Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 3:58 PM ET, 02/11/2008

Will Puerto Rico decide everything?

By Michael Dobbs


Demonstrating for statehood, San Juan, Puerto Rico.

"Puerto Rico comes at the end....It is a winner-take-all primary, 63 delegates at stake, a bigger margin for the winner than in California, New York, Illinois. So this thing could be settled by Puerto Rico."

--New York Times columnist David Brooks, PBS News Hour, Feb. 6, 2008.

It sounds like a suitably madcap finale to a zany political season: the "winner-takes-all" Puerto Rican primary. A small Caribbean island ends up annointing the Democratic candidate for president by virtue of its 63-delegate bloc, even though Puerto Ricans don't get to vote in the general election. Michael Barone, of U.S. News & World Report, joins David Brooks of the New York Times in speculating that Puerto Rico could put Hillary Clinton "over the top."

"I think Michael Barone is on to something," opines blogger Marc Ambinder. "Puerto Rico's June 7 primary and its 63 delegates could be the last minute boost of adrenaline that Hillary Clinton's campaign needs."

Before the Puerto Rico scenario solidifies into urban legend, let us take a look at the facts.

The Facts

Both Brooks and Barone are wrong. Puerto Ricans will vote according to much the same proportional representation rules that govern Democratic party primaries and caucuses in the 50 states. The notion of Puerto Rico being a "winner-take-all" jurisdiction stems from previous presidential primary contests, which were pretty much over by the time the Puerto Ricans got to vote. John Kerry swept Puerto Rico in 2004 just as Al Gore triumphed in 2000 because they were the only candidates left in the race, and the party bosses could manipulate the caucus process.

This time will be very different, according to several Puerto Rican Democratic leaders I contacted earlier today by phone. At present, Puerto Rico is scheduled to hold a caucus--not a primary--on June 7. If the race is still competitive, participation is likely to be very high, and there is no way that one candidate will sweep all the delegates.

"Both the candidates have supporters on the island," said Eliseo Roques, vice-chair of the Democratic National Committee's Hispanic Caucus, and a prominent Puerto Rican politician who is neutral in the race. "You will see a closely contested race."

The chairman of the Puerto Rican Democratic Party, Roberto Prats, told me that any registered Puerto Rican voter over the age of 18 who self-identifies with the Democratic party (i.e. does not take part in a Republican election) will be eligible to caucus. Like Roques, he expects excitement to be at fever pitch if the race is still going on, and hundreds of thousands of voters to turn out. Traditionally, he says, Puerto Rico has chosen to hold caucuses because they are "less expensive" than a primary, but the island may switch to a primary this time round, if the race is still competitive.

As a leading party official, Prats will go to the Democratic Party convention in Denver as one of seven Puerto Rican "superdelegates." He tells me that he and two other Puerto Rican superdelegates have declared their support for Clinton. But that still leaves 59 other delegates (56 of whom will be elected under proportional representation rules) up for grabs. A summary of Puerto Rico's election procedures is available here.

Both Brooks and Barone backed off the "winner takes all" talk when I caught up with them today. Barone said he had based his analysis on past elections, when Puerto Ricans traditionally plumped for one candidate. Brooks said he got his information from Barone.

The Pinocchio Test

Given the way Hispanics have been voting in the U.S., Hillary Clinton probably does have a significant built-in advantage in Puerto Rico. But much will depend on local issues, how the two candidates conduct their campaign, and the attitude they take toward Puerto Rican statehood. No opinion polling has been conducted on the island, so it is difficult to judge the extent of Obama's support.

Clinton could end up doing very well in Puerto Rico but even that is far from certain. Sorry guys, but the "winner take all" Puerto Rican primary is a myth.



(About our rating scale.)

