Print
E-mail
Share
iPod
del.icio.us
digg
Newsvine
FacebookCampaigning here, Clinton goes over Culinary’s head
The union backed Obama, but she’s pitching members, one by one
Leila Navidi
Sen. Hillary Clinton campaigns Thursday in a largely Hispanic Las Vegas neighborhood represented by Assemblyman Ruben Kihuen, who is backing her.
Fri, Jan 11, 2008 (2 a.m.)
Just beneath the smiles and the hugs and the flash of cameras, Sen. Hillary Clinton played in-your-face politics in a visit to Las Vegas on Thursday.
A day after the 60,000-member Culinary Union endorsed Illinois Sen. Barack Obama for president, Clinton walked a northeast Las Vegas neighborhood heavy with Culinary workers and won the support of several.
Her campaign’s message: The endorsement means nothing and Culinary members should follow their conscience and not the order of union Secretary-Treasurer D. Taylor. It was a political kick in the shins to Obama and the union, all delivered with the New York senator’s trademark wide grin.
Asked about this shrewd maneuver, a Clinton aide merely laughed and claimed ignorance.
Culinary political director Pilar Weiss downplayed the significance of the wayward union members: “What would you do if a presidential candidate came to your door? If you had a presidential candidate and an elected official and the national press corps at your door, would you say you supported the candidate? Of course.”
Weiss continued: “We just made our endorsement yesterday, we’ve got plenty of time in the grand scheme of the caucus, and we think in the end our members will act like a union.”
It was another sign the campaign is reaching new levels of intensity here. With the Culinary endorsement, Obama grabbed a significant advantage, but Clinton showed Thursday she’s intent on winning here Jan. 19 to maintain her momentum following victory in Tuesday’s New Hampshire primary.
Obama arrives today for a rally at Del Sol High School. The doors open at 5 p.m. He will return Sunday and Monday. Before that event, he’ll solidify his support with the Culinary by accepting its endorsement at a union hall rally.
In Nevada, Obama is outspending Clinton $390,965 to $206,320 on TV ads.
But Thursday was a day of free media for Clinton, who was followed by a horde of cameras and notebook-bearing reporters as she walked with Assemblyman Ruben Kihuen through a Hispanic neighborhood in his district.
Clinton was making an appeal to Hispanic voters, who make up about 40 percent of Culinary membership. Obama and Clinton are fighting hard for Hispanic voters. Both have invested heavily in the effort, airing Spanish-language radio ads and hiring dozens of bilingual organizers between them.
Clinton’s walk through the neighborhood wasn’t exactly a spontaneous stroll. The homes Clinton visited were the same ones that Kihuen canvassed with a Sun reporter last month
Many of the neighborhood residents either weren’t citizens or weren’t registered.
Clinton must have been a bit baffled, for instance, when Kihuen took her to visit Esperanza Solorio, who’s not a citizen. Kihuen explained her importance: She is a community activist who can move voters.
Marhayra Bermudez, a Culinary member who works in the kitchen at Bally’s, said she’s ignoring the Obama endorsement and backing Clinton. Many of her co-workers are doing the same, she said.
Clinton stopped at the home of Gilberto and Elizabeth Santana and their two young children. Elizabeth Santana is a housekeeper at Harrah’s who cleans 16 rooms during every eight-hour shift. She’s supporting the family because her husband was injured on the job and can’t work.
Gilberto Santana asked Clinton about immigration and said he hoped more of his friends and family could work in the country legally.
Clinton explained her proposal to secure the border but provide a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, provided they pay a fine and back taxes, and try to learn English.
The event gave Clinton some pitch-perfect TV moments. Sitting on the Santana couch, looking concerned as Gilberto Santana explained the family’s financial difficulties, Clinton said, “If we don’t take care of our children, we don’t care of our future.” She was once on the board of directors for the Children’s Defense Fund.
And, Clinton managed to get some residents to sign caucus pledge cards. A caucus, which requires participants to show up at their precinct meeting at 11:30 a.m. on Jan. 19, requires the campaigns to produce committed supporters. The pledge cards allow the campaigns to count supporters, and people who sign them are 80 percent more likely to attend the caucus than those who don’t, according to data amassed during previous Iowa caucuses.
Clinton’s theme for the day, which she adroitly returned to repeatedly, was the economy and the foreclosure crisis that is causing significant hardship across the country, but especially in Las Vegas.
At a roundtable discussion at Lindo Michoacan, a popular Mexican restaurant, Clinton listened to the stories of local residents either hit by the crisis or trying to do something about it, and she laid out her agenda on the issue:
Clinton is calling for a 90-day moratorium on foreclosures and a five-year mortgage rate freeze, both dependent on the voluntary cooperation of lenders. In the past, she has said if the financial industry opposed her measures, she would consider legislation to make the steps mandatory including giving legal protection to lenders that fear being sued by investors for renegotiating mortgages.
Clinton supports a fund, estimated at $5 billion, to help existing state foreclosure programs.
Her chief opponents, Obama and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, have proposed similar policies to help those caught up in the crisis.
Clinton is in Los Angeles this morning making a speech on the economy and the need for an economic stimulus package. The message likely will resonate,because the national unemployment rate has reached 5 percent, and some economists think states such as Nevada are already in a recession. The economy appears to have gained ground and even equaled the war in Iraq as the issue most motivating Democratic voters.
We have to wonder, as she went door-to-door courting Hispanic voters, did she mention to any of them that it will "make a lot of sense" for them to have special immigrant ID cards (like she has publicly stated)? What a jumble of pandering and pretentiousness. Come on Nevada, the Clintons are about as authentic as a Twinkie is organic. They were phonies in the nineties, and even more so now that they are hardened Washington politicians. Maybe before the Nevada caucuses she will again cry over the prospect of losing and dupe the voters into a pity vote. Talk about a "fairy tale" (to quote Bill Clinton). Give me a break. I have faith that Nevada will be wiser than New Hampshire was.
Clinton has taken $567,950 from lobbyists. Obama has taken $76,859. Who do you think will stand with the unions, Clinton, beholden to corporations, or Obama, who has walked picket lines with union members?
Clinton walking through this neighborhood is another act of desperation. She probably should have cried again. Obama comes to NV on Friday and will rock the place, lifting people's spirits and inspiring them to vote. You're right, efranklin, the Clintons are phone, fake, people who are criminally-obsessed with their own power.
Immigration is not even a top priority for Clinton. She has not made any commitment on a timetable for this issue. I'm not just disappointed in Hillary.I'm disappointed in Ruben as well.
I think it's wonderful she has so much support out there. People should vote for who they want as President, not who Pilar Weiss tells them to vote for.
