Howard Roberts8:03AMApr 24th 2008

I heard this morning that B.O. is now saying that race is playing a major part in his race with Hillary. No kidding? The fact that he captured 98% of the black vote in N.C. is not racial. Only when it goes against him is it racial.

Lee8:05AMApr 24th 2008

Lets put Hillary out of the race for good.The Democratic party is being destroyed by her selfish blind ambition.Barbara Olson's posthumous Clinton book “The Final Days” is most relevant now. She is the author who lost her life on Sept. 11, 2001. Mrs. Olson's publisher, Regnery, considered scrapping her book, which roundly slammed Mr. and Mrs. W. J. Clinton for the circumstances (the last-minute pardons and newly issued regulations and appointments, etc.) in which they vacated the White House, but it was agreed that publication should go forward. "The Final Days" has been in bookstores now for well over 6 years. Have you read it?
Don’t you want to know more about the toxic cloud amid which the Clintons packed up and left the White House? Does it matter, for instance, that our former chief magistrate further soiled his, ah, legacy by pardoning or commuting the sentences of people notable chiefly for sleazy personal histories and evidently impeccable access to the White House? You would logically suppose so, as did Barbara Olson.Doesn’t their final days in the White House tell us who they are? Read the book please.
The Clintons remain part of that world, (unfortunately) and there are vital lessons to be grasped in her book.
Actually, to say there are lessons is to put it mildly. The Clinton administration is a seminar -- no, a semester course -- no, a whole university department -- in the matter of moral leadership or lack thereof in their case.
"The Final Days" does get you to thinking: What if those hadn't been their "final days"? Suppose it had fallen to the Clinton administration to organize American response to the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks? What would have been the level of trust the White House might have commanded in the eyes of the nation and the world, in the wake of -- leave aside pardons -- "that woman Ms. Lewinsky," the meaning of "is," disbarment, hair's-breadth escapes, and a variety of other trust-busting considerations?
It's very uncommon to risk life and limb for those you think are mainly looking out for No. 1, or who you fear will cut some lousy deal to get themselves out of a bad or inconvenient spot. Trust -- a leader who can't inspire it in moments of crisis is no leader at all; more a danger to himself and others than anything else.Who can you trust?
Aren’t you glad anyway we don't have to find out? -- as glad, maybe, as Barbara Olson would have been? The aroma of that gladness you can all but smell in "The Final Days" -- Mrs. Olson's potently concocted Last Will and Testament. Rest in peace Barbara Olson and may we all rest in peace that we will never find out about Hillary!Vote for Obama Indiana.Change and Hope!

Lee8:09AMApr 24th 2008

TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE
HILLARY'S PENNSYLVANIA WIN
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
April 23, 2008 -- Hillary Clinton refuses to die. Having been given up for dead after losing Iowa, she rebounded in New Hampshire. Then a string of 11 straight consecutive losses - followed by a win in Ohio and a tie (in delegates) in Texas. Now, she's won Pennsylvania.
Problem is, it doesn't mean anything.
Because of the Democratic Party's arcane proportional-representation rules, her win stands to give her a net gain of 10 to 15 delegates when all is counted. That means that Barack Obama will fall from a lead of 161 in elected delegates to about 145 or so. Big deal.
The primaries coming up in the next two weeks - Indiana and North Carolina - are likely to give Obama back a goodly portion of those delegates. By the time all the primaries have been held, after June 3, there is no doubt that Obama will lead by more than 100 elected delegates, and likely 150. From there, it will be an easy route to the nomination.
The Democratic superdelegates aren't about to risk a massive and sanguinary civil war by taking the nomination away from the candidate who won more elected delegates. If they ever tried it, we'd see a repeat of the demonstrations that smashed the 1968 Chicago convention and ruined Hubert Humphrey's chances of victory.
Clinton won Pennsylvania for two key reasons: Only Democrats could vote in the primary, and the Keystone State electorate is dominated by the elderly, who are staunchly for Clinton.
Despite her claims of electability, Hillary has never done well among independent voters. And Obama usually loses the Democrats. Pennsylvania's closed-primary rules gave her a key advantage.
Older voters are flocking to Clinton as fears mount of what Obama might do as president mount. But those under 45 - less focused, perhaps, on race - are moving toward Obama. Here, that split helped her.
Of the 50 states, only Florida has a higher over-65 proportion of its population. But there's a key difference: Florida's elderly moved there - Pennsylvania's are the folks that are left after the young people moved away.
Pennsylvania Democrats, in other words, suffer from future shock. They welcome old, established ways and embrace dynasties happily because they are so familiar. (Look at the Bob Caseys - dad was governor, the son is senator.)
But don't expect the open primaries of Indiana and North Carolina to behave like Pennsylvania's geriatrics. Both states are younger, especially North Carolina, and independents can vote in each primary. (North Carolina is where a lot of the young people who fled Pennsylvania winters and job losses ended up).
Over the next two weeks, we'll be treated to much hoopla about how the Democratic race is once again up for grabs. Then, on May 5, Hillary's hopes will be dashed once more.
And then? After the votes are counted in all the primaries, look for the Gang of Four - Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean and John Edwards - to join together and issue a challenge to the superdelegates: Make up your minds.
Together, they'll probably demand that these appointed delegates commit to one candidate or the other by mid June. And since the primaries will have lifted Obama over 1,900 delegates (elected and super), he'll only need about 100 more, out of about 300 uncommitted superdelegates.
Their hands forced, enough superdelegates will go to Obama to put him over the top - he'll be the candidate.
That's all, folks.

