Clinton Moves Focus To Super Tuesday

Washington Post: Candidate Looking Beyond S.C. Primary, Turning Attention To 4 Delegate-Rich States

(Washingtonpost.com)  This story was written by Anne E. Kornblut and Shailagh Murray.

---

The next Democratic presidential nominating contest will take place in South Carolina on Saturday, but Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has already turned her full attention to places such as this: delegate-rich pockets of states that will vote in a tidal wave of primaries two weeks from now.

Clinton has been focused on California, New York, New Jersey and Arkansas since her defeat in the Iowa caucuses earlier this month, betting that she can sweep states where her name recognition and popularity are strong.

The logic seems simple: She represents New York in the Senate, and New Jersey is next door; she was the first lady of Arkansas for a decade; and California will be the biggest prize when 22 states vote on Feb. 5. But in a system that awards delegates by congressional district, with some worth more than others, the calculation is far from straightforward, and Clinton backers fear that the setup could boost Sen. Barack Obama if he fares well in populous corners of key states.

Her strategists call it a "game of chess," part of the byzantine path to the Democratic nomination in a campaign that has pitted two strong front-runners and a determined third candidate, former senator John Edwards, in a tight battle from one contest to the next.

The approach is demanding. Clinton made a one-day cross-country round trip to visit this vital district, a heavily Hispanic area with a number of less-affluent voters who her advisers believe are likely to support her. She hopes to sweep the entire state of California, and polls have shown her doing well statewide, but it is just as critical that she pick up the five delegates that come with the Salinas area. Under the Democratic nominating rules, 70 percent of California's delegates will be awarded on a district-by-district basis; the remaining 30 percent will go to the candidate who wins statewide.

The same is true for the other big-prize states, forcing the Clinton and Obama campaigns, despite their record fundraising and an avalanche of media attention, to make carefully targeted choices about where to send the contenders and where to place ads.

On this trip, Clinton won the endorsement of the United Farm Workers, the union founded by Cesar Chavez, and tailored her pitch to the area's economic concerns.

"When I talk about what I want to do as your president, it is about you and your families, your jobs, your futures," she told a crowd of cheering supporters, including numerous farmworkers, at Hartnell College.

Clinton strategists think Obama will do better in African American districts while Clinton will fare better in places such as this, with a heavy Hispanic population. It is one piece of a puzzle that the campaign is putting together -- or, in the words of one strategist, paring down -- as it makes budget decisions. "You start out with this huge list of congressional districts and you slowly whittle it down" to ones that are winnable, the adviser said.

Obama is making similar decisions. Although he has opened offices in all 22 states holding contests on Feb. 5, he is zeroing in on specific voter groups in which he believes he has an inherent advantage over Clinton. In New Jersey, one of his targets is independent voters. In Georgia and Alabama, he is seeking to replicate his South Carolina strategy by targeting African Americans.

Clinton denied that she is skating past South Carolina, the first state where African Americans are expected to make up a majority of the Democratic electorate, in order to win states that are set up better for her. Her campaign is already walking a fine line with the black community in its criticisms of Obama, and aides want to avoid the appearance that she is ignoring the concerns of black voters in the South.

In a news conference before she left Washington on Tuesday, Clinton argued that it is "absolutely not fair" to say that she is ceding South Carolina to Obama, who is campaigning there most of this week. After traveling to California and Arizona on Tuesday, she was scheduled to return to Washington late that night and then go to New Jersey on Wednesday.

---

Campaign Calendar
Check out the upcoming primary and caucus dates.

---

"I have a couple of obligations that I have to meet today and tomorrow, but my husband and my daughter are in South Carolina, and we are waging a very vigorous campaign in South Carolina," Clinton said. "We are obviously on the ground, pushing hard."

But Clinton strategists have done the math. More than four in 10 of the delegates awarded on Feb. 5 (the day when half the overall Democratic delegates will be won) lie in the four states at the heart of their plan: California, New York, New Jersey and Arkansas.