My family comes from Jimena de la Frontera, Spain and we are all rooting for Hillary here in Chicago and also in Espana. She will make an excellent woman President.
Viva Hillary!
Should Senator Clinton come to your house, please consider asking her the following questions:
1) Why did she speak in favor of the 2002 Iraq Levin Amendment, and then a few hours later vote against it?
Note: this amendment would have required another round of Iraq diplomacy in the U.N., and a return to Congress should that fail.
2) Why did she fail to read the 2002 Iraq National Intelligence Estimate?
If she tells you she was 'briefed', ask her by whom. She had no one on here staff with the security clearance to read it for her.
Note: it has been reported information in this document called into serious doubt evidence presented elsewhere that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
Former Florida Senator Bob Graham read this report, and voted against the 2002 Iraq war authorization in part due to what he read in this report.
For more information see "Hillary’s War", dated May 29, 2007, on the New York Times website:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/29/magazi...
Thank you.
--George
You might also ask Senator Clinton why her campaign mailed a letter in New Hampshire criticizing his record in Illinois on a woman's right to choose, please.
What the letter pointed out was he voted "present" in some of the pro-choice/pro-life votes. What it doesn't explain is why, which is Illinois Planned Parenthood asked him to do so.
Furthermore, there are many valid reasons to vote "present" in the Illinois Senate. The Clinton campaign information did not give any of these reasons.
You might also ask her why her campaign is using smear tactics against Obama, grossly distorting his record using misleading information. I would expect to see this done by some Republicans, but never by one Democrat against another.
I'm very sorry to see this happen.
See: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/pol...
See:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/ob...
--George
Even if you dont like her, she probably has the political power/ability to get things done including immigration problems. Obama's heart is in the right place, so is Edwards' but I can't risk it. She knows how to fight Republicans on immigration and wages and we need her for that. Even if you dont like her.
As a bonus, we already know what skeletons are in her closet and none of them were bad enough to ruin her. Can't say the same yet of Edwards or Obama. They just haven't been subjected to the same Republican scrutiny that Clinton has - and she came out in tact.
The head of Obama's campaign in New Hampshire was a lobbyist from the Pharmaceutical companies - so don't act like he is a saint in this area. Read this article that broke last night on ABC about his illegal business dealings with a man named Tony Rezko who is being indicted for bribes. Obama is a slick politician, not the saint that the press has made him out to be.
I am ashamed to be part of a union that would back such a dishonest man.
Hillary Clinton has worked hard for the people of Nevada - she has gone to bat for us on Yucca Mtn and she has stood by for the working class, unions of America.
I am proud of what Kihuen is doing and I support him and Hillary Clinton.
The culinary union should be ashamed of itself. Obama has never even been to Nevada except for his own gain to run for President.
Jackie,
Perhaps there is a 'risk' with Clinton, too, one greater than with her opponents, and that is her high negatives with the American people.
A December episode of NBC's "Meet the Press" showed a poll which had Clinton's popularity at 42% positive, and 44% negative. Another major poll in 2007 had her at 50% negative.
For a major candidate to have a negative rating higher than positive is unheard of.
Plus, there is the matter of winning a general election, and not just Democratic primaries. A December Zogby poll showed Obama as the only candidate winning against all five likely Republican nominees. Edwards lost to two; Clinton, to three.
To the Democrats: you have lost two elections. Do you want to risk losing a third, in a year when it should be an easy win?
Please go with the nominee who is most likely to be supported by Independents and cross-over Republicans. Go with the nominee who is most likely to get support from the largest majority of the public, because only by having done so will we be able to overcome the special interests who have largely taken over Washington.
Obama'08
--George
To DonnaT:
The head of the NH Obama campaign was a state lobbiest, and not national -- big difference.
Clinton accepts money from national lobbiests, Edwards and Obama do not -- big difference.
As for the article "that broke" on ABC, did you come up with that characterization or did you see someone else call it that?
This is very old news which has been thoroughly investigated and discussed elsewhere. The only thing that "broke" is that this was the first time (at least according to some) it was discussed on ABC News.
You also characterize Obama's dealings as "illegal". Where did you come up with that notion, please? Nowhere have I ever seen any mention of anything done illegally.
This is very old news, folks. Here's a link to a Nov 5, 2006 (over a year ago) article on the subject posted on the Chicago Sun-Times website:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/12...
I caution all voters to carefully scrutinize what you hear about the candidates. A lot of 'mud' is going to be thrown in the few weeks.
What you can count on is my posts will be based on quality news sources, and I will include links so you can find out for yourself. I hope others will back up their comments the same way, please.
--George
As registered Independent woman I want a candidate with broad appeal. Hillary brings division and corruption to the table. This country needs inspiration, change and competence that is not the entrenched establishment. I also want someone who won't try to remove items from the White House when their term is finished. That's why I would never vote for Hillary.
I have watched, over the years, as this valley politically divided its latino culture. However, let me speak to the latinos. Apparently they didnt stay in their history classes and apparently many of their friends and family members did not either. Farm Workers Union! If it was not for this union forming for latinos back in the day, many latinos of the western US would be picking produce for 1$ an hour and would never be allowed to work construction at the fair wages they received during the last decades. Wake up politicos. Do your homework, check the history, the Obama organization goes authentically back to this country's original farm workers that rose to fight oppression and exclusion for latinos. As a direct result of the sacrifices those farm workers and organizers, many latino politicos have thus benefited. However, here we are, years later, and we have one candidate who has worked from the bottom up, walked the streets for children and unions, and continues to spread the message of unity and harmony as a people and a single country of united states. May I remind you latinos, Mexico has NEVER accomplished this which is the primary reason you came and live in the US . And now that you have come here and have made money and have supported your families, you finally decide to go against the unions? The very same unions who fought for your parents rights back in history? Are you locos? Tienen enfermas? Ruben, good luck with your career, you would be making chips and guacamole if it wasn't for Cesar Chavez and those farm workers. Not sure how you wake up in the morning and look at yourself. I sure hope the latinos dont forget that no matter how much they hang out with a white lady, it doesnt change their skin. Without education, the 'status quo' will always see you as an illegal "aliens" and the only way to earn respect is going to be by uniting against a familiar opponent, dressed in expensive clothes, selling the past 25 years as her resume for success and accomplishment, and promising exactly what to you as latinos? Mas del mismo!!! Por favor, hablan con sus abuelos. Ellos saben y recuerden el movemiento de Chavez. Donde esta su respeto para nos historia? Puro chips and guacamole, cual personas latinos lo usan comida cuando estan hablando para sus derechos? Locos, puros locos. Ya! Ya! Ya! No hay pedo. Cuando viene el 19, vamos a ver donde esta el corazon del los latinos politicos. En uno vestida o con nostros? Tu sabes y solamente tu!!! Para nos hijos, U N I T E !
