Obama Making Inroads In Clinton Stronghold Of Rhode Island

Washington Post:

While Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama have spent most of the past two weeks focused on delegate-rich Texas and Ohio, tiny Rhode Island -- with 21 pledged delegates at stake Tuesday -- is reveling in its unaccustomed position of relevance in a Democratic presidential nominating contest.

This state has long been seen as strongly favorable to Clinton. She and her husband, Bill Clinton, visited so often during their White House days that the former president once joked that he ought to pay state taxes. The senator from New York has also lined up the support of most of the state's Democratic establishment, including Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, who hosted a fundraiser for her last Sunday, and Claiborne Pell, the respected 89-year-old former senator.

Read the whole story: Washington Post

Comments

[BrooklynLager]

Hillary Clinton supported the Defense of Marriage Act. When she was running for senate in 2000: (from the Advocate)

"She also said she would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, a bill passed by Congress in 1996 that prevents federal recognition of same-sex marriage. "Marriage has got historic, religious, and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman," Clinton said."

Contrast that with Obama. He talks about gay rights in churches, in rallies in texas, everywhere. He even did it when he gave the 2004 keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention. Frankly, that takes guts. On the issue of gay rights, he's SO much better, despite Gavin Newsome's one-man crusade against him.

[VJCMAJD]

While Barack Obama was trotting around with McClurkin, Senator Clinton was circulating her 8-page summary of a plan to fight HIV/AIDS at home and abroad. The plan includes investments for increased research, prevention and education, and access to treatment and other services. The plan especially helps groups in the U.S. that have seen rates rise, including African Americans and gay men, and addresses the continued risk in Latino communities and among women. She has also pledged to increase funding for the global HIV/AIDS fight to at least $50 billion by 2013.

Senator Obama doesn't stick his neck out on any issue; he never takes a hard line or unpopular stance. In addition to voting "present" some 130 times while serving in the Illinois legislature, he shies from controversy in general. While Hillary marched in New York's glbt parade, Obama refused to be photographed with Gavin Newsom, endorser of gay marriages, even though the San Francisco mayor supported him at the time. Obama is completely "whitewashed" for electability. I doubt if his Chicago-area church sports a rainbow flag out front.

[BikerJim]

YOu mean like he did not stick his neck out when everyone wanted to go to war in Iraq???? Come on quit spinning everything. There is really not much difference in substance between the two. If comes down to who can inspire the country and bring everyone together, and Hillary is not that person.

[NoahVail]

HRC misunderstood. She stuck her head into the sand. According to Mark Penn that is sticking your neck out.

[BrooklynLager]

BARACK OBAMA'S CHURCH PERFORMS GAY MARRIAGES.

Who cares about Gavin Newsome. That guy is on a jihad.

[BeyondGoodAndEvil]

Oh, you call giving an anti Iraq war speech before the resolution was even voted on, NOT sticking your neck out? What about the fact that Obama has been a leader in ethics reform in the Senate?

http://www.raisingkaine.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=12761


Hillary Clinton doesn't seem to stick her neck out when voting for the Neocon agenda. Her stance on cluster bombs, and her vote for Kyl/Lieberman (Iran), and her vote for the Iraq war, prove that she is pro-war:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-tasini/hillary-cluster-bombs-ar_b_28990.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwich/hillary-clinton-votes-for_b_66174.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/us/politics/14checkpoint.html?ex=1358053200&en=b386d2788e598bdc&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink


Clinton also has the largest defense contractor contributions of any candidate, Republicans included:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/sectors.asp?sec=D


Senator Clinton is the largest abuser of earmarks:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-k-wilson/clinton-by-far-worst-abus_b_84102.html


Clinton still refuses to pledge to return constitutional liberties, when every other Democratic candidate has already done so:

http://www.reuters.com/article/blogBurst/politics?type=politicsNews&w1=B7ovpm21IaDoL40ZFnNfGe&w2=B7tmRCRJt2YFzDsa7MJ1CblL&src=blogBurst_politicsNews&bbPostId=Cz1VeFnrO5fmhCz7sNEgkr6eaqCz3hWJURc5eE5Cz8bp0emPnej3&bbParentWidgetId=B7tmRCRJt2YFzDsa7MJ1CblL

