I was going to wait to exercise my first voting right as an American on Election Day. Since the political camps are getting so negative, I have decided to make a statement by voting early. As an Independent voter; like many others I dislike the game.
I have a feeling that from now on it’s not going to be about the issues that matters to us. When a candidate and his campaign don’t have anything to offer for the challenges we are facing, polls are going down they have only one way to stay in the race.
I have voted yesterday as an early voter to reject the character attack and worthless campaign for the next few weeks. Yes, I have voted for Obama-Biden ticket and I’m proud of being a first time voter.
For all my friends out there, please reject the negative campaign and vote early.
Thank you and love you all,
Ruble.
Yesterday (September 15th) was a depressing day for American Financial Market and added more to our crumbling economy. After the bail out of two mortgage giants few days ago we were not ready to hear more bad news.
Unfortunately, the stock market was record down since September 11th 2001. 158 years old Investment bank has filed for bankruptcy and another bank got sold within 48 hours negotiation. Few more financial institutions are heating the bottom.
Yes, since this is an election year; we are seeing the political games played by both major parties and its candidates. As independent voters, we are the target of the deceiving political ads. At the same time, we must compare both plans and ask ourselves who can help us to get out of this mess.
Our mortgage market went down, people can’t keep their homes; job loss, income went down, living cost went up, education is expensive, gas price high and the gap between rich & poor grew bigger. I don’t need to tell you how badly we are suffering from the last 7 years economic policy, and that is why economy is number one issue for this election.
Before current president and his party came to office, we had surplus in the budget, low unemployment rate, and a sound economy. Last 7 years failed policy has given us deficit of more than 300 billion dollars. Our national debt doubled, gas priced more than doubled and unemployment is record high.
I agree with open market policy but strongly believe that it needs oversight and rules that holds the players accountable and responsible. Please compare the candidates on this issue.
We need to balance our budget not only for our own sake but for the interest of our future generation. What kind of parents would leave their children and grandchildren with a mountain of debt? We need to stop spending more than 12 million dollars per month in a wrong war and start investing in our own infrastructure. 2 wars have given us today’s economy; what would happen if we engage ourselves in 4/5 wars in the future? So, the foreign policy is a very important variable of economic equation, please beware of the candidate’s foreign policy.
Spending money for our domestics need is important; cutting the funding for those projects is not the answer for balance budget. Please compare the candidates on this issue and beware of “tax politics.”
I have to get ready for class now. I don’t have enough time to discuss the issue in details. I hope with this posting, we can start focus on the number one issue in this election. If more and more voters like you stay focus on the issues and demand solution from the candidates; maybe we can hear more details about their plans instead of fighting over “lipsticks.”
Thank you very much and love you all,
Sorry everyone, I take back my previous softness for Hillary. I’m also sorry that it came from my home town Sioux Falls, SD & nearby Brandon, SD. After that comment by Hillary (about possible assassination of Obama is one of the reasons for her to stay in the race), I have lost every single ounce of respect for her.
Please watch the report;
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24798368#24798368
Hello my dear friends, Hope things are well with you. Yesterday May 15th was the 1st year anniversary of my dad’s death. It was a sad day for me as I was trying to remember him.
On 14th, I went to Omaha to see the police concert and it was great!! I only got 2 hours of sleep that night. I’m also going to see Dave Matthews Band in July.
I had an interview with immigration office for my citizenship and I’m expected to be a United States Citizen within next 6 weeks!!
Just to let you know that Sen. Obama is coming to our town (Sioux Falls), today (Friday, May 16, 2008) as a part of his South Dakota visit. He will be attending a rally at 7.00 PM in Arena Convention Center. The doors open at 5.00 PM, I’ll see you there.
I have been invited to go earlier and possibly have a chance to meet Sen. Obama before the rally. I’m excited about the opportunity!! I have received couple messages on my phone yesterday while I was in my interview. I needed to be cleared by the Secret Service and we got everything taken care. Now like many others, I’m on my way to see Sen. Obama!!
So, my father’s spirit is making me strong and happy to keep moving. He believed in me and still showing his support for me. Thank you dad, I love you and I miss your physical presence on this earth.
Before I write anything, I would like to mention that the following is my opinion only. You might agree with me or not that is ok. If you disagree with me; please don’t shout, scream, be angry and call names. The best freedom I enjoy in America is Freedom of Speech. As a part of Obama network, I enjoy the privilege very much and don’t want to lose it.
As of now, by all counts (Pledged Delegates, Popular vote, State won & Super delegates) Sen. Obama is ahead. It is a matter of time that Sen. Obama would become the Democratic Nominee. As an Independent, I understand the importance of uniting the party, work on VP, have great conventions and win in November against Sen. McCain. Sen. Obama and his campaign have to do many things to achieve these goals and part of that would include Sen. Clinton and her campaign.