Choosing Our Next President
In his books Barack Obama has told the story of the family into which he was born, about a father from Kenya and an American mother who met as college students in Hawaii.
At age 6 young Barack was already living in Jakarta with his mother and his Indonesian step father before moving back to Hawaii at age 10 to be raised by his maternal grandparents when his mother and her second husband divorced.
Over the years Barack Obama has had bonding experiences with white and black relatives and with Asian family members amidst an understandable struggle to find his own identity. Through it all he developed a keen ability to understand and to resonate with people of various ethnic backgrounds and to quickly move beyond differences in physical appearance and culture.
Having successfully worked his way through the complexities of the family into which he was born, this highly intelligent and very dynamic 46 year old African American man may very well be able to understand, to unite, to lead, and to serve America and all Americans in a way that has never been done before.
Unlike those who may live in many other parts of the world, most Americans don’t really want to choose their next president based on who the candidate’s parents happen to have been. Americans for the most part are more interested in the qualities, abilities, and knowledge possessed by a particular candidate and the character revealed through that individual's life experiences.
For those of you who might be torn between Clinton and Obama, I refer you to this excellent article written by David Brooks of the New York Times, dated Dec 18, 2007, titled "The Obama-Clinton Issue".
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/opinio...
For those of you who might care about how we look to the rest of the world, here is an excellent article in "Newsweek", Fareed Zakaria, dated Dec 24, 2007, titled "The Power of Personality"
http://www.newsweek.com/id/78157
BTW, I do care about how we look. How we look affects both our security and our pocketbooks.
--George
Do not be fooled! Hillary Clinton isn't interested in the hispanic community. It's amazing how when describing her proposal to end illegal immigration that she forgot to mention the part about sending people who have been here for decades back to their countries of origin to get back in line. She will say whatever, whenever, even drop a crocodile tear, to get what she wants. Sometimes the problem with alpha dogs is they don't know why they want something, it may not even be good for them, they just have a need to win. She needs to win, but if she does, we will all lose. Vote for Obama, vote for Edwards, vote for Huckabee, but be sure to vote for someone who is in for the right reason, Hillary is in it to win it (she said it) and that's her problem
I support Senator Clinton and her hard work. Senator Obama is articulate and charismatic and has good values but he just does not have the experience...YET...to run a country.
BUT we really need somebody who can work hard and help fix our problems - the economy, salaries, immigration. Our nation was built on immigrants and that is a source of our strength. Also, what was so bad about the Clinton years - responsible budget. I want somebody experienced!
I am puzzled by George? Such hatred, such insecurity with hardworking women who need to work to support their families.
Honestly working mom. Who do you think will work harder, someone raised by a single mom and grandparents all over the world who worked himself into Harvard or someone born of priviledge who rode the coat tails of her husband to the senate. Reminds me of GW, need I say more.
To WorkingMonny3:
For the record, Barack Obama has more years of experience in elected office than Hillary Clinton.
Perhaps you are counting Washington experience only. If voters wanted that, they would have gone with Biden and Dodd, who are now withdrawn from the race.
The past four of our five Presidents had *no* Washington experience, including Reagan and Clinton. Cheney and Rumsfeld had many, and look where they got us.
What we need is good judgment more than anything else. And, nothing could be more important that the life and death decision of going to war. Here Obama's good judgment prevailed. He was against the Iraq war from the start, for the right reasons.
By contrast, Clinton jumped on the Bush's then popular political bandwagon, gave hawkish speeches, failed to read a critical report, voted against the Levin amendment, and voted to authorize the biggest blunder this country has made since Viet Nam.
And, she seems to not have learned her lesson, recently voting for the Kyle-Lieberman amendment -- something all other Democrats running for President opposed.
Folks, it's time to turn the page, and vote for a uniter, not a divider.
Obama'08
To WorkingMonny3:
You said: "I am puzzled by George? Such hatred, such insecurity with hardworking women who need to work to support their families."
I'm puzzled, too. I don't hate Hillary Clinton, and I most certainly don't hate hardworking women. Where did you come up with that, please?
And, I don't understand where your "insecurity" comment is coming from either.
Trust me, I am not being any harder, or gentle on Hillary Clinton because she is a woman. I would be just as willing to point out issues I have if she were a man. IMO, that is exactly how it should be -- we need to be fair here.
And, we have learned, the hard way, just how important the choice of who is President is. This country is slipping. 70 to 74% of us recently polled think the country is on the wrong path.
This is serious. We need to take a very close look at all these candidates including their past records, and how they conduct themselves and their campaigns. That is exactly what I have been doing, and will continue to do.
--George
Hillary is POWER-HUNGRY and will stop at NOTHING to win Nevada.
VOTERS BEWARE: Hillary may have stolen the primary election in New Hampshire. Read the stories coming out now: Dennis Kuchinch is requesting a recount of the New Hampshire primary votes !!
PLEASE GO HERE: http://www.wdtn.com/Global/story.asp?S=7...
"Hillary may have stolen the primary election in New Hampshire. "
I think this is highly improbable. While I think the Clinton campaign has done many things that I wish they had not done, I very seriously doubt they did anything here. The downside is just too big.
But, electronic voting machines do have potential issues. At a minimum, they should produce a paper copy, which the voter can check, and either can or will be optically scanned.
Electronic only voting has more risk involved than I would like to see, and am not happy that some parts of the country have adopted such systems.
I think what happened in NH is the undecided, mostly woman's vote, broke heavily to Clinton. Why, I can't say; although, there has been much speculation on this topic. Clinton may have just done a better job getting her vote out, too.
In hindsight, Obama did pretty well here. The Clinton's have longstanding support in New Hampshire. It was their "firewall" state. Given where he was in the polls a month or two ago, a 2 to 3% loss isn't all that bad.
--George
Dear George
Please kindly do not make a Freudian slip and call me WorkingMonny. i don't have money, i have bills and hard work on my plate. *sigh*
but I do agree the country is on a perilous path.
Dear Army SFCC
To compare Hillary with GW is a low-blow don't you think? My education was paid for by the Army and while I'm older - many of my friends were in Gulf War I. I certainly don't compare Obama, Edwards, etc w/ GW.
Perhaps, that just shows your inherent bias and inability to support a female candidate. Therefore it's much easier for people to write her off as a product of privilege vs. the middle class and smugly think she's not worthy of your vote or consideration.
To TomBLase
"Power hungry", "stop at nothing" - "voters beware" such phrases are demonizing and meant to instill fear. Don't you think we have enough 'fear-mongering'? Where did that get us?