In fact, Obama has stuck his neck out on this issue, constantly criticizing Bush. Obama has also taught constitutional law:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics


It's interesting that Clinton did not bother to vote on FISA recently, whereas Obama voted NO.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Turley_The_fix_has_been_in_0214.html


Clinton is the only Democratic candidate who accepted campaign contributions from federal lobbyists:

http://lessig.org/blog/2007/08/on_clinton_and_lobbyists.html


Clinton has ties to the same backers as Bush:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071105/baker_federman


Senator Clinton is more disappointing than Liberal:

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/13/3145/


Clinton flip flops on NAFTA:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJ0swdRvYgw


I think it's pretty clear who is the one who doesn't stick their neck out. Clinton is full of words this campaign that are in direct conflict with what she really stands for, and what she really represents.

[settyok]

of course bush/hillary/cheney/,mccain/ are war mongers

[EdwardC]

I may not agree with everything that Obama has said, done or believes in yet I think the comment you made "in addition to voting 'present' some 130 times while serving in the Illinois legislature" indicates a lack of knowledge and experience on how state legislatures operate. It isn't unusual for someone to vote "present" on a bill as a procedural matter on bills you generally support or could support with minor modifications.

According to Stateline, an official Magazine that is read by State policy makers, "Obama’s former colleagues who still serve in the Illinois Capitol say that the attacks are off-base and that either Obama’s opponents don’t understand how things work in Springfield or they are deliberately distorting his record." Representative Bill Black (R) responded by saying "The “present” vote in Illinois is sometimes cast by state lawmakers with a conflict of interest who would rather not weigh in on an issue. Other times, members use the option to object to certain parts of a bill, even though they may agree with its overall purpose."

According to NCSL (National Conference of State Legislatures), the following states of "Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, Missouri and Texas" also allow legislators to vote present as a way to signify their objection to a part or portion of a bill without voting against a bill that they support or could support after it has gone through several additional amendments or changes. In "Hawaii" legislators can cast a "kanalua" which is the Hawaiian word that means "doubt" during roll call votes. This vote counts as "a pass" but after going through the "roll call two or three times, depending on the chamber, the 'kanalua' vote...counts as a 'yes'." This isn't the same procedure used by Illinois but it is based on the same concept which allows a "present" vote as a way to create discussion and compromise. Obama comes from a state where compromise and working in a bi-partisan manner to pass good legislation is routine.

It's not fair to criticize state legislators in Hawaii, Illinois, Colorado, Delaware, Massachussetts, Missouri or Texas for understanding and using the rules and procedures of their legislative bodies to accomplish their legislative goals and priorities. That Clinton would criticize Obama for voting "present" in the Illinois legislature indicates that she lacks the necessary knowledge of how different state government works to serve as President. She's trying to impose the procedures and rules of the U.S. Senate, the only public office she has ever held, on the Illinois Assembly which doesn't operate under the same rules as the U.S. Senate. Ignorance is no excuse either since she and her campaign staff were able to do enough research to know that Obama voted "present 130 times" while serving in the State Senate. If they were capable of doing that much research than they should have been able to figure out that voting "present" isn't the same thing as voting "maybe." Had they spoken to any member of the Illinois Legislature they would have been told what a "present" vote actually means in Illinois. Yet, I suspect they are "deliberately distorting his record" for their own political purposes.

Stateline quotes State Senator John Cullerton (D) as saying "the 'present' vote" is "'a no vote with an explanation.' Legally, there’s not much difference between the two votes, but practically, it can let the sponsors or other legislators know of problems with the bill that should be corrected." Stateline goes on to say "that’s not how U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) characterized it in a debate in Myrtle Beach, S.C., this week." They quote her as saying "In the Illinois state Senate, Senator Obama voted 130 times ‘present.’ That’s not ‘yes,’ that’s not ‘no.’ That’s ‘maybe,’” she said." Not a single member of the Illinios Legislature would agree with Hillary Clinton's position on the meaning of a "present" vote.