Like many others; when I got involve with this movement (January 2008), only one fear I had in my mind about Sen. Obama’s success in the primary. The money issue was that fear. Like many other, I saw the possible money shortage for Obama camp against Clinton camp. I’m speechless as of today to see that millions of Americans have donated to this movement. Obama’s donations are somewhere from $25 to $125 on an average $109 per person. On the other hand, Clinton’s few donors have max out their primary limit. As of today, this lack of mass participation for Clinton has left her with $20 million debt including $11.4 million of her own money. Some say that she has to pay off the debt before the convention, though the rule is questionable. Most of it includes Clintons own money while they have made way more money than Obama family.
I can speak from personal experience and knowing many donors in the area that every donor in Obama campaign has made sacrifice to keep the movement alive. In this tough economic situation, everyone has to sacrifice financially regardless of amount. I know I have done so by using my tax refund, my employer tuition reimbursement and some savings that amount to nearly $2,000. I want to let you know that quantity doesn’t matter quality is important here. No matter how much you have donated, you had to make some sacrifice for that and I thank you from bottom of my heart.
I saw on TV news clip, Sen. Obama is offering to help pay off Sen. Clinton’s debt. According to Keith Olbermann, this is not allowed and I hope so. As I mention earlier that I understand the importance of uniting the party. But offering paying off her debt with the people’s money in this primary is not a good idea. It seems to me that this negotiation is old politics. It doesn’t necessarily match with Sen. Obama’s vision for new politics in Washington for what millions of people have made financial sacrifice.
I hope Sen. Obama would take the sentiments of millions donors in to a consideration. Maybe the campaign can find out about the donors opinion on the issue. This is also a matter of good stewardship for people’s money and trust in politics which Obama has proven to be the best candidate for the job.
Thank you very much and love you all.
Hello fellow Obama supporters, hope all are well with you. I have purchased some Obama, 08 Men’s T-shirts. I was planning to go back home (Bangladesh) to visit my family. In my family we have 22 boys. And many other in Bangladesh support Obama. I bought those T-shirts for them. Unfortunately I had to cancel the trip.
So, I have some Men’s T-shirts n hand. If anyone wants a T-shirt, I would be willing to give it you as a gift or you can pay me the cost ($10).
I have;
White Medium
Blue Medium
Blue Large
I also have some pins, bumper sticker and hope bracelets as well.
If you want anything, please visit Black Sheep Coffee House or Lalibela Restaurant on Grange Plaza (11th & Grange) in Sioux Falls and ask for Ruble. Or send me an e-mail here on Obama network. Thank you very much.
I really don't want her (Hillary) on VP. At the same time looking to this race, party, general election and country, it is kind of respectful exist offering for her. I know the possible impact if she is the VP on President Obama. Once again; if she is on a loose she might cause problem for convention, general election for a run in 2012. She would do anything to make sure that Obama doesn't win in 2008 like she kind of did for Kerry. Having her as VP would tie her up and after 8 years she might not be a position for presidential run in 2016.since we have a check and balance concept, she might not be able to do that much damage as VP. Besides that I don't think she would even accept it.
On the other hand, many of you are saying that we should have someone who stood with Obama, I agree. But Obama is offering a different type of politics, new one. It is all about bringing the party and country together. In order to move the country to a new direction, we can't always stay within our own, we need to reach out to unite the party, country, win general election and rebuild ONE AMERICA! Just think a little about the names I wrote and what anyone would contribute to the above cause, Thank you. I think Clair McCaskill, Chris Dodd, Evan Byah, and David Bonior can be added to the list. Once again, it is just my opinion. I'm no expert but feel would contribute to the vision of America that Obama and many of us have.
Just a thought for possible for Vice-President (VP) for Democratic ticket for fall with Sen. Obama.