By Michael Dobbs  | February 11, 2008; 3:58 PM ET
Categories:  Barack Obama, MSM Watch  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Who has the most delegates?
Next: Measuring the "Obama effect"

Comments

It would be interesting to see how pollsters would predict this. Obama wins caucuses with ease, but Hillary is swimming in Hispanic votes. It would be funnier still if they just voted based on issues: http://politicalmaelstrom.blogspot.com/2008/01/actual-differences-between-barack-and.html

Posted by: Jesse | February 11, 2008 11:54 PM | Report abuse

The Clinton campaign didn't have a healthcare plan before it felled and they don't have one now. Well to be honest, if everyone is a goverment employee, then the Clinton healthcare plan will work for everyone. Unfortunately some are self employed, independent contractors or work for private employors or small business. Under the Clinton healthcare plan these people would be penalized if they don't pay for their healthcare. This means that most of your family members and friends will have their paychecks garnished. We all know that it doesn't stop there if it is a goverment enforcement. There will be fines and then misdemeanors which is a criminal offense defined as less serious than a felony. Why did Ms. Clinton decide on this approach? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out. Big business, big Corporation call it what you will, they want their money back and in order for Ms. Clinton to get their support in her race to presidency she is giving victory to one side (the healthcare providers) by promising to them that she will have the poeople wages garnished if they continue to give healthcare. Thus allowing her to shout the words "UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE" This is a shady tactic and makes fools out of every american that falls for this trick. The Obama healthcare plan is for the people. Poor people, middle class and rich people can rest assured that there is no tricks or penalties in the Obama healthcare plan. VOTE OBAMA!!

Posted by: cmroots | February 12, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

According to the demographics, I should be voting for Hillary Clinton: I'm a white, 60-year-old, highly educated woman from the Northeast. But I'm voting for Obama. I've waited all my life for a viable woman candidate for the presidency, but this is not the right woman. I want a woman of the highest ability and virtue, who would serve as a glorious role model to all young women. Hillary Clinton is not that woman.
She rode into power with her husband, and together they've acquired a long and seriously flawed history of self-serving and secretive financial and political dealings. The most cursory research will prove that true. She started out her political life supporting the racist Barry Goldwater. She is as comfortable with deception and trickery as George Bush. When I hear woman saying, "Oh, but that's how you get things done in Washington," I literally cringe.
I am passionately supporting Barack Obama. He can beat the Republicans; she cannot. Obama has attracted Independents and even Republicans to his camp, and in a general election they would vote for him, but not for Clinton. Clinton voted for the war, and has never apologized for it. Obama has spoken out against it from the beginning. Obama brings us hope--and not just that. Take a serious look at his ideas and experience.
Please, I beg of you, Sisters young and old: wait for the right woman. Then we can be proud.

Diane Wald

Posted by: cmroots | February 12, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Don't expect the ethnic voting trends from California (which I think were partially based on people just being unfamiliar with Obama) to hold true in Puerto Rico. You are talking about different groups of people. One could just as easily draw predictions for Puerto Rico from the Virgin Islands (about 90% Obama) and Hawaii (will be about 130% Obama) just because they are also islands.
www.podger.net

Posted by: Podger | February 12, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Diane Wald: I agree with you 100%. Now is the time to seize the opportunity that an Obama administration has to offer. Eventually, there will be a woman we can run and be happy with...

Posted by: Lisa | February 12, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

To Diane Wald - I wish I could say that I agree with you. But I don't. Regardless of what you think of Bill, it's Hillary that I'm judging. Personally, she's proven herself to be smart, strong on the issues and resilient. This shouldn't be a personality contest. I'm more concerned about substance and experience. This is a critical time of "transition" - not "change." We can gleefully look toward change after we've "transitioned" out of this nightmare. To make a bold jump is taking a big risk. Personally, I cannot bring myself to take that big jump right now. I'll consider it in 2012. For now, I need to look at what's realistic. I'll bank on "hope" in 2012.

Posted by: MsGames | February 12, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Its possible that Hillary will be favored in Puerto Rico. She visited the island on a couple of occassions, once after the very devastating Georges hurricane. Very televised visit as I recall.