Stateline also quotes Obama's explanation of why he voted "present" on a bill he sponsored. According to them, "Fritchey, the House Democrat who chairs a committee on civil law, said he often used the “present” vote when he thought a bill had constitutional or other legal problems" and ""That’s also the reason Obama, who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, gave during the debate for voting “present” on a bill he originally had sponsored." In his words "After I had sponsored it and helped to get it passed, it turned out that there was a legal provision in it that was problematic and needed to be fixed so that it wouldn’t be struck down...”

In conclusion, Obama has repeatedly stuck his neck out whether we agree or disagree with him and voting "present" in a legislative body where that is a routine procedure used by its members is not the same thing as voting "maybe." You wouldn't be able to find a single Illinois legislator who would agree with Hillary Clinton's position that he was trying to avoid taking a stand instead they see voting "present" as a way to take a stand by saying "present" and give the sponsors and others notice that they have a concern with the bill but don't want to vote no.

[Didi47]

Bravo: VJCMAJD!! Don't expect a reasonable answer though. They just cut and run when you make any valid point that bears exploring or discussion. That's when the name calling begins.

[whichchange]

Sen. Obama's Closing Argument A Series Of False And Misleading Attacks About Hillary

Sen. Obama is set to deliver a speech today attacking Hillary Clinton with a series of misleading claims and distortions:

Real change isn’t calling NAFTA a victory and saying how good it was for America until you decide to run for President, like Senator Clinton did.

Hillary started criticizing NAFTA long before she ran for President. In her run for Senate in 2000, she called NAFTA "flawed." In Sen. Obama's run for Senate in 2004, it was reported that Sen. Obama told a group of farmers that "the United States benefits enormously from exports under the WTO and NAFTA" and the U.S. should "pursue deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement."

Sen. Obama will say:

Real change isn’t saying that you’ll stand up to lobbyists and special interests when you’ve taken more money from Washington lobbyists than any Democrat or Republican running for President, like my opponent has.

Hillary has been standing up to the drug industry, the insurance industry, the oil industry and other interests represented by lobbyists her whole life. That's why she voted against the Bush/Cheney energy bill, which was written by oil industry lobbyist, while Sen. Obama voted for it.

Sen. Obama has been dishonestly suggesting he is free from the influence of lobbyists. The Wall Street Journal debunks this today in an article entitled: Obama Campaign Enlists Lobbyists.

Sen. Obama will say:

Real change isn’t voting for a bankruptcy bill that makes it harder for working families to climb out of debt and then saying that you’re glad it didn’t pass once you start running for President. One of the first things I did when I got to the Senate was fight against the credit card industry’s bankruptcy bill…

This is a distortion that Sen. Obama has repeated throughout the campaign. Hillary said she regretted her 2001 vote, which is why she was glad the bill didn't pass. Obama has expressed no regret for voting against an amendment that would have capped interest rates at 30%.

Sen. Obama will say:

And real change isn’t voting for George Bush’s war in Iraq and then telling the American people it was actually a vote for more diplomacy when you start running for President.

This is false. What Hillary has said was that she wanted President Bush to pursue aggressive inspections. And that's exactly what she said on the floor of the Senate in 2002: "War can yet be avoided, but our responsibility to global security and to the integrity of United Nations resolutions protecting it cannot. I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections."

[kevenseven]

That all is just TERRIBLE! You should do something about that!

[NoahVail]

10 Minutes on Whether Hillary Can Win...

http://lessig.org/blog/2008/02/10_minutes_on_whether_hillary.html

[BrooklynLager]

Why does Hillary Clinton have so many votes that she either regrets, distorts, or "is glad that they didn't pass"?

When she first started defending her 2002 vote, people joked that "she must be the only person on earth who DIDN'T know that Bush was going straight to war". I'll give her credit - she's managed to convince a lot gullible people since then.

But if she had been interested in diplomacy, she would have voted for the Levin Amendment which would have gone a step further than just taking Bush at his word (which in itself shows mind-boggling incompetence) - the Levin Amendment would have REQUIRED that Bush work with the UN inspectors and security council first. She voted against it.