Lee8:12AMApr 24th 2008

Assessing Strength in Swing States
By PATRICK HEALY
Reflecting on her victory in the Pennsylvania primary, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on Wednesday neatly summed up the chief political rationale of her enduring candidacy.

“I won the states that we have to win — Ohio, now Pennsylvania,” Mrs. Clinton said on CNN about her successes over Senator Barack Obama, in one of her six appearances on morning news shows. “It’s very hard to imagine a Democrat getting to the White House without winning those states.”

Mrs. Clinton says her popularity among blue-collar workers, women and Hispanics makes her the candidate to beat Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, in the swing states that decide presidential races. Along with Ohio and Pennsylvania, she also cites her success in Michigan and Florida — even though the Democratic Party disqualified those contests, and Mr. Obama was not on the Michigan ballot — to claim an edge in crucial battlegrounds.

Yet for all of her primary night celebrations in the populous states, exit polling and independent political analysts offer evidence that Mr. Obama could do just as well as Mrs. Clinton among blocs of voters with whom he now runs behind. Obama advisers say he also appears well-positioned to win swing states and believe he would have a strong shot at winning traditional Republican states like Virginia.

According to surveys of Pennsylvania voters leaving the polls on Tuesday, Mr. Obama would draw majorities of support from lower-income voters and less-educated ones — just as Mrs. Clinton would against Mr. McCain, even though those voters have favored her over Mr. Obama in the primaries.

And national polls suggest Mr. Obama would also do slightly better among groups that have gravitated to Republican in the past, like men, the more affluent and independents, while she would do slightly better among women.

Mr. Obama may lead in the national popular vote and among delegates needed to win the nomination, but his inability to “close the deal” with voters — a phrase Mrs. Clinton skewered him with Tuesday — has been widely discussed in light of the Pennsylvania results. Mr. Obama found himself on the defensive over the issue Wednesday, and he countered that the governors of Ohio and Pennsylvania had worked their political networks on behalf of Mrs. Clinton.

“Among all these groups that people have been focused on — blue-collar workers, white working-class folks — we did better in Pennsylvania than we did in Ohio, so we’re continually making progress,” Mr. Obama told reporters in Indiana, which holds its primary on May 6. “If you look at these states that I’m supposed to win, if you look at the polling, I actually do if not as well then better than Senator Clinton relative to Senator McCain.”

In recent weeks, Clinton advisers have been challenging Mr. Obama’s electability in a general election, and her victories in Ohio and Pennsylvania are perhaps her best evidence yet to argue that she is better suited to build a coalition across income, education and racial lines in closely contested states.

But the Pennsylvania exit polls, conducted by Edison/Mitofsky for five television networks and The Associated Press, underscore a point that political analysts made on Wednesday: that state primary results do not necessarily translate into general election victories.

“I think it differs state to state, and I think either Democrat will have a good chance of appealing to many Democrats who didn’t vote for them the first time,” said Peter Hart, a Democratic pollster not affiliated with either campaign. “Take Michigan. It has a Democratic governor, two Democratic senators, and many Democratic congressmen, so it’s probably going to be a pretty good state for the Democrats in a recession year.”

Mr. Hart, as well as Obama advisers, also say that Mr. Obama appears better poised than Mrs. Clinton to pick up states that Democrats struggle to carry, or rarely do, in a general election, like Colorado, Iowa, Missouri and Virginia, all of which he carried in the primaries. Obama advisers say their polling indicates he is more popular with independents, and far less divisive than Mrs. Clinton, in those states.