FINALLY - my guess is that McCain will end up getting the Republican nomination. I respect him, although I don't agree with him. My concern is who will the Democrats put up against him? Obama is impressive but he doesn't have the solid experience to match McCain and he will come up short on the debates. The Republicans, even w/a minority position on Senate and House - are formidable. Look at how they were able to parry numerous pieces of legislation (of course, the Pres veto is critical) throughout 2007.
Putting Obama up against McCain is just not going to cut it. The Democratic leadership needs to realize that this time we just need to win - no more Gore-miss, Kerry-miss, another one? Why do the Democrats keep on putting up lightweight candidates just to lose again?
Is the goal to win or not? The solid candidate matters and my vote remains w/ Clinton.
(Removed by the site staff)
Efranklin,
If any president favored the Immigrants, it is the Clintons. Bill Clinton signed a legislation that granted millions of Illegal immigrants path to citizenship. If you want to hold Hillary Clinton liable...please do look for alternative reason. If you hate her, I understand, but give to Ceasar what is Ceasar and to Clinton what is Clinton.Thank you.
I would like to ask Evoenter to restrict his comments to English only!
The attempt to sprinkle Spanish into his remarks is not helpful because his "command" of the language is very poor, his use of a vulgar expression makes no sense and it's crude. To communicate your message it's important to know or to learn how to express it. As Senator Obama would say - "you need to change" -
"Please kindly do not make a Freudian slip and call me WorkingMonny."
It wasn't a "Freudian slip". It was a slip made by an older set of eyes reading a 'tiny' typeface incorrectly.
Sorry for the error. But, I will assure you there was no bad intent in mind.
BTW, I do make typos. One of my New Year's Resolutions was to do my best to cut down on them. Obviously, I have more work to do her. -wink-
--George
(Removed by the site staff)
This demonization of the various Democratic presidential candidates by their rivals' supporters is more than a bit ridiculous. I've been working on Democratic presidential campaigns since 1972, and our bench this year is easily the best I've seen. While I am backing Senator Clinton, mostly because she is the one best prepared of the Democratic contendors to be president from day 1 (their actual ideological and policy differences are miniscule), I will happily support whoever we as Democrats nominate for president. And I hope my fellow Democrats will drop the lame vitriol and rhetoric, show some maturity, and do the same.
Oh, and don't buy the stupid comments about Obama's "Muslim" background. That's just ignorance. A visit to Snopes.com will clear that up in a jiffy.
I was going to comment on how civil these posts were, especially when compared with Republican boards. As a Republican, I would only seriously consider voting for Obama, for many of the same reasons I voted for Clinton in '92, to change from the status quo the current administration placed us. For the same reasons I could not vote for Clinton in '96, I could not vote for Clinton in '08. The very fact that she fights against Obama's campaign when it is the exact same blueprint used by her husband is amusing.
George, good posts. Stick to the issues.
WorkingMommy, please don't paint everyone with the broad brush of misogyny simply because they oppose a female candidate, unless you have proof they do so BECAUSE she is a female. Those opposing her on this board have presented valid reasons for opposing her, just as you have presented valid reasons for supporting her.
Are any of you aware that the Nevada Democratic State Party under Chair Jill Derby purged the Nevada Hispanic Democratic Caucus in its last meeting? After serving Nevada Dems for years and years they were unceremoniously kicked out!~!
As a 40-year Dem I am disgusted and ashamed that this could happen and then they turn right around to pander and exploit the Hispanic voters.
There are about 245 comments on this matter over one the Las Vegas Gleaner "Must Save Christmas" starting 12/13/07. No, you won't finf it in the MSM as it was never publicized by Nevada Dems.
Hispanics need to band together and get their voice back in the NSDP.
Hillary is cold and divisive. She could never win the general election because more voters would vote against her than for her. I would never vote for her. If by some miracle she was president there would be 90's gridlock because of her polarization. Obama is about uniting our government and has a history of working across party lines to get positive change for all Americans.
As a woman, I don't care if Hillary is one. Gender is not what makes her a better candidate. It is about good judgement and leadership. Hillary does not have it. I would never trust her to run this government on our behalf. She is in it for her own personal ambitions to get in the White House again. We don't need a Clinton dynasty. We need change to get things done. I am for Barack Obama. He is the only change I can believe in.
FROM WHAT I READ HERE.IT SOUNDS TO ME THAT MOST ALL YOU GOP ARE RUNNING QUITE SCARED AND YOU KNOW THAT YOU WILL LOSE THIS YEARS ELECTION.HILLARY WILL BE GOOD FOR THIS COUNTRY.WE HAD 8 YEARS OF A PATHETIC GOVERMENT AND NOW ITS TIME FOR CHANGE.
Differences between Hillary and Barack:
Hillary does not find anything wrong with taking money from Washington lobbyists and big businesses to fund her campaign and that of others. She is the only Democrat in the election to take this stance. I reject the notion that it takes experience to bring about change, and this issue single-handedly proves it. To bring about real change the country needs someone who has not been in Washington long enough to be corrupted by it. We need a President who will say no to Washington lobbyists giving money to our politicians in return for favors. If Hillary is elected she is going to owe all these businesses and special interests favors, and her ability to make sound decisions for the people of America instead of these lobbyists will be hampered as a result of it. Obama’s stance on the issue is lobbyists should be able to spend time in Washington pleading their cases to politicians, but not be able to provide politicians with money. That would allow reputable special interests, like some environmental groups, to have a voice but it would do away with the blackmail corruption that is rampant throughout Washington.
2. I do not believe Hillary’s foresight and judgment is comparable to that of Obama’s. Obama was against the Iraq War before it even began. Not only was Hillary for it, she also recently gave a vote to identify a large portion of Iran’s military a terrorist organization, which could’ve easily allowed President Bush to have sufficient reason to go to war with Iran as well. Hillary received a lot of criticism for that from her Democratic colleagues in Washington for obvious reasons. I should also say that Bill Clinton originally said he was for the Iraq War when it began and recently lied and said he was always against it, so I do not believe he can help her make any better decisions. Furthermore, Obama has been saying for a while now that we should go into Pakistan with or without the support of President Musharraf to apprehend the terrorists in the border region there. Obama got a lot of criticism from Hillary and the Republicans for that statement because they saw Musharraf as an ally they did not want to offend, even though it is quite clear he is incapable and unwilling to aid us. There has even been an accusation that Musharraf has misused funds we sent him for the purpose of tracking and apprehending the terrorists to use for the purpose of putting surveillance on his political opponents. It was not until January 5th of this year that Hillary and the other Democrats jumped onboard with Obama’s plan to deal with the terrorists in Pakistan. Again, I think this shows his superior judgment
3. There is one fundamental difference between Hillary and Obama’s health care plans. Hillary would force everyone to have insurance or pay a penalty and Obama would simply lower the costs as much as possible but not make it mandatory. I think Hillary’s idea is a little short-sighted. There will always be poor folk who cannot afford it regardless of how cheap the government makes it. To ask them to pay a penalty is, in my opinion, cruel and unreasonable.<br /><br />They are virtually identical on every other major issue. However, being President requires more than just having the right stance on an issue. It takes foresight, judgment, honesty, reliability, and the willingness to see things from others' point of view. I believe Obama embodies all these characteristics more than any other candidate I have ever seen running for any election at any level since I was first able to vote. He has the judgment to make the right decisions the first time and the compassion to listen to the other side and understand their concerns so he can bring this country and this world together. That is a very rare combination and Hillary possesses neither of those qualities.