Posted by: Pete | February 12, 2008 8:34 PM | Report abuse

Look for both campaigns to make statements regarding H.R. 900 (the Puerto Rican Democracy Act of 2007).

http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_900.html

A potentially much more interesting question: will Hillary bring up (explicitly or obliquely) her husband's pardon of the FALN bombers and her explicit and public disagreement with him on the issue?

Posted by: ProgRook | February 12, 2008 9:31 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton's vision, experience, passion and ability to lead and start immediately will win her the White House. Obama has alot of feel good rah rah cheerleader lines in his speeches and some good ideas, but Hillary has a solid workable plan and like Bill she will do exactly what she says, one of the few politicians who you can count on to seriously get alot of good things done. I am voting for Hillary because she is the right choice, especially for what America needs right now.

Hillary All the Way!!

Posted by: Hillary08 | February 12, 2008 10:34 PM | Report abuse

"like Bill she will do exactly what she says"

This would be hysterically funny, if only it weren't so sad. I mean, you're talking about William Jefferson Clinton, right? The 42nd president? Look- whether you like him or not, if you think that he always did what he said he'd do, you're in a form of cataclysmic denial.

Posted by: ProgRook | February 12, 2008 10:56 PM | Report abuse

I keep reading about this monlithic Lantino vote that is racially diverse as it is is ethincally. The last time I checked Puerto Ricans and a distinctly different outlook that Mexican Americans and we can go down the list from Domincans to Venezuelans. So how about a little more specifity from the Washington Post?

Posted by: ovcatto | February 12, 2008 11:09 PM | Report abuse

This article gets 6 Pinocchios for being so superficial when analyzing the PR primaries.

The Republican and Democratic "parties" in Puerto Rico are nothing more than private clubs that collect money for the American politicians and allow the Island's political and economical elite to buy influence in Washington.

Moreover, and precisely because in reality there are no US national parties in Puerto Rico, US Presidential Primaries attract very few voters in Puerto Rico unless there are politicians from different Puerto Rican parties trying to gain control over the Island's Democratic Party, in which case it just becomes a preamble to the local general election in November.

Finally, not only is the writer way off trying to put all Hispanic voters in the same bag, he fails even to realize that Puerto Ricans are not even part, ethnically, historically, politically or ideologically, of that mass of people that in the US you call "Hispanic/Latino." "Hispanic/Latinos" are an ethnic minority. Puerto Ricans are colonial subjects. Not quite the same.

Posted by: PuertoRicanInJapan | February 13, 2008 6:06 AM | Report abuse

the only contact obama has had with p.r. waswhen he came, grabbed $100,000 for his campaign and left in a hurry refusing to talk with the local media. on the other hand, hillary was very active with the struggle against the u.s. marine in vieques. in the end, ask yourself this question: if p.r. is a separate nation, why do we participate in another country's process of choosing their president? like lots of other issues in this colony it doesn't really make too much sense!

Posted by: anad | February 13, 2008 6:38 AM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton is the only President who balanced the budget, like he said he would, cut Government waste spending and put the money to good use, like he said he would, created millions of JOBS, like he said he would, improved our failing education system, like he said he would, established strong ties with world leaders, like he said he would, created record surpluses, the complete opposite of Bush's 9 trillion dollar debt, just like he said he would! and so very much more -- http://www.perkel.com/politics/clinton/accomp.htm

Posted by: Hillary 08 | February 13, 2008 2:21 PM | Report abuse

Let's see:


Bill Clinton promised openness in government. Then he fought a five year battle in Federal court to avoid releasing the records of Hillary's health care task force. Why? "Mr. Magaziner told the court in March 1993 that all members of the task force and its staff working groups were Federal employees, so they did not have to hold open meetings or divulge their working papers. In fact, Judge Lamberth said, the working groups included scores of people from private industry, including managed care executives with potential conflicts of interest." That one piece of litigation alone cost the taxpayers $250,000. He ended up surpassing Nixon in trying to cover up his actions behind the shield of executive privilege.