1. Sen. Hillary Clinton (NY)
2. Sen. John Edward (NC)
3. Gov. Ed Randall (PA)
4. Sen. Chuck Hagel (NA-R)
5. Sen.(former) Tom Daschle (SD)
From NBC/NJ's Matthew E. Berger At a time when Sen. Hillary Clinton is increasingly relying on superdelegates to vault her to the Democratic Party's nomination, a handful of undecided and pledged superdelegates are coming forward to say her campaign's tactics in recent weeks are doing more harm than good. The Democratic Party insiders say they believe Clinton's direct attacks against Sen. Barack Obama in recent days are hurting the party and its chances in November, and also say it is showing a calculated, desperate-to-win side of Clinton that they dislike. "In looking at the manner in which the candidates are campaigning, I think it would be best they focused their attention on the presumptive nominee and showed our party which one is better in campaigning against McCain," said Garry Shay, a California superdelegate, who announced his support for Clinton. Unlike some in the party, these superdelegates said they do not believe Clinton should drop out of the race. They said they are committed to the democratic process, and want to allow the states still remaining to cast their ballots. But they acknowledged Obama is the likely nominee and suggested the personal attacks were only hurting the party and its viability. The Clinton campaign has been actively wooing these delegates, believing a plurality represents the strongest, and increasingly the only, way for her to win the nomination. But one undeclared delegate, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the recent tactics are turning her and other superdelegates off. "I don't think anybody's saying 'step aside,' but 'stop with the garbage' is what people want to say," the delegate said. "Just chill a little bit." As activists committed to the party, they said, they have been impressed by Obama's ability to bring new Democrats into the fold, and they worry that Clinton is threatening that. "We like the fact that there is a candidate that has won so many states overwhelmingly," the delegate said. "We're feeling her advisors are leading her in a path that diminishes her as well as him." Several said they were angered by comments from James Carville, who called Bill Richardson "Judas" for backing Obama after serving in the Clinton White House. One delegate said Richardson's rationale for supporting Obama, and his implicit frustration at the Clintons' heavy-handed approach to garnering his support, was echoed among superdelegates. Others said they were frustrated by recent reports that Clinton embellished her description of landing in Bosnia as First Lady, and said it suggested she would do anything to win. "I don't remember what movie I saw two weeks ago; I don't necessarily remember what I had for dinner last night," one superdelegate said. "But I would remember having to duck and run from sniper fire." The final straw, though, were Clinton's comments Tuesday, when she said the Rev. Jeremiah Wright "would not have been my pastor." Several superdelegates saw it as a direct, personal attack on Obama. "I think it's very dangerous for any candidate to constantly thrum on what they perceive as sensational criticisms of their opponent," said Debra Kozikowski, an uncommitted superdelegate from Massachusetts. "I would be more likely to respond positively to discussions of issues that effect Americans versus what might be perceived as character flaws." Clinton campaign officials said Clinton's comments were a direct response to a question she received at an editorial board meeting and suggested personal attacks have gone in both directions in the primary race. The party activists said they have been receiving calls from members, a majority of whom want them to support whoever has won the popular vote. Many superdelegates are themselves elected by the Democratic Party and believe most will follow the will of party members for the party's future, and their own viability. And they say they are not buying some of the Clinton campaign's explanations as to why they should support her, whether it is her victories in large states, primary states or those likely to go Democratic in the November election. "Periodically, over the last couple of weeks, you will see a news story or get something from the campaign, and you'll go, 'How stupid do you think I am?" one uncommitted superdelegate said. "All of us watch television all the time, read the newspapers. We all play with the little charts online too. We know it is virtually impossible." One delegate said the Clinton campaign is "using Jeremiah Wright to scare white people." "A full and fair debate about issues and differences and even fights is good," the delegate said. "Mud slinging, personal attacks and lying is never good for any political fight or party. And I see a lot of that coming from one side more than the other." The delegates said there is little the party or its leaders can do to prevent the current back and forth. But some said they were increasingly in touch with Clinton campaign officials to say their support is in jeopardy. "Uncommitted delegates can come out and say, 'If you don't stop this now, we won't vote for you,'" one uncommitted superdelegate said.
From NBC's Chuck ToddAs expected, one of the two major Democratic candidates saw a downturn in the latest NBC/WSJ poll, but it's not the candidate that you think. Hillary Clinton is sporting the lowest personal ratings of the campaign. Moreover, her 37 percent positive rating is the lowest the NBC/WSJ poll has recorded since March 2001, two months after she was elected to the U.S. Senate from New York.
The poll was conducted Monday and Tuesday this week by Hart-McInturff and surveyed 700 registered voters, which gives the poll a margin of error of +/- 3.7 percent. In addition, we oversampled African-Americans in order to get a more reliable cross-tab on many of the questions we asked in this poll regarding Sen. Barack Obama's speech on race and overall response to last week's Rev. Jeremiah Wright dustup. (Watch Tim Russert's analysis of the poll results.)
On that issue specifically, 32 percent of voters overall said Obama "sufficiently addressed the issue," while 26 percent of folks believe he needs to address the Wright controversy further; 31 percent did not see the speech or had no opinion.
Interestingly, of those voters who said they saw the speech, 47 percent said Obama sufficiently addressed the Wright issue while 37 percent said he needs to address it further. Among whites, 45 percent were satisfied with Obama's explanation, 38 percent were not. Among blacks, 67 percent said the speech was sufficient, while 25 percent want him to address it further.
Overall, 55 percent of voters told us that they were "disturbed" by the videos of Wright that circulated so widely on cable TV and the Internet.