Her speech was political cover, and everyone at the time knew it. People like me who were lobbying hard against the war knew that her vote was decisive, because she was in a safe Senate seat and it would be almost impossible for other Senators to get to the left of her once she cast her vote. We literally put our picket signs down and hung up our phones when she made her speech on the floor.

Bush began bombing that very night.

[Didi47]

What do you mean Brooklyn...: So many. She has ONE. Not so many. ONE. Your guy on the other hand has so many... well we've lost count.

[BrooklynLager]

Also, include the link if you're going to start spamming from Hillary Clinton's site.

FLAGGED

[Didi47]

What are you talking about BrooklynLager. How many obama.com suggestions have you and your pals posted. Given that's seems to be your only source of material on the man, I can understand you feeling the need to promote it. But that is spamming his site so

FLAGGED

[NoahVail]

Yep. You should place a 4 at the bottom of your post then.

3

[lornejl]

To the 15 live moderators monitoring the main thread, its a shitty idea, keep it up and you will kill this site .

[LittleGreenGreaseBalls]

Hey, lornejl, this site is way way gone from what it once was. It used to be interesting and free-for-all. Now it's becoming more and more like the NY Times. I can't blame Arianna for wanting to be a player--but this really is getting DULL as yesterday's toast.

[kevenseven]

Next Wednesday should be interesting.

[NoahVail]

Actually, she got tired of Republicans citing the wing-nut comments on the site as evidence that it was left-wing blather, anti-Semetic, or controlled by Al Qida.

I agree with the premise that less moderation is better moderation, though. Let's make a pact that we will end each post with the number of our posts that have been moderated, OK?

3

[AnninCA]

I posted an hour ago on a new article. STill HASN'T SHOWN UP.

[NoahVail]

Hey- Your post appeared! Looks like you have been exposed as a Republican Troll, too. Too bad they didn't moderate your post.

[kevenseven]

Well, it is true that the solution to offensive speech is not, less speech overall.

[kellygrrrl]

HuffPo could make the mistake of going the way of The Gawker, and that would truly be a shame

[Seattlelite]

Think about what the media would be saying if this race was reversed. Obama losing 11 states in a row, Hillary eating into his base of supporters, Obama losing the big margins he once held, Hillary raising more money than any other candidate, Obama loaning his campaign money, I can assure you they would have already declared him the loser regardless of TX and OH. So Hillary and her supporters might want to knock off the complaints that she is not getting a fair deal when it comes to the media. The media has not counted her out just the opposite.

[AnninCA]

See, I trhink about how I've never ever heard that the Virgin Islands or Americans Abroad is relevatnt.

But in this race, they count as much as CA?

Way wierd. To me.

[nacilbuper]

not really. we're ALL americans.

or hadn't you gotten the memo?

[kevenseven]

You are just stupid, right?

The delegates count, one for one, as much as any other.

Unless they were chosen in a caucus. Those do not count as much as those earned in a primary, right?

And delegates won in Red and Purple states do not count as much as the Delegates won in the Large Party Machine Blue States that Clinton has been working for ten years.

See, each delegate that Clinton wins is worth three times as much as a delegate awarded to Obama, so Clinton won this nomination three weeks ago and we are all too stupid to see that.

Right?

Answer this: Which is better? To win the electoral votes of a state that has 30 congressmen, or the electors of five states that have 6 congressmen each?

Which one is the better get?

[EdwardC]

Americans living in the Virgin Islands and abroad are just as relevant as Americans living in the continental United States. Let's not forget that they pay U.S. taxes, and are citizens as well. So their delegates count the exact same as delegates from California and any other U.S. state. Furthermore, many Americans living abroad can vote in the General Election as well. This may upset you but the fact remains that this is how the electoral and Democratic nomination process works. The Democratic Party isn't going to tell Americans who are living abroad that they can't influence who the Democratic Party nominee is when they will be asked to vote for them in November.

To learn more about how Americans living abroad can vote visit: http://www.fvap.gov/

[gxy2008]

Billary = Bush
The same neocon foreign policy.

The same neoliberal economic policy.