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9405E5DA1E3FF93AA25751C1A961958260


Speaking of which- Bill Clinton promised to implement a national health care system. Remember how that one turned out?


Bill Clinton promised to let gays and lesbians serve openly in the military. He broke that one less than 100 days into office.


Shall I go on?

Posted by: Anonymous | February 14, 2008 12:09 AM | Report abuse

There is no limit as to the depths Hillary will plumb trying desperately to get what she believes is rightfully hers. Michigan and Florida will not be in it and the supers will not overrule the people.--Other democrats, loyal to something more than themselves, are seeing to this now. So Hillary is groping for something else, enter this Puerto Rico fantasy. Expect to see a lot more of this kind of non-sense regardless of Texas, Ohio, Pa., or anything else.

Posted by: gmundenat | February 15, 2008 7:02 PM | Report abuse

It is wrong to lump all Latinos together and to assume Hillary will have a built-in advantage. I used to live in Puerto Rico. Puerto Ricans have their own issues and their own parties, as one poster already noted. In addition, a majority of Puerto Ricans, like other Caribbean peoples, have ancestry from Africa. Let's not make any assumptions on how the good people of Boriqua will vote.

Posted by: Lia | February 16, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

I am a Puerto Rican born and raised in New York City with family in Carolina, Luquillo and other areas of the island. At the risk of over-generalizing, many Puerto Ricans have familial ties to the large Puerto Rican enclaves of East/Spanish Harlem and the Bronx in New York City. When I visit San Juan, I dont think its an exaggeration to say at least half of the people I interact with are either from NYC or have relatives there. Again, take that as you will, but based on my limited experience, those kinds of connections would seem to favor Mrs. Clinton. In my opinion, it would probably be more instructive to look at the Puerto Rican vote in New York on 2/5 to get a sense of how Clinton might do in Puerto Rico in June.

Posted by: Dave | February 16, 2008 6:09 PM | Report abuse

Although I am unaware of who the delegates are going to be, I would predict Obama winning Puerto Rico.

While Clinton would win most progressive votes because of her pro-state/pro-independence stance, I believe Obama has an edge in recognizing the possibility of developing the ELA to a greater extent. Furthermore, by asserting that Puerto Ricans shall ultimately decide their status on a plebiscite (contrary to Congress' report relegating status to Congressional authority, a report which Clinton supports), he could capture independent voters, progressive swingers, and pro-independence swingers.

Thus, by capturing the popular party's vote (because of recognizing the ELA's potential), and these other votes, I give Obama the benefit of the doubt when it comes to PR.

Posted by: andyboy.medina@gmail.com | February 18, 2008 4:06 AM | Report abuse

Hillary is in good position to take the nomination largely because her husband has a lot of sway as a super delegate, over other super delegates. This super delegate system is an affront to democracy and must be
abolished by the Democratic party. Voters, not fund raising corporate executives, should determine the nominee of the Democratic party. In this sense, I see Hillary taking the nomination because she's a Washington-insider who likes closed-door deals. Obama deserves the nomination. Simply put, he represents real change that we can believe in. Obama is real, unpretentious. If he wins in Puerto Rico (63 delegates),and the U.S. Virgin Islands, we'll have a real down to Earth candidate for President of the United States. Good for America. Change is good. We've endured 20 long years of two families, Bush-Clinton-Bush-1988-2008 ruling our Nation! It's time to end this kind of ubiquitous ruling class, and exchange it for democracy! Obama represents democracy!