Obama, equally aware of the quirky math of the nominating process, began his ground operation months before Clinton. Because of her huge national name-recognition advantage, "it was important to get up and operational early," said Steve Hildebrand, a senior Obama adviser. The one exception is Illinois, Obama's home turf.

The Obama campaign's heavy emphasis on grass-roots organizing, which served it so well in Iowa, has led it to target the six states that will hold caucuses rather than primaries on Feb. 5. These are typically lightly attended affairs, but they could deliver big returns if Obama can follow his Iowa model of identifying a pool of supporters, including nontraditional participants such as college students and independents, and methodically turning them out.

The big three in that category are Colorado, Kansas and Minnesota. But the campaign also is active in North Dakota, where Obama has three offices; Alaska, where he has two; and Idaho, where he has one. To help balance out Clinton's edge with Democratic Party faithful, Obama is seeking endorsements in all six of the caucus states and may be close to securing the nod of Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, sources close to the campaign said. (The Clinton team counters that the Feb. 5 caucus states are relatively unimportant, accounting for just 12 percent of the delegates who will be awarded that day.)

To catch the attention of voters who will cast their ballots early, the Obama campaign picked Arizona and California for the airing of its first round of Feb. 5 ads. San Francisco Bay area residents are among the most likely to vote early, and Obama's California ad targets them by addressing his call for alternative energy sources, a major local concern. Obama scored a key Bay Area endorsement, from longtime Rep. George Miller, a close ally of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The campaign is also tackling the No. 2 prize of New York by congressional district, seeking to capitalize on a rule that would grant Obama two-fifths of all delegates if he can hit the 31 percent mark in each district. "We don't plan to win New York, but we do plan to take a lot of delegates out of there," Hildebrand said. The Clinton team has the same approach in Illinois. That is why Clinton stopped in St. Louis en route from Las Vegas to New York after winning the Nevada caucuses last weekend, making an appearance that would be seen in crossover media markets in Illinois.

[l00ker]

I wonder how Clinton was so sure that Barack came to the debate Monday ready to brawl, and that he had a list of talking points? Where did she get that information from, and how truthful is it? And now, from observing how this Clinton swamp operates, I wonder if Vince Foster was called upon to do a hatchet job that he just couldn''t do, or that he found out that one was going to be called in on him? Was he an idealist, who found out too late that he had drank the Clinton cup of poison, and then being left with no other means of escape? There''s only three ways to leave the Clinton organized crime swamp, and that''s suicide, jail, or personal destruction. So, maybe Foster chose the most appealing option to him at the time, and did as the Romans did.

[vet_sk]

How can the dems put up a person who voted for the war, who has not appologized for her vote for the war - up as their nominee. It is rediculous.

[l00ker]

Barack should leave this two clown Clinton circus alone, and get back to talking to the American people, because he can re-inforce why he''s running in the first place. He can highlight that it''s not about just winning the presidency at all costs, but winning with dignity. That''s how your get a majority, and things done. Everyone who is involved in this Clinton swamp campaign, is looking to feed at the public trough, while those whose intentions are about governing sit in neutrality on the side. This is a big move that Barack is engineering, and the crony Clinton wing of the Democratic party has all to lose, and their backs are against the wall. This Clinton "machine", as it is called, is up for demolition, and Barack should just let it implode upon itself, by him letting it do itself in. The Clintons are the ones who are desperate, because where will they run when it''s over for them? Who''s going to to show them any love?, other than some of Bill''s other old ladys for him, so they will do whatever it takes to win.

[pepperp1]

Good for her , so Senator Obama won the Black vote on the merits by claiming and inflaming charges against the Clintons that they were racist and that Senator Clinton specifically did not cry for victims of Katrina, so be it and now he is whining because Bills not supportive of his candidacy, hello lol. Super Tuesday will re right this distortion and ugly campaigns stunt by the Obama camp, as the peoples of all colors will have the opportunity to vote for Senator Clinton and not against her for some false lie.