End the Bush-Clinton era of politics.
Come on Tejas give Hillary and her harridans a big and humiliating defeat

[DemandTruth]

Down the block from the Obama office, Robert Kelley, 28, was handing out Clinton literature to passersby and feeling confident as he channeled his candidate's message. "Enough with the speeches -- this is not Disney World," he said. With Hillary Clinton's visit this past Sunday, and Bill Clinton in the state four days later, Kelley said, "I hope people in Rhode Island see who got here first."

These people can't see the forest for the trees! Or is it cutting off your nose to spite your face? Enough with the speeches? The only thing that matters is which candidate arrived in the state first? Jeez! I don't suppose his candidate arrived in the state so she could give some SPEECHES, did she? Certainly couldn't be, because her supporters have had ENOUGH of that! My goodness.

[NoahVail]

Oh, I misunderstood... I heard that they had a some nice BEACHES in Rhode Island.

[denver]

I am a gay defector.I really really like Hillary maybe its the gay men thing for the tragic women.And infact I did start out this primary season for Hillary its in my profile the words are there.But I started asking myself why was I really supporting Hillary what has she done for the community and help advance our rights and to been seen as first class citizens instead of second class people.Obama said he would strip the marrige defense act (signed by Bill Clinton) and has given speeches to crowds that are not pro gay infact they tend to be a little homophobic but he stood on principal and supported gays and there rights even to cold receptions that is not pandering that is political courage
So I told myself this guy is the real deal their is no illusions,I think he is going to advance liberal causes and make them mainstream he is reaching out to the majority of Americans that are not concervitive but feel they have been forgotten!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So people who are on the fence and are wondering about this new guy.............go with him make it happen...as Barack would say turn the page and lets move forward and out of the old mold...

[obamagal]

Good for you, Obama.

Here's an article about the turnout today at the Obama rally in Providence, R.I.

http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=76ecd084-916c-4ab7-91e8-986b3518e7bd

[lornejl]

I try not to get personal on here, but who are you rooting for ?

[NoahVail]

I think Obama Gal- who posted the article about how much bigger the turnout was for Barack than for Hillary in the same venue- might be a supporter of Senator Obama. I'm only guessing, though.

[Steamboater]

It's silly for Gay voters to defect to Obama. Hillary has been a friend and for a long time. You don't turn your back on a friend. Sure, she's had to be pushed to accept certain issues within the gay community but she's done it. She's never befriended a raging self-hating homophobe like McClurkin and toured with him either.She's not stupid and she doesn't take us for granted as Obama did when he did that tour. As a gay man, I see both her and Obama lacking the courage to support Gay marriage though. It's always we support you BUT ... It also took a lot of courage for Hillary to say that she didn't support her husband's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. That was a revelation and quite wonderful. Well, neither does Obama but the question is: what are they going to do about it? Will either one of them issue an Executive Order if they become president to do away with Don't Ask, Don't Tell and allow Gays and Lesbians to serve openly in the military? That's the only way this is going to pass. Republicans are entrenched homophobes, even the queens like Larry Craig among them. They'll never vote to do away with Don't Ask, Don' t Tell.

[kevenseven]

As a straight man I make all my political decisions based solely on the interests of my sexuality.

So I'm for the candidates that are in favor of channel surfing, NASCAR, and make me feel ok about my inability to decorate.

Obama is my man.

[kellygrrrl]

LOL! ;)

[RichardD]

Logical, lucid, bold, straight reasoning.

[ArchAngel]

I agree; I will vote for the first candidate who promises a date with Gisele Bunchen for me.

[anticon]

If your agenda is to change laws you need a veto proof congress.To do that you need someone at the top of the ticket who has some coattails in red states.Hillary sure can't do that.

[NoahVail]

Too much courage is called foolishness. They still have to get elected, and both have backed off gay rights in order to avoid alienating the middle-of-the-road voters. Obama has shown some courage, though in raising gay rights in Beaumont, TX, though and deserves credit for that.

I think you should vote for Obama because he will build the 66% consensus necessary to actually move the country toward full rights for gays. Hillary don't-ask-don't-tell Clinton is not going to do much for you, assuming that she could get elected in November.

By the way, Steamboater, you should know that candidates, voters and countries do not have "friends." They have interests. Period.