Posted by: Franck Strongbow Red Cloud IV | February 18, 2008 10:08 AM | Report abuse

Hillary is in good position to take the nomination largely because her husband has a lot of sway as a super delegate, over other super delegates. This super delegate system is an affront to democracy and must be
abolished by the Democratic party. Voters, not fund raising corporate executives, should determine the nominee of the Democratic party. In this sense, I see Hillary taking the nomination because she's a Washington-insider who likes closed-door deals. Obama deserves the nomination. Simply put, he represents real change that we can believe in. Obama is real, unpretentious. If he wins in Puerto Rico (63 delegates),and the U.S. Virgin Islands, we'll have a real down to Earth candidate for President of the United States. Good for America. Change is good. We've endured 20 long years of two families, Bush-Clinton-Bush-1988-2008 ruling our Nation! It's time to end this kind of ubiquitous ruling class, and exchange it for democracy! Obama represents democracy!

Posted by: Franck Strongbow Red Cloud IV | February 18, 2008 10:10 AM | Report abuse

I think people should be voting on the issues not a person's race or gender. The Clinton's time at the White House wasted millions of tax payers' dollars on the "Whitewater Scandal" and the "Monica Lewinsky Scandal". President Clinton lied under oath. Martha Stuart and many other people have gone to prison for this. Hillary Clinton's brothers Hugh and Tony received thousands of dollars from individuals who were granted pardons by President Clinton. That makes me think they are looking out for themselves. People say that Barack Obama has no experience; you should read about him and his wife on Wikipedia. You should find out about them before you pass judgment. They are both highly educated and intelligent people. I feel that they don't want to do for some of the people, but for everyone. When someone famous goes somewhere and does things behind the scene, I feel they have better intentions than someone who has to let everyone see what they are doing. It should be from the heart, not for the cameras. If you haven't noticed, most of the mudslinging has come from the Clinton camp. Maybe it's because they feel inferior.

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

Thanks for the fantastic story, cmroots!

Always nice to read a real testimony for Obama.

Posted by: thecrisis | February 19, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

There is a legitimate reason why people should not blindly vote for Barack Obama and I would love to help the media fact check this story if need be you have my e-mail. I have been reporting all over the internet since before Obama decided to even run that it can be verified that IL. U.S. Senator Presidential Candidate Barack Obama , IL. U.S. Senator Dick Durbin co-chair Obama 2008 are being complicit in allowing the Illinois Department of Human Rights and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to treat me an American U.S. Hispanic citizen who reported incidents of race discrimination in the state of Illinois in an unequal, biased, & discriminatory manner by preventing me the same race discrimination charges non-Hispanics enjoy as a matter of record and then covering up their conduct. Despite there being ample time for each to respond, redress, and stop the above mentioned serious form of discrimination nothing ,to date, has been done to fairly & fully address, redress,and stop this still ongoing serious form of discrimination which has allowed Hormel Foods Corporation, UFCW, and Target Corporation to not be held accountable for race discrimination against me because I happen to be Hispanic. Inaction ,complicity, & deliberate silence on the part of (for instance but not limited to) Obama and Durbin are responsible for my American civil rights continuing to be violated in Illinois as it relates to this serious form of discrimination in their state of Illinois and for nothing being done to fully & fairly redress and stop this still ongoing form of discrimination against an American who happens to be a Hispanic in Illinois. Hispanics who Know are just showing they will not be willing victims of his "Good Judgement". He has this still going on in Illinois as we speak but Barack Obama tells Hispanic/Latinos nothing about it! I repeat this is verifiable, ongoing and Barack Obama should address it but does not and you can guess why. Included is a link to just one example (If you happen to be a Hispanic in Illinois you have no race) this is on IDHR's own website in the public domain.

http://www.state.il.us/dhr/Orders/2006/Oct_06/Zuniga,%20M.htm

Posted by: chaos45i | February 20, 2008 5:11 AM | Report abuse

Please shut up with the bill clinton is the most evil president rants. We have george w. bush and I am tired of hearing this garbage by crazies on the blogs.