The Obama camp now has ROBO calls out against Civil Rights hero Representative Lewis D GA because he is not voting for the black candidate.

[pepperp1]

Source confirmed Obama is the unnamed "political candidate" referred to in document which outlines case against Rezko

this according to the Chicago Sun Times and guess who the federal prosecutor is none other than the USA who nailed I Scooter Libby, Fitzgerald, and remind me Obama fans why is he different then lets say Senator Stevens

this web locations has links to all the details

http://www.taylormarsh.com/

[vet_sk]

How can you say Obama is my way or the highway. I am not necessarily an Obama support but certainly not Hillary who voted for the war. I didn''t believe WMD claims and I can''t believe she did either.
And Hillary is the one who, said, "If you don''t like what I stand for, there are many other people running."
Why doesn''t she just appologize for her vote on the war.

And people, let be honest about Obama. No need to bring untruths into anyone''s campaign.

[starleo146]

I tell you if Hillary wins this nomination it will be a miracle. The press has been against her and pushing everyone but her. I heard this statement from Wolf Blitzer and he said Hillary had better be careful attacking Barack because if she gets the nomination the blacks will not vote for her. What does that mean? I thought it a racist remark and white and blacks can vote for Barack but only whites can vote for Hillary. If the press would be as fair to Hillary as they are to the Bush clone John Mc Cain she would win overwhelmingly look how they helped him. I really want the person who wins this nomination to win on there merits not what the press wants. Just listen to Gloria Borger man the Clinton''s are not her favorite people and she should keep her opinions to herself just report we do not need your opinion.

[pepperp1]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-rezko23jan23,0,6946018.story?coll=la-home-center

Check it out the real story on Rezko who is under federal indictment and one of Senator Obamas biggest bundlers his campaign suggest that lobbying by an alleged criminal enterprise is technically not receiving hundreds of thousands for 17 years from A lobbyist, yeah only because the business interest is not a legal interest according to the indictment

[l00ker]

Actually, CNN is Clinton camp base station 1, and Blitzer had on a Clinton tee shirt under his suit. He let Clinton ramble on for miles, but constantly gave the other two the 30 second warning. It will indeed be a miracle if Clinton wins, but if she loses, it will be because of her merits, and phantom "35 years of experience", ready from day one, in order to make change merits.

[l00ker]

If this Rezko business hasn''t stopped Barack from getting elected as Senator, then why should it prevent him from being president? Whitewater and Clintons investment schemes didn''t keep them out of the White House.

[pepperp1]

Posted by starleo14672 at 10:09 AM : Jan 23, 2008


This is the same press that loved Bush and the Iraq WMDs what can you expect.............We the People need to do our own thinking for charts sakes we just allowed a mad man to invade a country where 151,000 men women and children were killed in our name, while this same media served as his propaganda arm lying over and over again to the American People

Stop being media sheep

Stop being MEDIA SHEEP....they dont benefit if the government and our leaders function well and are strong, they have skin in the game they infalme CONFLICT to be relevant

[l00ker]

GIVE ME A BREAK; this whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I''ve ever seen.

[l00ker]

Bill Clinton felt and feels the same way, that''s why he made the statement in New Hampshire. Actually, he''s jealous that Barack will take his status as the first black president, and have a better legacy than Bill has.

[pepperp1]

dont buy the lie that Repugs want to run against Senator Clinton they absouletly do not they want an unknown swift boater victim, America knows Senator Clinton she had a seventy million dollar background check conducted by a rabid foaming partisna prosecutor

For weeks now, the Republican National Committee has been circulating Rezko clips about Obama relationship to the indicted political operative


they had to knew Rezko trial was coming up right after super Tuesday where Dems could have made a fatal error with out all the date, and I just don%u2019t accept they didn%u2019t know that Obama was the unnamed pol mentioned in the indictment according to the Chic Sun Times lets recall the political corruption of the DOJ for political indictments the firing of the 8 USA who did not play along in the 2006 election%u2026%u2026%u2026.Rove will be very disappointed if Senator Clinton is the nominee don%u2019t let them con you