[Didi47]

Steamboater:

As a Canadian I'm appalled over the lack of loyalty and lack of appreciation from as you say, people Hillary has been a good friend to for a long time. It gives me the impression that the public will blindly follow someone the media hypes with pretty scripted speeches - instead of someone who has proven her worth and her word over and over again. What one earth is wrong with people?

What I've witnessed is a blind media created public hysteria over a marketing myth! Not to mention the venom hurled against both Bill and Hillary Clinton - that's nothing short of horrifying. And to see African Americans vote blindly for Obama because of his skin color - while turning away from the Clinton's who have done more for the minority communities than any other political figure... Obama included is stunning! It's been shown repeatedly that Obama doesn't give a flying leap about the black community; especially the poor and sick he helped his wife pillage - by allowing them to be charged 3 times the going hospital rate (where Michelle sits on the board).

Add to the mix, his total skewing of his record, telling Canada a month ago he'd be lying to the public to get elected.... and on and on and on.... See CTVnews.com or obamatruth dot org

What on earth makes anyone think he's going to Change things for the better, when his record proves quite the contrary?

Thank you for reminding people that Hillary has been a friend for a long time.

[steamboat]

Steamboater, I'm amazed how the media just flatout overlooks any possible controversy that could otherwise come Obama's way. For instance, in Chicago there is the huge Salem Baptist Church, which is a predominent black church on the southside. This is where Obama began his campaign for US Senator from. And visited there on many occasions. This same church did a huge play in which Gays are portrayed as devils and that Gay sex is the great dark curse. Obama has never had to answer why he continues to endorse that church. Chicago, up until two years ago had a flamboyent total racist jerk named Dorothey Tillman on the city council. A few years back Ald. Tillman got up on the city council and screamed (its in the minutes), "The Voting Rights Act pertains only to African-Americans, not them Mexicans". Obama, a year later, to the surprise of people around here, totally endorsed Tillman for re-election. Again, the media just slides it out of sight. Therefore, before you only call the repubs names, you need to ask why the media is not being tough on everybody. Because Obama should also have to answer for some of his positions and endorsements.

[rwe]

Now that Baracks religious affilition is being attacked and his garb and his middle name (mostly from the prograssive side) How about a couple of authentic (hard to use that word and Obama in the same sentence) thoughts / questions: HOW does his truly Christian Church view abortion and homosexuality ? Will it be in the same manner he told Canada about NAFTA ?

[lisakaz]

Actually it seems like you and authetic are antithetical terms given what the Chicago abortion rights person said about HRC distorting his record and the retraction regarding Canada.

[Didi47]

lisakaz: I suggest you call or email CTV News in Canada. There has been NO RETRACTION of the story. They stand by what Obama said as does Ambassador Wilson. Go listen to the news report yourself at CTVnews.com The American press has been doing its utmost to downplay the report. But its too late. The whole world now knows Obama is not to be trusted. After all if he has no problem lying to the American people, he'll have no problem lying to American allies.

Here's another example of where he's coming from. I'd suggest Latinos look carefully at this man before giving him their vote. It sure looks like the racism he's accusing others of he's practicing himself big time.

"Is Sen. Barack Obama's church racist?"

Instead of asking the question over and over, why not just answer it?

Okay. "Yes, Barack Obama's church is racist." There, I said it.

I've visited Trinity United Church of Christ, we've heard from Pastor Jeremiah Wright, Jr. He teaches a doctrine in his church that is antagnostic towards those of European descent.

If that's not "racist," what is? Question is, "Does it matter?"

From Media Matters, about an upcoming CNN news segment:

At the end of the April 2 edition of CNN's Paula Zahn Now, guest host Rick Sanchez teased the April 3 program, saying: "Is Senator Barack Obama's church racist? A question a lot of people are asking." As Media Matters for America documented, several conservative media figures have attacked Obama's church, Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, as "separatist" and a "cult."

A February 6 Chicago Tribune article reported that "conservative critics have seized on Trinity's 12-point Black Value System, especially the portion relating to 'middleclassness,' as evidence that Obama is a divisive candidate who rejects mainstream American values and is primarily focused on the black community."