Posted by: berrigrl | February 22, 2008 3:49 AM | Report abuse

awcj rwdqmivkj zcglew kaonrp jpqwhfs eoyksahj ztxjvgbna

Posted by: yqlc bxkcfohj | February 22, 2008 7:36 AM | Report abuse

bmnzgkep jygsuwo ynwkot jotu mdcbyx yqielz iyulsmf http://www.rpyfdvzlq.ykqcgi.com

Posted by: atfuoqzgn cfmyvhgxd | February 22, 2008 7:36 AM | Report abuse

I wonder if anybody knows that Puerto Rico doesn't vote. Puerto Rico doesn't even have a voting congressman. Why is everyone so concerned about winning Puerto Rico, when Puerto Rico doesn't vote?

Posted by: Bob | March 6, 2008 8:13 PM | Report abuse

It would be funny if it does come down to Puerto Rico. PR really has a negative view on the whole thing because they can't vote for the real deal...

Here is Obama's letter to the Gov. of Puerto Rico

Posted by: The Gringo | March 7, 2008 1:23 PM | Report abuse

This is to the people from other states that don't live in NY-NJ or Puerto Rico: If you were from these parts, you would noticed that Hispanics learn from mistakes and remember the past very well. We don't go for what's popular at the moment or what's cool to do; we go for what's right and how things are going to be solved; which I have yet to see Obama talk about, "HOW" is he going to solve our problems? All I hear is change this change that, but no substance on how our problems are going to be solved... think about it...

Posted by: J Martinez | March 11, 2008 6:42 PM | Report abuse

To Diane Wald,
I am a female college student, and while my age would seem to indicate that I should be a Barack-crazed, "yes we can"-chanting zombie, I have managed to buck the trend. You say that you can wait until 2012 for a female President. Well I can't- I am facing a job market where I will make .80 cents for every dollar made by my male counterpart. I am looking at corporate and legal America, both of which are still heavily male-dominated, and I want a female President NOW to change that.
But my support for Sen. Clinton is not solely based on her gender. Rather, I refuse to make the same mistake that was made with Pres. George Bush. I don't want another candidate with inadequate experience. Sen. Obama himself admitted in 2004 that he would not run for President in 2008 because he would lack the necessary experience- see video at http://hotair.com/archives/2008/02/25/obama-2004-nah-i-cant-run-for-president-in-2008/
I don't want another President voted in on charisma. I don't want another President who relies on uninformed voters who don't ask probing questions. Before I join a social movement, I want to know what it entails. I would love to be able to support Obama--I'm sure it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy and- word of the hour- HOPEful, but I just can't overlook the lack of substance. A few examples....

*Aides in Sen. Obama's camp have been instructed that, when asked a policy-related question, they should refer the inquirer to Obama's website and should instead tell of their experience "meeting Barack" or "coming to Obama." Evasive, anyone?

*Sen. Obama has touted how he will be a representative of a broader social movement- "Yes WE can" being his preferred slogan. However, his interactions with the media have been evasive and completely lacking in transparency. Rather than open dialogue with voters like Sen. Clinton, Sen. Obama prefers to give his prepared, slogan-filled fluff speeches to which his supporters can happily and unquestioningly chant along.

*Sen. Obama has consistently maintained that his "hope" and platform of "change" will bring a new era of bipartisanship. His Senate voting record says otherwise. The National Journal ranked him the #1 most liberal Senator in 2007, #10 in 2006 and #16 in 2005. During those years, Clinton was voted #16 (2007), #32 (2006), and #20 (2005). How Obama can claim that he is the more "bipartisan" of the two I can only guess. http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/

Ms. Wald, I appreciate you may be supporting him on very legitimate grounds, but as a young woman I absolutely cannot afford another President whose lack of substance and experience will intensify our nation's decline, worsening the problems which my generation will have to solve.

