Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
About this Blog   |   On Twitter   |   Follow us on Facebook   |   RSS Feeds RSS Feed

Del. Phillips Endorses Clinton

Tim Craig

Del. Clarence E. "Bud" Phillips, a socially conservative Democrat from Dickenson County in southwest Virginia, today endorsed Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.).

In a statement, Phillips said Clinton is the "only candidate in this race with the experience to hit the ground running and turn our economy around." Phillips also praised Clinton's understanding of the challenges faced by rural America.

Southwest Virginia is shaping up to be a major background in Tuesday's election. U.S. Rep. Rick Boucher, a popular Democrat who represents that area, has endorsed Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

By Tim Craig  |  February 9, 2008; 2:12 PM ET
Categories:  Election 2008/President , Tim Craig  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: House Holds 4-minute Session
Next: Scenes from the JJ Dinner

Comments

Clinton's Virginia win will be the greatest upset Tuesday night.

http://toopolitical.blogspot.com

Posted by: Steve | February 9, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

I'd really like to see an article about David Axelrod, Obama's Svengali. He performed the same role for our Massachusetts Governor, Deval Patrick, another person who seemingly came out of nowhere, inspired many - including me - but who has proved to be a major disappointment since his election over a year ago. I'm concerned that Axelrod may just be out trolling for people to promote to satisfy his own ego. Rhetoric can only carry us so far - I'm suspicious of candidacies that are driven by media people like Axelrod - who can craft the message and then make sure that mainstream media promote it.

When this election is over, the compelling story of this election cycle will be the media's bias toward Obama.

Posted by: alto1215 | February 9, 2008 6:35 PM | Report abuse

Totally agree alto---This guy is dangerous. I have not seen this much propaganda in a long time. I wish America understood that the pep rallies he is winning are "crock-causes" and disenfranchise the majority of voters through time constraints, intimidation, public chastising and obnoxious, irreverent youth. It is all a strategic game with any politician and poker player. Just keep enough chips to be close when heads up and then pounce your opponent with an "All IN". This is going to be so fun when Hillary wins.

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

I'd call it people bias and not media bias. People who have not participated before. People who are fed up with the Iraq war and everyone who supported it. People who see the incompetent job Clinton did with health care reform when she had the chance. People who call Clinton on her racist remarks pitting blacks against hispanics. People who say no to someone who repeated makes the same mistakes based on poor persistent judgement. People who reject entitled politicians. People who want there politicians to do much more than find their voice. People who want to feel they are a force for change. People who want hope not haphazardness. People want a human being who can admit a mistake not one that makes up lies to justify errors that have cost hundreds of thousands of people their lives. People do want politicians that draw up Amendments to the Constitution to deny the voice of the people. They want politicians who get folks together to say "Yes WE can". It's the politics of we versus the politics of me. If the latter wins based on faux experience and a political machine heaven help us.

Posted by: cbday | February 10, 2008 12:43 AM | Report abuse

cbday--I appreciate your viewpoint--however, you seem to negate the fact that all candidates run on the message of hope, the difference being from Obama compared to the others that they are not running on emotionalism. Obama is not qualified to be POTUS. His campaign has masterfully played the race card against the Clinton campaign. Let's begin by his oratory of MLK inflections of speech and the civil rights movement to evoke emotionalism to the black community prior to SC. Have you heard that type of voice inflection since and reference to MLK--Nooooo! He is targeting markets with emotionalism, not policy. Then he claims to not be as known as Hillary Clinton--well that is a no brainer. She has been a former first lady in a state and the CONUS. Oh well--I keep asking myself what has he done for this Country or internationally in his so called two decades of public service that has earned him the respect of the world. "Hope" is always a given for all Americans during an election process, it is not a platform. Do you really think for one New York minute that he is going to change the ebb and flow of politics--he currently resides as part of the problem and has not had one iota of an effect on bipartisanship in a major way. Whereas if you look at the way Senator Clinton has performed in the Senate she is continually uniting both sides to achieve, even biased newscasters admit that. I am deeply concerned over the so called "hunger" speech for change that Obama throws out to folks, yet he does not have the moxy to debate one-on-one aggressively prior to folks voting and uses the excuse under the auspices they do not know me. Get a grip--the technology of the information age allows people to know you, the biased media allows folks to know him (as jaded as that is). Here is a guy that will meet with friend and foe, yet avoids the upcoming States that are voting the opportunity for a one and one comparison without all the noise. What a shallow platform.