[pepperp1]

dont buy the lie that Repugs want to run against Senator Clinton they absolutely do not they want an unknown swift boater victim to run against in 08 one without a defense other that boo hoo they are being mean and trampling on HOPE, America knows Senator Clinton she had a seventy million dollar background check conducted by a rabid foaming partisan prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is more talented

For weeks now, the Republican National Committee has been circulating Rezko clips about Obama relationship to the indicted political operative


they had to know Rezko trial was coming up right after super Tuesday where Dems could have made a fatal error with out all the date, and I just don%u2019t accept they didn%u2019t know that Obama was the unnamed pol mentioned in the indictment according to the Chic Sun Times lets recall the political corruption of the DOJ for political indictments the firing of the 8 USA who did not play along in the 2006 election%u2026%u2026%u2026.Rove will be very disappointed if Senator Clinton is the nominee don%u2019t let them con you

[krazime-2009]

Just what this country needs, Bill and Hills distortions and more lies. This country is about to implode and you want another divisive individual to take over the country, how intelligent. The US will get exactly what it deserves. All people voting for Hillary AND Bill think the good old days of the 90''s will return, and they are sadly mistaken. I know I won''t be voting for her. After watching the two Clintons distort and lie in this election, I''m totally embarrassed for this country.
It''s about time we had an honest, trustworthy leader!
Vote Obama 08!

[l00ker]

As Mitt would say, "who let the dogs out?"...

[l00ker]

Romney then Huck are my fovorite GOP choices, but if the Clintons are the Dems nominees, I''''ll vote GOP, even if it''''s Barney. Also, I saw the video of Mitt at the MLK rally with the kids, that was alright. Who let the dogs out? At least Mitt is speaking against these illegals who will destroy the fabric of this country. They break laws, drain the civil system, drain the medical system, pay little to no taxes, drive down wages ( especially for the poor ), leave garbage all over the place ( in full trash bags beside the roads even ) and inflame tensions among the races. So the "dogpound" should not fear putting their support behind Mitt, he''''s a good man; he''''s just not a special-interest-media favorite. At least at CNN and MSNBC. Who let the dogs out?

[l00ker]

Oh, and I forgot about the recliners, sofas, mattress'''' and tv sets that these illegal claim jumpers leave beside the roads. That''''s how a society leads to ruin, and why people should come into this country the way they need to, with some records, documentation, accountability, and loyalty. These people don''''t even want to learn the language, the history, the norms and mores, and are always looking for short cuts, and don''''t even care about the passions that they inflame. And where did we get this 1 for english and 2 for spanish business? Where''''s 3 for japanese 4 for italian 5 for greek 6 for gaelic 7 for korean and on... The people need to take the country back from these sellout politicians who put the squeeze on us every April 15th, then give a chunk of it to these folks coming into to this country like a thief, or a burglar, taking that which doesn''''t belong to them, with gall even. And does anyone wonder why the lines at the DMV are out the doors, and the waits are hours long? Look around you. And to add insult to injury, they don''''t even follow roads rules, read roads signs, and follow transportation guidelines when hauling their stuff around, dropping dangerous things in the roadways. And Clinton says that "no man or women is illegal", which translates that she will pander for the hispanic vote in return for amnesty for these folks. The only change that you''''ll get with Clinton in office, is the change in your pockets indeed, as Mitt once said.

[l00ker]

Who let the dogs out?

[jedi08]

We need to end the same old politics as usual.

End the BUsh Clinton dynasty

[bill5321]

Bill and Hillary are no longer standing so proud. They are on the verge of losting this primary election.

Hillary is now using Al Gore strategy of cherry picking the states. It did not work for Al and it will not work for Hillary.