Posted by: katy2010 | March 13, 2008 1:10 AM | Report abuse

A correction and a change for the Fact Checker. Puerto Rico's contest is June 1st, not June 7th. And as of early March, it has been changed from a caucus to a primary:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Puerto-Rico-Democrats.html

Posted by: Jim Moskowitz | March 13, 2008 2:11 AM | Report abuse

Puerto Rico is NOT winner take all!

Posted by: Robert in MN | April 25, 2008 11:00 AM | Report abuse

I just don't believe a word Hillary says anymore. We need an honest person in the White House. Not a person who just says what she thinks people want to hear. And please keep Bill out of the White House.

I can't wait for the day we have a woman President, just not Hillary. Hillary IS a fighter. We need her in the Senate. We need a calm and cool leader with great judgement for President. That would be Barack Obama.

Posted by: Judy | April 29, 2008 1:25 AM | Report abuse

To katy2010,

You probably won't see this, because your comment was posted more than a month ago, but I wanted to tell you that I *LOVED* that comment. I think you hit the nail squarely on the head, and I hope you don't mind that I copied and pasted that comment (crediting "Katy - the female college student") into almost a dozen other threads as well as made it into a chain e-mail and posted it as a bulletin on myspace. --Gabe (gcoppinger@gmail.com)

Posted by: Gabe | April 30, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Puerto Ricans are quasi-Americans, unlike illegal aliens from Mexico, so I don't see Hillary's seemingly toughening talk on the Border as hurting her on the Island.

I think Hillary's going to win big in P.R.

Posted by: levotb | May 3, 2008 9:42 PM | Report abuse

I do not believe that Hillary could win big or even win in Puerto Rico, as they should be in the great opposition to the demonstrated so clearly within this campaign her own and her husband's White Supremacists' views and practices. I believe that, on the contrary, she would lose in Puerto Rico because of it.

Posted by: aepelbaum | May 7, 2008 11:19 AM | Report abuse

I'm a puertorican living in San Juan. I support and will vote for Obama. I also want my Puerto Rico to become the 51 State of the United States of America. I hope the US Congress pass and the George W. Bush(which I think is one of the worst presidents ever) signs the H.R. 900, The Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2007.

Posted by: DarthRanger | May 7, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

HILLARY IS THE BEST CHOICE FOR PRESIDENT,WE KNOW HER VERY WELL,WE DONT KNOW OBAMA ONLY THAT HE IS A MUSLIN BUT HE DONT HAVE ENOUGH EXPERIENCE TO CHANGE THIS NATION FROM THE CHAOS IS IN.PUERTO RICO VOTE FOR HILLARY,WE NEED HER.

Posted by: WILMA FERNANDEZ | May 8, 2008 6:35 PM | Report abuse

In Barbara Olson's book, "The Final Days" it states that Hilary attempted to be the victim regarding these pardons. She is no victim, according to TIMES UNION. "It is clear now that we made a terrible mistake...for Hillary Rodham Clinton is unfit for elective office. Had she any shame, she would resign."

It was Hilary who hid documents of Vincent Foster for TWO YEARS...that's obstruction of justice. All evidence shows he did NOT commit suicide. It was HER fingerprints on documents.

To the person who stated it is Hilary not Bill we are electing, Excuse me? If he is guilty of much wrongdoing, so is she. And unlike Wright SHE IS MARRIED to him. Many people died during their reign, and most were NOT accidents. Hilary allowed Bill his mysogynist sexual behavior with women because she wanted him to help her become President. She did this by assisting in attempts to shut these women up, call them liars, discredit them, offer them promotions, along with threaten them, having people follow them and warn them with threats and/ or fire them.

She allowed Bill to pardon those 13 FALN Puerto Rican terrorists because he was doing it FOR HER.... so she could be elected to the Senate in New York. ALL his 140 pardons or 32 sentence commutations were quid pro quos for SOMETHING.... money for campaigning, money for his library, Senate position (she knew no one in New York) Do you get it yet?

Posted by: usyankee | May 8, 2008 6:53 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company