“Hillary goes deeper and stronger in the Democratic base than Obama, but her challenge is that she doesn’t go as wide,” Mr. Hart said. “Obama goes much further reaching into the independent and Republican vote, and has a greater chance of creating a new electoral map for the Democrats.”

Indeed, if Mr. Obama does become the first African-American nominee of a major party, the electoral landscape of the South could be transformed with the likelihood of strong turnout of black voters in Republican-leaning states like Georgia and Louisiana, which Mr. Obama carried this winter. (Mrs. Clinton has also argued that, given the Clinton roots, she could put at least Arkansas in play in the fall.)

Obama advisers have also argued that swing states like Ohio are winnable this fall because they have been increasingly leaning Democratic and have been struggling economically under President Bush. Indeed, some Obama allies hope he will pick Ohio’s popular governor, Ted Strickland, as his running mate if he wins the nomination, both to help carry Ohio and to unify the party (Mr. Strickland is supporting Mrs. Clinton).

And the record-setting voter registrations among both Democrats and independents across the nation also suggest that each candidate is capable of stirring excitement among voters in the fall and would be positioned to defend their bases of support against Mr. McCain, who is a popular figure among many independents and some Democrats.

Representative Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, a strong backer of Mr. Obama, said she believed that the thousands of new voters being drawn into the primaries would coalesce around the Democratic nominee once the candidate and the party begin to define Mr. McCain better on issues like the war.

“I think that will turn the tide for the people who are going in that direction,” Ms. DeLauro said of Democrats who have said they could not vote for Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton.

But Clinton supporters come back to the fact that Mr. Obama has had months of primaries — as well as a sharp fund-raising advantage — with which to beat Mrs. Clinton in more swing voter groups, and yet has failed. Representative Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, a supporter of Mrs. Clinton, said he saw her economic message as resonating more strongly with working-class voters than Mr. Obama’s.

“She is connecting better with some of these blue-collar Democrats, the base of the party,” Mr. McGovern said.

Jeff Zeleny and Carl Hulse contributed reporting.

flyinglory8:30AMApr 24th 2008

Let's really set the record straight.
The Clintons are nothing more than selfish, narcassistic egomaniacs. See Billy-boy's comments on the whole "race card" talking point. They have always been this way, but the American people don't vote with the issues in mind, they vote on a beauty contest.
Obama, or B.O. I like that one Howard, is an anti-American racist, who wants to raise our taxes to a whopping 60%. Who's only doing so well, because the media has this idiotic love affair with. No one has held his feet to the flames, and made him answer the questions that simply must be answered before you can assume the MOST IMPORTANT JOB IN THE WORLD.
Get real America, wake up and smell the Commrades circling. This nation does NOT need a communist leader, nor a socialist one either. Where have all the cowboys gone? There certainly aren't any in this horse, or opposite end, race.

Greg8:55AMApr 24th 2008

The voters should read Barack Obama's books, this will give you a good idea what he represents.

Make up your own mind but he has to many suspect friends and supporters.

Support Hillary Clinton

Lee9:02AMApr 24th 2008

UNANSWERED
QUESTIONS
FOR HILLARY CLINTON
“Thanks in no small part to Judicial Watch, Hillary Clinton may be the most investigated person in the history of the Republic.” -Margaret Carlson of TIME Magazine