(Removed by the site staff)
Fact check on Rezko deal at http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/do...
I will support either Obama or Clinton. My concern with Obama is that he blew such a big lead in New Hampshire. The fact that he was out organized in New Hampshire makes me question his ability to win in November.
MidRepub said: "Stick to the issues."
Excellent advice.
I have seen here and elsewhere people say or suggest that Obama has no plans, no experience, and no accomplishments. I think nothing could be further from the truth.
May I first direct you to his Website, which is full of detailed plans for our future. He has assembled one of the very best set of advisors I have ever seen.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
IMO, one of Washington's biggest problems is the undue influence of lobbyists and special interests; another, is lack of transparency. The two are related.
Obama has tacked both. I quote:
"His first law was passed with Republican Tom Coburn, a measure to rebuild trust in government by allowing every American to go online and see how and where every dime of their tax dollars is spent."
Along with Russ Feingold, his bill, which was passed by the Senate, was one of the toughest ethics and lobbying reform bills Congress has since Watergate.
http://obama.senate.gov/issues/ethics_an...
Another big issue for me is 'loose' nukes. These could be used for a dirty bomb or worse. Obama took action on that.
"Recognizing the terrorist threat posed by weapons of mass destruction, he traveled to Russia with Republican Dick Lugar to begin a new generation of non-proliferation efforts designed to find and secure deadly weapons around the world."
Just some his many accomplishments.
--George
Anyone who is interested in the financial contributions to any candidate can check out the information at www.opensecrets.org which is a non-partisan website. For all Obama's claims about not accepting money from lobbyists, he's still accepting money from corporation themselves as another poster has pointed out and the argument about being beholden to them can be applied equally to him and other any candidate.
Obama's speaks well but his performance in debates reveals his lack of depth on the issues. The speeches are uplifting but they will not deliver the results that Americans want.
I say it should be a Clinton-Obama ticket in 2008. That would give him the required depth to succeed Hillary as President in 2016.
To sarahbear:
Regarding the Iraq War. Obama can say he was against all he wants. The fact is that he was not a US Senator at the time of the vote so he never had to actually vote for or against it. If the war had turned out to be a good thing today, then he could just as easily be saying that he was in support of it from the beginning. By not having had to take a stand at the time of the actual vote, he can adjust his position to match the direction of the wind. ALso note that in subsequent votes, he did vote to provide funding for the war.
On Healthcare. For healthcare to be truly universally accessible to all Americans, everyone has to pay into it. There cannot be an opt-out option or it won't work. Look at successful universal healthcare programs in other countries and you will see that there is no opt-out feature. This is why Hillary's plan makes more sense and is more feasible for successful implementation.
(Removed by the site staff)
GO TO THIS LINK TO SEE THE "OBAMA" TRUTH!!!!!! HA!
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics...
To RexWrecks:
IMO, the only thing that was 'blown' was most of the pollers' credibility.
Obama's 'big lead' was artificial, an 'illusion' created by the polls, and pundits. SFAIK, he made no serious blunders, had a good organization, and executed his game plan.
Obama had to come from way behind in NH. It was Clinton's "firewall" state. This state has been very kind to the Clinton's over the years, and they are very well connected to the political establishment there.
In hindsight, I'm impressed that he lost by only 2 or 3 points. And, given how they changed the ballot from past years, which favored Clinton, it has been argued by some that the result was a tie.
But, what is important here is, especially for those who lean to or are Democrats, is who can win in 2008. Independents and cross-over Republicans are likely crucial for a win, and their support will be a great asset to the winner.
Obama has demonstrated far more appeal to these groups than Clinton. In fact, if Clinton is the nominee, the Republican base will be fired up, and will likely donate far more money to their candidate than if Obama is the nominee.
My experience is that the dislike of the Clintons, fair or unfair, among many is deep, long-standing, and will be hard to charge. By contrast, most either like Obama or are at least neutral or only mildly negative.
That could make a big different in a presidential race, and in leading a country, which is crying out for it, and so urgently needs it.
--George
BBRI is part of a dirty political smear campaign against Obama. Here are links to facts to debunk the anti-Obama political smears.
Look closely and don't let yourself get manipluated...look closer to see if you really believe before following so easily..
Snopes.com
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/mus...
Obama Fact Check: cited sources, detailed explanations debunking the rumors:
http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/200...
FactCheck.org
www.factcheck.org
If you really want to know, this is who Barack Obama is:
http://link.brightcove.com/services/link...
Clinton-Obama works for me. It would be an awesome ticket.
This race reminds me a lot of the 1976 presidential race.
Perhaps some of you whippersnappers don't remember that far back, but Richard Nixon had been elected, our country was about as far to the right as you can go. We had a President who didn't believe that there should be limits on his presidential authority or his ability to spy on his people. People were hungry for a change and for an honest politician, so they elected Jimmy Carter.
Carter was one of our smartest and most ethical presidents. I have a great deal of respect for Jimmy Carter. But he was a completely ineffectual President. And he reminds me a lot of Obama.
I like Obama. I love his message and his wife. And I can totally understand the desire to want to elect someone as far removed from the ethical abyss of the Bush Administration as possible. But I am afraid that an Obama administration would end like the Carter administration; with not much to show for it, and Republicans voted in to follow him because he was so ineffectual.
Hillary understands how things work in Washington, and in the world. she has the ability to make things happen. And you know what? It's time for a woman.
hmmm... looks like the comments section has been overrun by obama supporters.
My vote will go to Hillary Clinton because it is right thing to do, and the false propaganda over here and everywhere by Barak Obama and his blind supporters will be exposed.
As somebody have already pointed out "What has barak done to deserve the endorsement by the nevada association?" He has hardly visited them beside this presidential campaign. Hillary did the right thing by visiting the members directly. I would rather have direct contact with nominee than having my union leader endorse somebody and me blindly following it.