In NV, the cherry picking strategy did not work. Hillary won the popular votes, but lost the delegate count by 1. The same is going to hold true for CA and NJ.

Hillary you are in BIG trouble because Obama is going to sweep the east coast,south and midwest.

Obama 2008

[pepperp1]

dont buy the lie that Repugs want to run against Senator Clinton they absolutely do not they want an unknown swift boater victim to run against in 08 one without a defense other that boo hoo they are being mean and trampling on HOPE, America knows Senator Clinton she had a seventy million dollar background check conducted by a rabid foaming partisan prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is more talented

For weeks now, the Republican National Committee has been circulating Rezko clips about Obama relationship to the indicted political operative


they had to know Rezko trial was coming up right after super Tuesday where Dems could have made a fatal error with out all the date, and I just don%u2019t accept they didn%u2019t know that Obama was the unnamed pol mentioned in the indictment according to the Chic Sun Times lets recall the political corruption of the DOJ for political indictments the firing of the 8 USA who did not play along in the 2006 election%u2026%u2026%u2026.Rove will be very disappointed if Senator Clinton is the nominee don%u2019t let them con you

[gkc99]

"VOTE for the TESTED, VOTE for Hillary ''''08"--Posted by metroduck75


While Hillary would be preferable to anything on the Repub horizon, that''s not saying much.

Since Hillary claims the accomplishments of Bill''s reign, she needs to take responsibility for the disasters of that regime as well.

Like NAFTA. Like the outsourcing of America''s science and technology jobs to Asia, the training of the hundreds of thousands of Asians under the H1B visa program that the Clinton''s with the big help of Dianne Feinstein (D, CA) pushed through, and the conversion of the USA into a service economy ("like fries with that") ruled by a uber-rich elite.

Yes, Hillary had a big hand in all that.

Barack Obama for President.

[jon2012-2009]

Just what this country needs, Bill and Hills distortions and more lies. This country is about to implode and you want another divisive individual to take over the country, how intelligent.
Posted by krazime at 11:21 AM : Jan 23, 2008

Hillary isn''t divisive just because she alienates many Republicans--a good thing, I really don''t want those in the same party as me. It''s the hard-core Republicans who are divisive. They wrote the book on lying and deceit, coming out with beauts like "swiftboat." Enough of this "divisive" cr*a*p.

[cspham68]

Hillary is the best choice. Not by her eloquent ability but by her ACTIONS and SUBSTANCE in her platform. She also know how to be pragmatic. Forget about the "hype" surrounding Obama. That has nothing to do with being great president.
Go for Hillary.

[hungry1968]

After 20 years of HATEFUL ATTACKS from the Media, the Press, and the Republicans.... She remains the ONLY one who is standing STRONG.

You go, Girl!!!!! :)

VOTE for the TESTED, VOTE for Hillary ''''08!!!!

Posted by metroduck75 at 11:42 AM : Jan 23, 2008




She''s only been a Senator for a couple of years. How do you figure that she has 20 years of "TESTED" experience? Because she says she does?

[cspham68]

Yes, Hillary is the only candidate who can stay strong against the Republicans. She''s smart and experience, which will certainly accompany changes. Words do not lead to changes!
Go for the first Women President.
Go Hillary

[l00ker]

Many are asking Hillary, "where''s the beef", and we''re not talking about Bill.

[jon2012-2009]

How can the dems put up a person who voted for the war, who has not appologized for her vote for the war - up as their nominee. It is rediculous.
Posted by Vet_SK at 08:53 AM : Jan 23, 2008

Not all that ridiculous. A vote for the war was just that, an infinity away from going to war. I doubt there was anyone who voted for the war who would have made that decision on their own if it was theirs to make. We are in this war because of GWB who lied about it and went against the U.N. to start the war.

[l00ker]

Forget this sloganeering about the phantom "35 years of experience" and tested for day one, about Hillary.

[l00ker]

As Hillary would say about the war, "it depends on what you mean about what a yes vote is".