[Didi47]

rwe:

Here's some more of Obama's actions and beliefs: Barack Obama, whom George W. Bush called "the pope," is America's new deity in the cult-of-personality. Obama, a "friend" who spoke eloquently against the federal marriage amendment, has launched the biggest Madison Avenue public relations snow job in American history. Witness the manufacture of consent. He boasts of being a "big believer" in the revered doctrine of separation of church and state. He has no legal objections to the gruesome process of partial-birth abortion, even though it is repugnant to his Christian beliefs. It's a woman's right to choose, you see. We must respect separation of church and state. It's the law. However, same-sex couples must be denied the fundamental right of civil marriage. He offers no legal reasons mind you. Oh no. This civil rights lawyer never states legal reasons. It's his "deep faith" you see, his "church history," and the "religious connotations" to marriage that mandate we be kept "separate but [not] equal." So much for being a big believer in separation of church and state.

[AnninCA]

Good to see. Obama needs to knock her out.

Win legitimately.

If he does?

Then Hillary will concede graciously, I'm sure.

[winterfuknmute]

I'm still waiting to see why in Harlem with its large African American community Obama got zero votes??

[butchie65]

He did, people were interviewed and they said they did vote for him. They also said their whole family voted for him. Tell me the voting wasn't rigged !

[steamboat]

Maybe they borrowed voting machines from Florida. Or the late Mayor Daley taught the election officials how to count votes.

[anticon]

Graciously?She has not even been able to bring herself to congratulate Obama when he wins a state.

If she knows defeat is inevitable she will concede but only because it will serve her own self interest.The last few weeks have shown just what a calculating bitch she is.It is her nature.She is what she is.

[Didi47]

anticon:

When you discover how you've been conned by the Obama camp, you'll be praying to get Hillary back. You can bet on it.

[jazzman]

Fight for every piece of turf Obama. Cede nothing, do not retreat. Your campaign has been brilliant because you have left no stone unturned in your strategy to win this nomination. If anyone wants to know what Obama would be like as President just look at the brilliance of this political campaign and think about how Obama would apply that to foreign policy or even to a war or planning the end of the Iraq war. What we're looking at is a brilliant strategist and tactician. It's time now to bring someone of this massive competence to the White House.

[Didi47]

Go to: Obama truth dot org for starters.

[winterfuknmute]

Read this!

"The Clintons' Terror Pardons" --- THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, FEB 12, '08 ---

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120277819085260827.html?mod=opinion_main_
commentaries

Google Search "Queen of Earmaks" "2.2 Billion in EarMarks" "Hillary military industrial complex" "Mama War Bucks" "Bill Clinton Dubai Ports Deal" "Clinton gives out earmark then gets Rev. endoresment" "Clinton fund raising scandals....Johnny Chung, Yah Lin Trie, James Riady, Norman Hsu, Vinod Gupta and the list goes on and on and on. . .

"Bill brokered a uranium deal in Kazakhstan that led to a $31.3 million donation"
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html?ex=1359435600&en=
23a4d96223965ebf&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

Fighting for the soul of DNC
http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20080317&s=berman

Hillary's $5 million Dump Truck
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marc-cooper/hillarys-5-million-dump_b_85534.html

[teahead]

Hey RI residents!

How come Hillary doesn't talk about her "35 years of experience" including her defending a child rapist?

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-usark245589997feb24,0,2670956.story

[jackpinesavage]

Sen Obama keeps applying the techniques of fourth generation warfare against an adversary who is struggling to pick up the techniques of the third generation. He has Sen Clinton constantly reacting instead of acting...its hard to move forward when you're constantly back on your heels.

No matter who you support, the differences between the campaigns are obvious. One is just another political campaign, and the other sure looks like a well-oiled machine. Clinton could be France and its Maginot Line...while Obama could be Germany blowing right through it and showing it to be a generation out of date.

[NoahVail]

Very true. For proof, see:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fd-MVU4vtU

[kevenseven]

The Germans went around the Maginot line, thru Belgium and Holland. The whole point being that fixed fortifications were outdated, and mechanized, mobile forces were the winning formula.

But your analogy works, regardless.