He is courting Indian nationals in Chicago, as they are in good numbers there, yet blast Hillary for having connections with Indians. What wrong connections did Hillary had with indians? What illegal dealing Hillary did with Indians? yet Obama campaign staff released dirty paper over the subject and then Obama apologized only after it was countered by Hilary. What was Obama doing till then? Was he in dark for more than 2 weeks from his own campaign staff?
Also Hilary is seasoned politician. I would rather buy tried and tested Camry or other known reliable car than rely my life on a new company car who promises and advertizes 5 star safety ratings.
I am not completely against Obama, but this is not his time. He still needs to prove many things before he can get my vote. All of time he is saying things against Washington DC, but he does not realize that if elected, he would have to deal with the same DC people to get things done. It is a difficult task and Hilary has proved that she can do it.
Go Hillary!
To: GeorgeJohn
When you suggested that it was ok that Obama had a state lobbyist running his campaign in NH, that it was different than being involved with a national lobbyist...a lobbyist is a lobbyist.
So if I have a state lobbyist from each of the 50 states working on my campaign - its not as bad as a national lobbyist??? Actually I would end up indebted to 50 different lobbys.
I dont think any lobbyist should be used. My question is why use a lobbyist as the head of your campaign in any state? Why not use someone else who has no ties but to your campaign.
I am not sure who I am voting for yet but I do know the better we look into our candidates the better off we will be.
I also believe that I can not judge someone and assume for the good or the bad that just because the Clintons are married that if she is elected - her presidency would be the same as her husband's. For instance - look at President Bush and his son. GW has definitely had a very different presidency than his father. Individual people do individual things.
For all those about the war -
Most Americans wanted the war. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but its like monday morning quarterbacking. Congress voted and they decided based on the information that was presented to them at the time. We all know the information they received was filtered.
I actually agree for Democrats a Obama-Clinton ticket would be the best of both worlds.
The Nevada voters are engaging with Senator Clinton in a meaningful and personal way. They know that she will fight for their values and that she has the experience and will to make things happen. One of Hillary's greatest strengths is her ability to put her nose to the grindstone and get things done.
47 million people need health care, the economy is entering a tail-spin, and America's international reputation is on a severe decline. We need someone who has a clear, thoughtful, and realistic plan to remedy the multitude of problems created by the Bush Administration. We need someone who can take that plan and turn it into reality. We can't entrust the future of our nation to vague policy stances, rhetoric, and hype. We need someone who has the ability to truly make a difference in our lives.
I'm voting for Hillary in '08.
Derek
hello
George here kept portraying Obama as a uniter and Clinton not. But Hillary Clinton was already a uniter before Obama even became a senator. She pulled women, black, hispanic, and other minorities together.
where did it go?
she is awesome
In Iowa, we saw Obama operate Chicago machine politics at its worst. For each claim here, I've got at least two witnesses:
We saw (1) vanloads of out-of-staters and under-aged voters dispatched to whichever precinct was "short" on Obama supporters (using a complex headset system worn by political "observers" working for Obama, as reported to me by friends at numerous caucuses around Des Moines).
(2) Obama surrogates participated rather than observing. Former Mississippi governor Ray Mabus waded in among the caucusers in a downtown precinct and started pressuring people to shift to Obama. (This was so outrageous, I got 4 witnesses on it, and Eriposte, feel free to contact me directly for names and phone numbers).
(3) The Iowa Democrats' overly polite "rules" for the caucus allowing everyone who showed up and filled out a slip with their "name" and "address" to vote. Many of us moms in the crowd knew perfectly well some of those young people were YOUNG and I mean 14 or 15. And just in case the teenagers weren't sure what birthday to put on their newest fake IDs, the Party kindly posted signs at every caucus with the cut-off birthday. The County Auditor tells me 37 of the new voters in my own precinct said they were 17 1/2 to 18. I'll be using the open records law to try and get access and check these.
(4) Obama supporters, here as elsewhere, were booing and hissing at other Democrats' choice of alternate candidates. Anyone can see this for themselves on YouTube; check videotapes of that primary "launch" dinner in New Hampshire last week. (Do they actually think we'll vote for him in the general election now???).
And (5) overwhelmed caucus chairpeople pretty much lost control of the process when more people showed up than there are households in any precinct. (My precinct is 20 short blocks by 3 major streets, taking in about 100-150 households, not all Dems or Indies, but we had 322 "Democrats" at our caucus. Other sites had 450+!!)
Control was so lost that when my Republican neighbors left their own caucus and went down to see the Democratic one, they found the doors wide open; they walked in unchallenged and said they could easily have caucused.
Sadly, I've been interviewing caucus-goers all over the greater Des Moines area and hearing the same stories: Open side doors that people came in by, observers by the dozens who were counted at some precincts, floods of people that no one who had been door-knocking for months for Biden, Edwards, or Clinton had ever seen before, arriving to caucus for Obama.....
It was a dirty caucus and should not be regarded as any sort of mandate but one to clean up the process here.
Meanwhile, 60% of the votes counted in the Iowa Democratic caucus were from the new "voters".
I hope and pray that Obama is not successful in his bid to become president. I view Obama as the golden egg that the goose indeed laid. He is fresh, likeable, a breath of fresh air for black people. I would like to preserve him as he is. I don't want to see him stay in politics. His calling is somewhere else. I’d like to see him use his talent and abilities in his own community. Of course, this exercise (running for president) he is involved in will reap benefits for him that he can only imagine. This exercise is a win-win for him. He wins, even if he doesn’t win. As an African American woman, I don't want to share Obama with America. You can all keep Bill/Hillary, Edwards, Old Coot, Huckabee, Romney, Rudy, Paul, Thompson and the others. I think that the same old tired politicians deserve to inherit the "crap" the old white guys and one weak Negro General and little colored, gap tooth, girl has created on the hill. All of them together equal how many years of experience working hard for the American people? I think the gal with 35 years of experience deserves this job. If she can, she should clean up all the crap. I suspect that she won’t do a job worth noting because Hillary isn't going to want to be a one term president. Oh no, she isn't going to risk offending anyone that will result in her having to uproot from the White House before her eight years are served in its entirety. I wouldn't put it pass her to pull a Bush if it mean't keeping the White House. After watching her become a human on national TV, I kinda expect it. I listened to the change agent tout her 35 years of experience. I listened to the other change agent, "Old Coot" tout his years of experience on foreign affairs. I listened to the other change agents, all having varying years of experience and I look at my country and I say WOW what a mess.