[smiley676]

Let me preface this by saying that I''m not a huge fan of Hillary''s. I think that she wants a big government to "take care of the people." And I think that is a terrible idea.

However, Barack only looks good because he hasn''t been around long enough to make mistakes. I realize the cry for change has gotten everyone fired up, but change sounds better than it is in practice. If you don''t know how to make the changes and you don''t know the effect of the changes you are making, you are setting yourself up for trouble.

Barack has a lot of charisma and that is very engaging. And he is black and I know a lot of people want to say "we''re not racist, we voted for a black president." Well that is racist. If you are voting for someone just because of his/her skin color, you are a racist.

I want to see more substance from Barack. I think he may one day make a good president, I just don''t think today is the day. He needs more experience with foreign policies and more experience managing on a larger scale.

[l00ker]

And if Bill and Hill were such good benefacters for the poor, then what did they do in order for the CEO pay to rise more than 200 times the average American worker, and golden parachutes rise exponentially for executive failure, while good paying blue collar and white collar jobs got the old Clinton NAFTA outsource heave-ho.

[gkc99]

Hillary and Bill are so power-hungry you can just see it in the desperation of Bill''s smear jobs. Can we really stand another 8 years of Bill''s hornydog face with the alcoholic nose that''s been blooming the last couple of years? The Clintons had the good luck to rule at the time of a booming economy. Now it''s turning sour due at least in part to their policies.

Like the giveaway of good-paying American jobs to Asia.

Obama could be one of our great presidents. The Clintons never were and never will be.

Forget the Hillary machine and vote for Obama!

[notopennshut]

re gkc99

Right on there. The thought of the Clintons back in the WH is just too much to even think of. Us diehards democrats would prefer Edwards or Obama. If not, would rather see anyone else there rather than the Clintons. It is not a matter of party now, but the survival of the party and the country. the Clintons are so thoroughly disliked as a whole that many democrats would rather not vote. Is anyone polling to see what percentage of votes are lost due to them? Nineteen out of twenty of us will not vote for her even as we have been supporting the democrats over the decades. Isn''t that saying a lot about Hillary and Bill?

[realpatriot1]

Smiley676,

You raise good points and that''s refreshing in the current environment of smear upon smear.

My take on experience and change is this. History shows that experience alone will not bring change and inexperience will lead to trouble if not surrounded by experience.

Whoever wins will have experienced people around them who know the ropes of Washington.

Clinton didn''t have experience when he 1st came to the White House but he surrounded himself with enough aides to show him the ropes, ans, more importantly, he knew what he wanted to accomplish and he worked to get as much done as he could. Clinton would never have balanced the budget without aides like Robert Rubin, larry Summers, and Erskine Bowles. It wouls be the same with Obama.

Experience is great if it comes with judgement and character, but those qualities are more important in my opinion.

Regardless of what kind of President you think her husband was(I voted for him twice) I don''t think Hillary has demonstrated good judgement or character and I think Obama, while not perfect, is light years ahead of her there. I also don''t like voting for politicians who''ve been caught red-handed repeatedly lying.

Change comes from building alliances for change issue by issue. Obam tries to reach broad consensus while Hillary cuts deals with lobbyists and plays partison politics...not a recipe for change.

[smiley676]

Nineteen out of twenty of us will not vote for her even as we have been supporting the democrats over the decades. Isn''''t that saying a lot about Hillary and Bill?


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

Posted by notopennshut

Where are you getting your numbers from?

realpatriot1
I agree that experience isn''t the only thing that is necessary and you need the right balance (you don''t want the old dog that can''t learn new tricks, but you also don''t want someone who is too green to make the changes properly).

I don''t really like any of the candidates. John Edwards is too political. But Obama and Hillary are politicians too. It really bothers me when I see Obama speak to a crowd with a majority of black people and he uses a different accent than when he is speaking to a majority of white people. And I know Hillary does the same thing. I''m also still waiting for them to tell me something other than how they are "change." From Hillary we get vote for me I''ll be the first woman president. From Barack we get vote for me I''ll be the first black president.