Now that Hillary Clinton is an official candidate for President of the United States, the American people will take a long, hard look at her record. And any discussion of Hillary Clinton’s record begins and ends with her crimes and ethical transgressions.
Judicial Watch, of course, has been pursuing both Hillary and Bill Clinton since its inception, launching numerous investigations and lawsuits. However, despite clear evidence of Clinton corruption, so many questions remain unanswered.
If Judicial Watch were given an opportunity to interview Hillary Clinton, here are the ten (plus) questions we would ask first:
Who in the Clinton administration devised the plan to sell taxpayer-financed trade missions in exchange for campaign contributions to the Clinton-Gore 1996 re-election campaign?
Sworn testimony from Nolanda Hill, partner and confidante of the late Clinton Commerce Secretary Ron Brown, points to you as mastermind of the scheme.
Why did you give “factually false” testimony under oath in the investigation of the White House Travel Office firings, as former Independent Counsel Robert Ray stated in his final report.
Ray said his office found “overwhelming evidence” you played a role in the dismissals of the seven longtime employees in the White House travel office, which you denied under oath.
Who hired former bar bouncer Craig Livingstone and ordered him to illegally obtain for the Clinton administration the FBI files of former staffers in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush?
Sworn testimony and at least one FBI docment shows you hired Livingstone.
Why did you fail to report more than $2 million in contributions to your Senate 2000 campaign?
Testimony from the criminal investigation and trial of your National Finance Director, David Rosen, shows you knew the total costs of the fundraiser, yet failed to accurately report them.
Your brothers Anthony and Hugh Rodham allegedly brokered cash deals to obtain presidential pardons from your husband on behalf of convicted criminals. Were you aware they were each paid large sums to obtain these pardons?
Did you play any role in any of the 140 presidential pardons provided by Bill Clinton in the waning days of his administration, bypassing the normal pardon review process? How about the pardons of the Puerto Rican terrorists in the run-up to your first Senate campaign? Did you have any input on those?
Did you or your lawyers hire private detectives to investigate and intimidate critics of the Clinton administration?
What did you instruct James Carville and George Stephanopoulos to say in order to discredit and defame Gennifer Flowers, a woman with whom your husband had an affair?
Evidence suggests they smeared her at your behest. Did you play any role in smearing and defaming other women sexually and otherwise abused by your husband, including, but not limited to: Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, Dolly Kyle Browning, and Juanita Broaddrick ?
Records from the Chicago Mercantile Exchange reveal that you turned a $1,000 investment in cattle futures in 1978 into to more than $100,000 in ten months… a return of 10,000%. How did you earn such an astronomical, and unbelievable, return on this investment?
How much money does Bill Clinton earn from his relationship with Ron Burkle, a contributor to your Senate campaigns, and Burkle’s company, Yucaipa?
Are these funds currently available in bank accounts to which you have access? Will you use these funds for your campaign? How about Bill’s speaking fees, some paid for by foreign interests and governments – what are the financial benefits to you?
How do you explain the mysterious disappearance of your Whitewater billing records from the office of Vince Foster, the former Rose Law Firm partner and Clinton White House counsel who allegedly committed suicide in 1993?
How do you explain the mysterious reappearance of those same records in the White House with your fingerprints on them?
Stopping at ten questions is hard to do. We could ask about her illegal White House fundraising coffees, doing business with the State of Arkansas while her husband was governor, Web Hubbell, John Huang, Chinese generals, the Lippo Group, and paid sleepovers in the Lincoln Bedroom.
These questions are important and relevant as the American people weigh Hillary’s candidacy. We deserve some honest answers.

j9:05AMApr 24th 2008

Is there anyone on here that can get Lee to shut up or get a job or something. I mean this guy is so beyond the pale its scary.

One World9:07AMApr 24th 2008

Dick Morris is a giant egomaniac who is pissed that he looked bad because of Bill Clintons escapades....he has a giant grudge..so why listen to him? BIASED. Barack Obama will never be elected, period...partly because this country is not going to elect a black, partly because he is inexperienced, partly because he doesn't have the backbone that Hillary has. He talks the talk, but in the end...she is the one still standing....she IS a leader. GO HILLARY!!!

Lee9:09AMApr 24th 2008

Too much reading for such a shallow mind "j"?Want to know how to keep a secret from a Hillary supporter?
Put it in a book!Losers followinglosers:The Clintons!

Sonja9:18AMApr 24th 2008

Lee: Quoting Dick Morris and writing large posts filled with hate is really very childish. Take your black loving terrorists loving self over to MSNBC they will love you there. Go Hillary 2008!

Judi A. Nickels9:23AMApr 24th 2008

If the Democratic Party is being torn apart, you can blame the Kennedys for doing it by coming out against Clinton and for Obama in the early races. Senator Clinton would have won long ago without that interference by the Kennedys. And, Senator Kennedy's state went to Senator Clinton as a win even though he opposed her.

Senator Obama as the Democratic nominee will result in a win for the Republican Party--unless perhaps he runs with Senator Clinton. The states she has won are the big states. Many of the states he has won are not going to vote Democratic in the General Election. And caucus states? Those do not represent general population votes and should not be included when they are used. Has anyone done a study of national elections and how those states vote compared to what is done in the caucuses?