Obama has a better exercise ahead; instead of trying to save America, he would be better served by investing his hopes and dreams in his community. If he could serve and have some success... wouldn't that be something?
Go Bill/Hillary, Edwards, Rudy, Huckabee, Romney, Paul, Old Coot, Thompson and other hopefuls... run like Jesse did.
Wrong George,
I have no issues with "female" candidates and I won't try to defend myself against the ridiculous. I was slightly surprised that you would make the assumption that military + anti Hillary equals anti female. There is no difference in the sexes when they ride someone elses coat tails to get where they wouldn't be otherwise, be it GW or Hillary.
CLINTON AND RICHARDSON IN 2008. THE UNSTOPABLE FORCE!
To Evoenter,
Because you directed you comment to Latinos, I will respond as a Latina woman to you. UFW Union was and is a very successful union, however it does not mean that all union are the same. I was in a Union for 15 years and active as were many of my co-worker, in the end, the union represented the jobs that made the most money and our positions got what was left over. Also, for many injured workers, the Union was just not available for them and many lost their jobs. For the record, I picked apricots for .10 cents a bucket as a child and the women got paid 1.00 a crate for slicing and pitting them, while the men walked the fields and made sure their children picked fast enough so that the moms/older females could produce more crates. Also, I lived walking distance from the canneries and it's funny how it was more the Mexican women working all day on their feet while the men worked for 1/2 day and came home and had their cervesas/Beer. Don't get me wrong, I support Unions, my husband is in one, but I don't always agree with their choices and so therefore I use my right as an American to stand behind what I believe,lucky for me, his Union endorsed Hillary!
Obama is the one candidate who can bring us all together. Hillary has the highest negatives of any candidate in our lifetime. Don't be fooled. Just remember: she voted FOR the War in Iraq. Caucus for Obama!
Talk about a wolf in sheeps clothing, my god people vote for Edward's then if you don't like Hillary, but get your facts straight when talking about Obama. He took well over a million dollars from special interests groups, doubling Clintons take, he never " picketed " for any union for anything more then a photo op. He jumped in the line, photographers snapped some pics and he was out and running, probably had to go to Oprah's 20 million dollar home and pick up yet another check, talk about special interest.
obviously this is Hillary haters conner.but i believe people will make up their own minds they won't have to go with hearts alone but with their heads.so please haters no matter how you her negative things you say about her it won't work. so my dear George don't work yourself up in getting high blood pressure chill.y mi vida Evoenter lo siento, seas discarado/a.Ella es lo mejor que hay!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Vaya!
I have a problem with voting for Obama. His background and early childhood. I don't know how much of it is true, but I know what is written. I also know that if he is the nominee, the GOP will undoughtedly use his early years as a muslin, and his middle name of Hussan, as a short sound bite to turn as many voters against him as possible. I don't think he is electable because of this. I read where someone said that just because Deanna Farve is married to Brett for 20 years, (please excuse if name is misplelled or years are wrong, you get the drift) she couldn't quarterback the Packers. this is completely true, but if she helped Brett study his playbook for the past 20 years I'll bet she would know which plays to call given a game situation. So while Hillary has only been a senator for a little over seven years, she has been a sounding board for 8 years as a govenors wife and 8 years as a presidents wife. To me that is some of the best actual training someone can get.
It's going to be the economy and not the war that will be the main concern of the voters come November. That and health care will be the major issues. Who cares about the war when practically there is no difference among Obama, Clinton and Edwards about what to do with Iraq next? Who cares about who voted for what, that's all in the past. We have to look forward. When it comes to health care coverage, Clinton's and Edwards' plans are most comprehensive. When it comes to econonomic plans, both Clinton and Edwards have truly detailed plans to help the economy. Where is Obama's plan?
I don't think that Hillary is perfect. She does however, have the experience of living in the White House for 8 years and will be taking her husband with her back to the White House. If you think that she had no input during those 8 years and that he will have no input during her tenure then you are not married.
The Starr investigation spent $80 million (of our tax dollars) investigating Hillary during Whitewater and found NOTHING! nada....if he could have found it you better believe that he would have.
Hillary was the only one who was strong enough to take on the Republicans on health care. They always talk about her failed attempt but WHY did it fail? Because the Republicans ensured that it failed. They kept saying "We have our own plan." So here we are ... fourteen years later ... nothing has changed about health care. They've had full control of the White House and Congress for six years and did NOTHING.
I like Obama and Edwards but I am voting for that two for one experience team this time. I did not vote for her husband at either opportunity but he sure left our country in better shape than any recent Republican administrations have done.
obama isnt just an idly,("but") very articulately poetic motivator&inspiration.he's more practical,discerning, efficient,insightful&specific on every issue than fake, strained,stressed,calculating+self-serving,gloating hilary. (gloating over a close win as if it was 1st to 3rd)he's shrewder&more down-to-brass-tacks,go-getting action than the clintons want to make him appear&he can+will debate circles around all those other mammals.hilary's tears of stress about fearing defeat(what,a CLINTON losing? sacrilege!oh plz. screw that)really show how "all about the other" she is.yeah,right,they were "because i'm just so all about the other, about the ppl," tears.can't people see THRU her front?it's bogus!hilary is "i want ME to win"- obama genuinely means+wants to&WILL make EVERYONE win, the u.s.+the rest of the world.he's no pithy used-car-salesman "i'm all about YOU" politician.he cares+has the goods to spare in terms of integrity&decisive,thoughtful acumen.her smiles come from only winning,thinking she'll win or straining to flash her teeth at her supporters to feign authentic interest&/or excitement.her sold-out, tired old-hat "changes" bore my soul.obama's audience loves him cuz he loves them first&cares about the issues they bring up,wants2know,hear,make the system work for the people,not da corporations.what mystical eff-ing miraculous changes or amazing legislations did mrs clinton make in the last experienced 35 yrs that we need 4 more yrs of the same? what the hell does that mean, she's above explaining what she did or didn't do?&how'bout hilary's experienced notion of not ruling out nuking al quaida - perhaps to start ww3? &what experience would bring the change of punishing those too poor to pay for health care? did 29 yrs experience as a governor's,then prez's wife get her to that myopic conclusion or was it her own stilted,holy clinton judgement all by itself w/bill pullin her strings for a 3rd clinton term like bush snr pulls dubya's strings from afar for the 3rd bush term?
As a young voter I can honestly say that this is the first time that any name on the ballot will ignite a flame under me to vote. In the past two elections there was not a single person on the ballot that I trusted to run this country. I will vote first and foremost for Obama, but if Clinton is the Democratic candidate of choice, I will vote for her. Let's be honest here, both parties would do all they could to help turn our country around in many aspects, including morality, economics, healthcare, the list goes on and on. What we need is change. We did something stupid when we went to war, now we have to deal with it. To have not one, but two candidates I would vote for is a first for me, and that enstills hope in me that we can get somewhere.