Posted by: josephine | February 10, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

I am very pleased at the surge of voters who have never participated in the primary process before because they want to get behind Obama and take back our country from the wolf pack. There is nothing faux about it. If anything, I'm tired of Hillary's faux experience and I ordered my Obama bumper sticker today. Some call it experience, I call it baggage to have voted for the Iraq war. She took forever to recant and then, barely. If I knew then what I know now doesn't cut it. I knew then and I didn't have access to nearly the information she had access to.

Posted by: Sara B. | February 10, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Point in Case--"I knew then and I didn't have access to nearly the information she had access to." Let's discuss that. I also was not for the war---so I guess because I was not a sitting Senator at the time which makes me in the same boat as Obama--I ought to put in my name to be POTUS and wave the badge of courage for being against it at the start. When you say 'I didn't have access to nearly the information she had access to.' Think about what you are saying. It slays me that people do not understand it makes no difference what his thoughts were outside that vote. He did not have the right to cast a vote, nor was he privy to the information. But then again, perhaps his lack of judgment with a 17 year old friend named Rezko and his 20 year relationship with a church that is Farrakan promoters should also signify his absolute good judgment. This guy is a dirty politician that has a support system to destroy his Illinois Senate records and paint him as a clean politician--geeez folks he picked Lieberman (Alf's father) as his mentor.

Posted by: josephine | February 10, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Hillary clinton is more popupar.No boby knows in the world Who is Obama? Also he is in the sentate only from last two years and has no experience.
Also I have comments about obama when bush
Address state of the union address in January in Washington DC.,at that time when teddy kennedy was shaking hand with hillary clinton and obama turndown his face and did not respect her as senator. what ever you have difference of openion in the campaign but as a same party democrate he should have respect her not turn out the face that is call childiest act. Now my question to you guys if he is acting like a child now before elected as president how he is going to unite and work with republic & democrat congress & senate. Therefore I would say Hillary clinton will be the best President. If you want to see Batter America> Think Before Nominating Barek Obama?

Posted by: Kan p | February 10, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's experience could best be used to hit the ground runnnig as Vice-President. Barack has the passion and vision of Jefferson, King, and Kennedy. If Hillary drops out of the race now, the Democratic Party would be united and rally around Obama to defect the Federalist-Republicans. The American people have had enough of George (the III/Bush) and the monarchy supported by McCain.

Posted by: Jefferson2008 | February 10, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

I disagree Jefferson. I personally will not vote for Obama under any circumstances and hope she is not going to choose him as a VP. This guy is bad news--think about it--when in any potus race has a nominee been shielded from being vetted at this stage of the game. His name has Hussein in it for a reason. His 17 year relationship has Rezko in it in for a reason. The naivete' of this fraud continues to slay me.

Posted by: james | February 10, 2008 6:20 PM | Report abuse

To cbday - I am absolutely appalled by your comments regarding Hillary Clinton as a racist. That is absurd. You're accusing her of pitting blacks against Hispanics? What do you think Barack is doing? All I hear is how well Barack will do in any area where there is a heavy population of blacks. What do you call that? Isn't that being racist, too? If you want to go toe to toe on the issues, fine. If you feel like talking about a candidate's charisma, fine. But let's not accuse anyone of being a racist! I don't think Hillary or Barack are racists. But I think people who throw out crazy comments like yours are!

Posted by: Christina | February 10, 2008 8:24 PM | Report abuse

We are not electing a king but a president who has to work with congress to get anything done. Obama is the only choice. You can't lead when 45% dislike you DUH

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

Hillary Clinton is the most qualified to be President. Please wake up America. We cannot afford to place the country in trouble again as we had with Bush. The media had influenced this, so the people dream of non-politicians who will really work for them. Obama is a politician who wears a mask,a nice guy mask, who only dreams, but not having enough experience to handle the dangerous and complicated world we now face.
Hilary represents the working people, so they cannot afford to attend caucuses. So all the winnings of Obama does not represent us.

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

Hillary Clinton is the most qualified to be President. Please wake up America. We cannot afford to place the country in trouble again as we had with Bush. The media had influenced this, so the people dream of non-politicians who will really work for them. Obama is a politician who wears a mask,a nice guy mask, who only dreams, but not having enough experience to handle the dangerous and complicated world we now face.
Hilary represents the working people, so they cannot afford to attend caucuses. So all the winnings of Obama does not represent us.

Posted by: AE | February 10, 2008 10:21 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company