QUARTERHORSE9:24AMApr 24th 2008

lee sounds like dick morris, another loser. cant handle a female president ? well, i cant handle a racist liar like obummer. seen the the nc ads ? sums up obama's bullshit

jp9:33AMApr 24th 2008

OBAMA IS THE DARLING OF THE MEDIA
THEY ARE THE REAL ELITE
THEY BELIEVE THEY KNOW WHAT IS BEST FOR US
UNEDUCATED POOR RELIGION CLINGING FOLKS
HE IS THEIR CHOICE
NOT MINE OR MANY OTHER AMERICANS
WE CAN SAY WE LOVE AMERICA
WORDS OBAMA IS TOO HIP TO SAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Georgette9:41AMApr 24th 2008

The handwritting is on the wall. There is more to this Obama person then meets the eye. The longer we have debates and this campaign marches on, this allows the American people to see truth comming forward. Clinton destroying the party, I THINK NOT!
Lets be honest here, if it weren't for Clinton pressing on (as she should) important facts and questions would not be comming to light. And, as I see it, this is the highest position (oval office) in our Nation and no stone should be left unturned on any of the candiates. This is politics! To the dismay of a lot of Americans, the news media has been unjust/unfair in presenting all the facts about Obama.
They have done an excellent job reporting all the facts on Clinton and McCane. They are bias. Americans are on there own. So it's up to each of us to seek out the facts/ask questions for ourselves.

Robert McEntyre9:45AMApr 24th 2008

Is there any Demacrats in Indiana ?Isn't that where the Frank Burns of the world live? Two redneck states(IND and N.C have to vote yet. Why bother,they'll vote for McCain anyway in November.

Prediction9:59AMApr 24th 2008

By convention time there will be so many really negative facts piled up about both Billary and Obama Bin Liar that it will be obvious to all sane persons that niether are fit to serve or electable. As an emergency measure the superdelegates will embrace their responsibility to promote and protect the party and will nominate ALGORE their savior.

cc10:11AMApr 24th 2008

As should have been expected, Hillary Clinton won yesterday’s Pennsylvania primary by the impressive margin of 10 percentile points. The reasons behind Obama’s constant failures in big States are quite obvious,here are a few reasons for his upcoming defeats, which includes a deep understanding of how White Working Class voters respond to certain issues and candidates.Exit Poll numbers demonstrate the following: Hillary Clinton won amongst White voters of all ages (by approximately 62%), women (60% among all races), church goers (60%), catholics (70%), the working class (58%), college educated (51%), union members (60%), and voters over the age of 40 (60%). Also, even though the Media has been making a fuzz about the idea that most Democrats believe that Obama is the “inevitable” nominee, 95% of Clinton supporters believe that she will come out victorious, while 79% of Obama’s own supporters feel the same way about his chances. As it was expected, the only demographic that overwhelmingly supported Barack Obama was the African American constituency, which supported him by 89% (some polls say 92%). Nonetheless, as you will find out bellow, these numbers are over inflated IN FAVOR of Barack Obama, so in the final analysis, they actually end up signifying an even worse defeat for him among these groups than what the above percentages imply.As might have been expected, the Mainstream Media spent countless hours, previous to the election results, discussing how a win by only a few percentage points was not enough, and that Hillary needed (at least) 10 percentage points to turn her win into a “decisive” victory (trying to finally get her out of the race presumably). They “confidently” did this because their exit polling had reflected an artificial view of how Obama was going to do in said primary, having Clinton only ahead by 3 points. This fact explains why they decided to declare the race “competitive” at the beginning of the evening, and later on having to declare her the winner. Comically enough, and just like it has happened in every other exit polling done after a contested primary, most of the people that came out of the voting booth misrepresented how they voted and tended to tell the pollster that they ‘favored’ Obama, even though they in fact did not White voter’s “feel the need” to appear politically correct, thus claiming to support a “black candidate” when if fact they didn’t.
What does all of this mean for the Democratic Party? Barack Hussein Obama cannot win the general election. This is exemplified by the fact that the core demographic in the Democratic Party, which are “socially conservative” but “economically liberal” White working class voters will find themselves pushed into voting for the “moderate” Republican that John McCain appears to be simply in response to an Obama candidacy, which many among said group find repulsive. This dislike is based on the reality that he is perceived as a highly Liberal and inexperienced African American candidate, with dubious relationships with anti-American elements of radicals (like William Ayers and others), Rezko ,Rev wright,his When you add to these factors the whole dynamics that involve Obama with radical Muslims like Khalidi and Auchi plus his brother roy in Kenya (these stories will break later on through the Mainstream Press this is a recipe towards a complete disaster for the Democratic party.

coolpharmer10:16AMApr 24th 2008

Obama will be a great president. Just to be clear, a vote for McCain is a vote for continuing the Iraq war; a vote for more casualties and wounded troops; a vote for bleeding $12 billion a month from an economy entering recession; a vote supporting the corporate lobby; a vote against improving health care.

Stop being so easily distracted. Keep your eye on the issues, not the corporate-mouthpiece media's attempt to create spectacle.

coolpharmer10:27AMApr 24th 2008

Certainly there are plenty of internet savants who bring nothing but lies and noise on here. FixedNews watching cowards.