Why does Obama get my vote before Clinton? He seems more genuine. That's reason enough for me. I wouldn't work for someone who was not genuine, I would not associate with someone who was not genuine, why would my first choice be someone who I do not feel is genuine. As a few others have stated, the basics of their campaigns are similar, so let's look at the morality of the country. I'm not sure that I'm proud to be an American anymore, and I don't think that Mrs. Clinton can change that, but I do think that Mr. Obama can. So, let's be thankful we have candidates that are voteworthy.
GO HILLARY......I'll take 35years experience over 2 years any day...
Seriously Folks, How can anyone vote for this: http://www.xpress4me.com/images/08/01/09...
part b of my comment&i'm out. choosing hilary doesnt=reelecting bill who was a great pres,but the idea is to improve on,not recycle him.that brilliant hilary experience of insubstantial change might help the med companies&special interests backing her,but i dont see how it'll help the majority of the u.s.obama's the only one who's worldly, diplomatic but firm enough to interface w/different cultures in the states& in the rest of an increasingly dangerous world.hilary'd look like a square, culturally narcissistic american,perhaps not dumb like bush,but still,like someone who doesnt know sh*t about the cultures of countries' leaders she'll have to talk to.obama will shake this motha out+raise our country to heights it's never soared to before,fix what needed fixin long ago but was swept under the rug. i mean, read his stands on fighting poverty, crime, incarceration rates, shifting focus to the afghhan/pakistani border to finally catch osama+bailing from iraq to save unnescessary destruction of theirs+ours, teaching soldiers foreign languages that might help deal w/the ppl in whose countries they are, etc. read his&clintons stands on everything+see whose plans for change r more specific&realistic, doable. &in today's world&politics you need visionary ideas&talking skills to pass bills&policies&diplomacy to push ideas&agreements, in&out of the states.nepotism is no substitute for vision. who wants mediocre ideas executed excellently&experiencedly when great ideas can be executed competently? i prefer the latter. hilary will only change things into pretty close to more of the same-if u see how our country is now, drastic changes need urgent doing, not mild changes done experiencedly. she may not campaign or think in poetry,but her governing will be not the standard "prose" of her campaigning,but substandard,blase prose of "how its always been done cuz thats what works" - only with minor cosmetic changes.obama is the way to go!-check him on all the issues. he gets the grand scheme of things, the big picture while not forgetting the minute details. he's not just superficially appealing,but backed by substance,wit,clarity of judgement(not just of language)&motion. get ready, he'll rock this race inside out - it'll be a head-spinning, double-coup blow to flip the show!
Sorry, but I was at the rally today. The candidate for working families in Nevada is Barack Obama. End of story!
Si Se Puede!
As a Hispanic American I am proud to have served a country where citizens are allowed to freely voice their opinions and positions with passion. No matter the outcome of this primary election; we will have change. Our next president will be a non-white male. This will represent a major change in our history and I am fortunate to have lived long enough to see it and live it. Say what you will about either candidate, but in my humble opinion, Obama is inspirational, but Clinton is inspired. In honor of my grandmothers and my mother I will vote for a female candidate for president, since they never had the opportunity to do so.
Go
Hillary
At this point in my life, I've learned that the money never comes from ligitimate or moral places; money is the root of all evil, so let's forget about where the money came from and concentrate on who will help us all the most. I don't care what your last name is, what color your skin is, what gender you are, or your age; can you and will you help us? I've been on this earth now for a short 24 years and have never had health coverage - does anyone see a problem with that? I live in what is arguable the richest country in the world and cannot afford health insurance and the health insurance I can afford is a joke. We're not richer than anyone else, we're in more debt than anyone else. Immigration - if you want to come here, I welcome you with open arms with one contingency; do so legally. You can't be proud to be an American if you aren't one, and if you didn't come here legally, you're not an American and you deserve nothing this country has to offer (certainly not the Social Security dollars I pay in). Sorry if I sound harsh, but welcome to planet Earth. Once you're here legally I'll be happy to share whatever meager wealth I may have with you.
In the end we just need to vote democrat. I've seen nothing on the other parties' plates that will help us out at all.
Obama is definitely is for working class people. Hillary is in it to win it for herself. The Clintons play dirty politics and are only concerned about themselves. They are experienced in making fools out of voters. Clinton looked right at the camera and lied and Hillary looked right in the camera and cried. Don't buy it. We need change we can believe in. Not more of the same old status quo where nothing ever happens. A President runs the country, not alone, but with government. Hillary is too polarizing. Republicans would never work with her or vote for her. But many would with Obama. That is why Obama can not win the general election and Hillary can not. See http://video.msn.com/video.aspx/?mkt=en-...
UnionGRL, that picture was HALARIOUS - or should i say Hilary-ous! i think the same of all her fake expressions. word. she's gloating so much that she underestimates the competition she has in him. he's the most extremely intelligent&sincere, never complacent presidential candidate i have ever seen, hands-down. this guy's got a major intellect+there's nothing false about his hope, the only false thing is to have 4 yrs that'll make hope seem naive+obsolete in this country. obama is one of the most instantaneously recognizable born leaders&all that i wrote before about him, among ppl of any sex, age, height, race, religion, or whatever - that i've ever seen, heard, read or heard about - he is the bomb on all these counts compared to anyone of any background that you want! obama is the kind of candidate who would convert someone who's apolitical. and like in important peop's who can change the world list in forbes magazine 2007, mrs clinton came 3rd but barack came 2nd (&the 1st was al gore who's not running). in terms of the u.s.'s world image&diplomatic relations w/it, obama has fans everywhere from germany, turkey, jamaica, japan, korea, australia - he's the real mccoy+he'll defy the polls again - he too can be calculated, just not in a cheap mudslinging way
My question to supporters of all the Democratic candidates for President is, will you support our party's nominee regardless of whether it is Obama, Clinton or Edwards?
Ok, so America has spoken, half want Hillary and the other half want Obama. I would love to see an Obama/Hillary or Hillary/Obama ticket. If bringing people together, working together and making change is what they are really all about, then I hope whichever one wins will choose the (and I hope they accept) to run with them on the same ticket. Inspiration and Experience, a double edged sword, in addition HISTORY in the making.
I would never vote for Hillary if she is nominated. That is why she could never win the general election. More people would abstain or vote against her than for her. She has poor likability. That is just the facts. She could never win the general if nominated. See http://video.msn.com/video.aspx/?mkt=en-...
(Removed by the site staff)