph A. Sestak Major General Roger R. Blunt Major General George A. Buskirk, Jr. Major General Edward L. Correa, Jr. Major General Paul D. Eaton Major General Paul D. Monroe, Jr. Major General Antonio M. Taguba Rear Admiral Connie Mariano Rear Admiral Stuart F. Platt Rear Admiral Alan M. Steinman Rear Admiral David Stone Brigadier General Michael Dunn Brigadier General Belisario Flores Brigadier General Evelyn "Pat" Foote Brigadier General Keith H. Kerr Brigadier General Virgil A. Richard Brigadier General Preston Taylor Brigadier General John M. Watkins, Jr. Brigadier General Jack Yeager


Posted by: eleana | April 23, 2008 10:30 PM | Report abuse

Hillary fabricated war zone adventures and bankrupted her campaign. What an incompetent.

Posted by: Mr Judgment | April 23, 2008 10:28 PM | Report abuse

.

HILLARY VOTED FOR THE WAR

.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 23, 2008 10:25 PM | Report abuse

Seriously, is "HILLARY VOTED FOR THE WAR" all you got?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 23, 2008 10:10 PM | Report abuse

That's right -- Hillary was in the UNITED STATES Senate, and she knew about the classified information that Barry Hussein did not have access to -- she made the right call.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 23, 2008 10:09 PM | Report abuse

.

HILLARY VOTED FOR THE WAR

.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 23, 2008 10:08 PM | Report abuse

Bayh is strong VP material.

Go Indiana! Just say NO to venom like you see here from Obama supporters. Say YES to a person who will work tirelessly to fix our country's problems. Let's rise above the divisiveness of the Obama campaign and work together to turn America around.

Hillary 08

Posted by: Independent typical (but not bitter) white woman for HRC | April 23, 2008 10:06 PM | Report abuse

Hillary was in the senate, and she knew, and she voted for the war

Posted by: Anonymous | April 23, 2008 10:04 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA SAID "I DON'T KNOW" RE: VOTING FOR THE WAR IF HE WOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE U.S. SENATE AT THE TIME.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 23, 2008 9:59 PM | Report abuse

.

HILLARY VOTED FOR THE WAR

.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 23, 2008 9:58 PM | Report abuse

Do as I say, not as I do, eh, Evan? What a hypocrite. Many loyal Democrats will remember those who are prolonging this race after it was already lost for Hillary Clinton. I would be careful, Senator Bayh, not to join into the divisiveness of this race. You should save your "advice" for private conversations.

Posted by: Chuck | April 23, 2008 9:49 PM | Report abuse

what a hypocrite.

Posted by: crumbtrail | April 23, 2008 9:46 PM | Report abuse

"If Obama takes Indiana and North Carolina, he's won"


NOT TRUE !!!!


...he's already won!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 23, 2008 9:36 PM | Report abuse

Bayh is the most powerful democrat in the state of Indiana, so his contribution to the Clinton campaign is probably worth 5 - 10 points. When people ask why Obama can't close, that's why. Clinton has a formidable machine and she and Bill are calling in all the favors.

I think it's equally reasonable to ask why she can't close, or why she's cash-strapped?

If Obama takes Indiana and North Carolina, he's won--the super delegates will start breaking his way.

Posted by: Michael | April 23, 2008 9:32 PM | Report abuse

And what does his campaigning for and with Hillary Clinton suggest???? Give me a break!!!!!!!! Is this do as I say but not as I do. Birds of a feather seem to flock together.

Posted by: Ingrid | April 23, 2008 9:31 PM | Report abuse

HELLO!!! ISN'T THERE SOMETHING JUST A LITTLE HYPOCRITICAL ABOUT BAYH??? HE DIDN'T WAIT. WATER SEEKS IT'S OWN LEVEL. HILLARY SURROUNDS HERSELF WITH SLEEZY, DUPLICITOUS HYPOCRITES JUST LIKE HER AND BILL.

Posted by: jerry vaughn | April 23, 2008 9:24 PM | Report abuse

.

HILLARY VOTED FOR THE WAR

.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 23, 2008 9:15 PM | Report abuse

I live in Baron Hill's district. With Indiana University here, Clinton is not going to win Hill's district. Bayh has already lost my vote because he is a Clinton sycophant. I hope Hill, Donally and Ellsworth have more backbone and endorse the man who can help them and others build a large majority in the House and Senate.

Posted by: Sueb2 | April 23, 2008 9:05 PM | Report abuse

If these three endorse Obama in spite of their own districts being strongly for Clinton, they deserve what will surely happen--they will be ejected from Congress after just one term. They have a good chance of winning this fall if they either endorse Hillary or endorse no one.

Senator Bayh respresents the entire state and has been a Clinton supporter for a year now. He is in no danger of losing his next election regardless of his endorsement but he knows his party will lose three Congressmen if they act against their interests and that of their national party.

It's sad that people still are capable of juvenile schoolyard-level comments about the candidate they oppose. I for one think both these candidates are excellent Americans and Democrats.

Posted by: donald169 | April 23, 2008 8:52 PM | Report abuse

God, Hillary, yuk, can't stand that person. I've always voted Democratic, but, God as my witness, I will never, never, vote for that person... ever !

Posted by: kevin | April 23, 2008 8:15 PM | Report abuse

Hillary was in the senate, and she knew, and she voted for the war

Posted by: Lincoln | April 23, 2008 8:13 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA SAID "I DON'T KNOW" RE: VOTING FOR THE WAR IF HE WOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE U.S. SENATE AT THE TIME.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 23, 2008 8:12 PM | Report abuse

.

HILLARY VOTED FOR THE WAR

.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 23, 2008 8:06 PM | Report abuse

Interesting. So why didn't Senator Bayh wait until HIS state have voted before he endorsed anyone? Something about geese and ganders come to mind, Evan? Methinks thou dost protest too much. If you're serious, retract your endorsement, get off the campaign trail, and sit on the sidelines. Else, quit being a hypocrite!

Posted by: 33rdSt | April 23, 2008 7:51 PM | Report abuse

Evan Bayh is a great politician. He'd make a great VP for Hillary!

Posted by: Obama Who? | April 23, 2008 7:49 PM | Report abuse

N E O C O N S

F O R

H I L L A R Y

.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 23, 2008 7:47 PM | Report abuse

Good advice, Bayh.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 23, 2008 7:38 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company