[smiley676]

I know someone is going to say I have a racist or sexist attitude. But I don''t. I truly don''t care what color or gender the president is. I just want someone who will do what is right for this country instead of what is right for himself/herself.

I want someone who will bring us together as a nation, so that the next time I hear someone say "what are you?" The response is AMERICAN. Instead of African-American, Mexican-American, Irish-American. We are all Americans and that is it. And if we would come together as a country under a leader who had the right vision and values, we could be a strong nation again.

I''m not saying not to embrace your heritage, but "united we stand."

[lawrenceatl]

Watch only if you love this country and don''t want to see it abused. (Again)
HILLARY THE MOVIE
Http://www.hillarythemovie.com

[croft777]

Obama,
HA! HA! HA!
Its funny that Obama praised Reagan and so do the Republicans. Everybody who don''t remember or was to young or wasn''t born yet need to go to.. www.youtube.com and watch "Land of confusion-Genesis. This video was played on MTV back in 1986 and just shows you what people thought of Reagan. Also, Eddie Murphy in "Delirious" speaks about Reagonomics and as you watch the crowd in Washington is booing. Look back at the facts, they can say alot about what society thought during a certain point in time. "Oh superman where are you now, when everythings gone wrong somehow" Genesis.

[l00ker]

Why is Oprah not showing up at Obama''''s rallies anymore?

Has she discovered the POOR judgment that Obama has???

Has she wished she would take back her Endorsement??

Has Obama whined too much about everything???

Is Obama waaay too HIGH maintenance?

Or is it because the Rock Star is better suited for OSCAR Nomination, NOT Presidential Nomination??

Hmm.... If I were Obama, I would have jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge...

His Campaign is way too depressing!!!



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

Posted by metroduck75 at 01:07 PM : Jan 23, 2008



Try putting forth some credible arguments, instead of all the shouts and sloganeering. It doesn''t become you.

[l00ker]

Obama,
HA! HA! HA!
Its funny that Obama praised Reagan and so do the Republicans. Everybody who don''''t remember or was to young or wasn''''t born yet need to go to.. www.youtube.com and watch "Land of confusion-Genesis. This video was played on MTV back in 1986 and just shows you what people thought of Reagan. Also, Eddie Murphy in "Delirious" speaks about Reagonomics and as you watch the crowd in Washington is booing. Look back at the facts, they can say alot about what society thought during a certain point in time. "Oh superman where are you now, when everythings gone wrong somehow" Genesis.


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

Posted by croft777 at 01:30 PM : Jan 23, 2008



"Oz never did give nothing to the tin man, that didn''t really all ready have" - America...

[whitepicks2]

Well, Phil Collins, you''ve hit the problem squarely on the head. Too many people won''t take the time to learn about the candidates, or the issues. They''re lazy. They''ll take more interest in music vids, people''s middle names, and get their panties in an uproar to vote on the basis of gender, than taking the time to carefully consider what''s at stake.

If our party wants to nominate Sen. Clinton so badly, then we should be held accountable for the consequences. We will lose to McCain, as Clinton trails him in all the polls. You can say the polls are inaccurate, and I''d agree - the polls don''t take into account the full effect of people like myself, a lifelong Democrat who has never voted for a Repub but will to stop a Clinton dynasty.

Not only will I vote against Clinton but I will assist the McCain campaign by making calls, knocking on doors, etc. - anything to defeat another dynasty.

[l00ker]

The Clintons don''t care about the country; if they did, then we wouldn''t be having this debate. Their only concerns are wealth, fame and power. Does America know the whole story about them, from day one?

[notopennshut]

re:whitepicks2

Agreed!! How come that the "so-called" leaders of the democrats are so blind to what is happening. Are they afraid to speal out even when they see the destructive policies of the Clintons, the destruction of the party happening right before their eyes??? Where are they? They are driving tens of thousands of us over to the other side already. So what if Bill is an ex-president? They should just "axe" him out! So what if she is a senator and they have to work with her? This has nothing to do with what is happening now. We are giving away the presidency to the republicans for free. We have to do what is right. All you leaders of the democrats come out now and save the party. You will lose much support now only now, but for generations to come if you allow the Clintons to destroy us now. Each day passes with more and more of us going uncommitted or over to the other side because we CANNOT stomach the Clintons any longer!! The destruction of this party is on all the heads of those other leaders who are too afraid to speak up now.

[hillaryin08]

The Road to War and the Democrat Hypocracy of the 107th Congress (2001-2002) House of Representitives had 207 Democrats and U.S. Senate had 50 Democrats.

House Authorization for the Use of Military Force, 81 Democrats in favor of Military Action.

House Amendment to require President Bush to work on U.N. disarmament of Iraq before war. 136 Democrats Opposed

House Amendment to require congressional approval before war. 60 Democrats Opposed

House Motion to recommit to committee. 106 Democats Opposed

Senate Amendment requiring a termination date for the authorization of force, together with procedures for the extension of such date at Congress''''s discretion. 19 Democrats Opposed

Senate Amendment declaring that the authorization to use force allows for unprovoked U.S. attacks against Iraq. 28 Democrats in favor of Military Action.

Senate Amendment declaring that the authorization to use force in Iraq reasserts Congress''''s power to declare war. 38 Democrats Opposed

Senate Amendment declaring that use of force requires U.N. compliance with military action in Iraq. 28 Democrats Opposed

Senate Amendment to require existence of an imminent threat prior to U.S. military deployment. 21 Democrats Opposed.

Senate Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq: Final vote 29 Democrats in Favor of Military Action to Include Mrs Bill Clinton, John (angry white man) Edwards and John (I was in Vietnam) Kerry.

[shutupnvote]

Good for her , so Senator Obama won the Black vote on the merits by claiming and inflaming charges against the Clintons that they were racist and that Senator Clinton specifically did not cry for victims of Katrina, so be it and now he is whining because Bills not supportive of his candidacy, hello lol. Super Tuesday will re right this distortion and ugly campaigns stunt by Senator Obama camp, as the peoples of all colors will have the opportunity to vote for Senator Clinton and not against her for some false lie moving on to the rest of the Nation is a good thing.

[hillaryin08]

The Road to War and the Democrat Hypocracy of the 107th Congress (2001-2002) House of Representitives had 207 Democrats and U.S. Senate had 50 Democrats.

House Authorization for the Use of Military Force, 81 Democrats in favor of Military Action.

House Amendment to require President Bush to work on U.N. disarmament of Iraq before war. 136 Democrats Opposed

House Amendment to require congressional approval before war. 60 Democrats Opposed

House Motion to recommit to committee. 106 Democats Opposed

Senate Amendment requiring a termination date for the authorization of force, together with procedures for the extension of such date at Congress''''s discretion. 19 Democrats Opposed

Senate Amendment declaring that the authorization to use force allows for unprovoked U.S. attacks against Iraq. 28 Democrats in favor of Military Action.

Senate Amendment declaring that the authorization to use force in Iraq reasserts Congress''''s power to declare war. 38 Democrats Opposed

Senate Amendment declaring that use of force requires U.N. compliance with military action in Iraq. 28 Democrats Opposed

Senate Amendment to require existence of an imminent threat prior to U.S. military deployment. 21 Democrats Opposed.

Senate Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq: Final vote 29 Democrats in Favor of Military Action to Include Mrs Bill Clinton, John (angry white man) Edwards and John (I was in Vietnam) Kerry.

[l00ker]

Rewind the tape, Barack never claimed anything. Do you have the transcript of him claiming that? He was asked by either Russert or Williams during a prior denabte that if he thought that he lost New Hampshire because of his race, he said no. So what part of the story are you missing? Or was that not kosher enough for you?