As for the damage this controversy did or didn't do to Obama, it's a mixed bag. Yes, Obama saw some of his numbers go down slightly among certain voting groups, most notably Republicans. But he's still much more competitive with independent voters when matched up against John McCain than Hillary Clinton is. And he still sports a net-positive personal rating of 49-32, which is down only slightly from two weeks ago, when it was 51-28. Again, the biggest shift in those negative numbers were among Republicans.
On one of the most critical questions we've been tracking for a few months, Obama showed resilience. When asked if the three presidential candidates could be successful in uniting the country if they were elected president, 60 percent of all voters believed Obama could be successful at doing this, 58 percent of all voters said McCain could unite the country while only 46 percent of voters said the same about Clinton. All three candidates saw dips on this issue, by the way. In January, 67 percent thought Obama could unite the country; 68 percent thought McCain could do it; and 55 percent said Clinton would be able to pull it off.
The fact that all three dropped equally in the last three months is a sign that the campaign is becoming more ideological and partisan.
In the head-to-head matchups, there weren't huge shifts in the numbers, with Obama and Clinton dead even at 45 percent in the national Democratic primary matchup (a slight increase for Obama from early March). In the general-election matchups, Obama led McCain by 2 points, and McCain led Clinton by 2 points; all margin of error results and nothing to get too excited over.
One thing about these head-to-head matchups: Our pollsters found that for the second poll in a row, more than 20 percent of Clinton and Obama supporters say they would support McCain when he's matched up against the other Democrat. There is clearly some hardening of feelings among some of the most core supporters of both Democrats, though it may be Obama voters, who are more bitter in the long run.
Why? Because among Obama voters, Clinton has a net-negative personal rating (35-43) while Clinton voters have a net-positive view of Obama (50-29). Taken together, this appears to be evidence that Obama, intially, should have the easier time uniting the party than Clinton.
Considering the doom-and-gloom some predicted for Obama with regard to the Wright controversy, the overall tenor of the electorate appears to still be favorable for him. He's mortal, but he's survived ... for now. It's not clear whether he'd be this resilient if another controversy exploded as big as Wright, but it appears that voters are giving him the benefit of doubt. There's lots of evidence inside these numbers that voters still would like to know more about Obama, and that is both an opportunity and a potential obstacle.
GREENSBORO, N.C. - Democrat Barack Obama ridiculed Republican presidential rival John McCain on Wednesday for what he called a "sit back and watch" approach to the economic troubles gripping the nation.
Back campaigning after a brief family vacation in the Caribbean, the presidential candidate focused on the housing crisis that has rocked Wall Street and the economic downturn that has forced the Federal Reserve to intervene. And after days of sniping with rival Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign, Obama turned his attention to McCain.
On Tuesday, McCain derided government intervention to save and reward banks or small borrowers who behave irresponsibly and offered few immediate alternatives for fixing the country's growing housing crisis.
"John McCain has admitted he doesn't understand the economy as well as he should, and yesterday he proved it in giving a speech on the housing crisis," Obama told an auditorium of supporters.
Obama pointed out that McCain "said the best way for us to address the fact that millions of Americans are losing their homes is to just sit back and watch it happen. In his entire speech yesterday, he offered not one policy, not one idea, not one bit of relief to the nearly 35,000 North Carolinians who are forced to foreclose on their dreams in the last three months."
North Carolina holds its primary May 6 with 115 delegates at stake.
"John McCain may call helping struggling homeowners pandering, but I don't think the families in North Carolina who are losing their homes would see it that way," said Obama, who is due to give what aides are billing as a major economic speech Thursday in New York.
In response, McCain said he clearly is in favor of doing more for homeowners.
"I'll do whatever's necessary to help the homeowner, the legitimate homeowner, and we may have to do more," McCain told reporters in California. "But raise taxes as Senator Obama wants to do or some kind of massive bailout that is a needless expenditure of taxpayer dollars is obviously something that I don't support."
In California on Tuesday, McCain said he wants to leave the door open to an array of proposals to address the problems and seemed to suggest he might even be open to solutions that stray from the GOP line.
"I will not play election-year politics with the housing crisis," he said, adding he would evaluate all proposals. "I will not allow dogma to override commonsense."
But the small-government advocate and four-term Arizona senator also put restrictions on how far he was willing to go, saying: "it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers."
In Greensboro, Obama used a question about his Christianity to again address the incendiary comments made by his former Chicago pastor, Jeremiah Wright.
"We can't afford to be distracted ... every time somebody somewhere says something stupid that everybody gets up in arms and we forget about the war in Iraq and we forget about the economy," Obama said.
Many in the crowd Wednesday were college students, in a town where students once played a defining role in U.S. history. In 1960, a year before Obama was born, black students staged sit-ins at a whites-only lunch counter at a Woolworth's five-and-dime in downtown Greensboro, an act of civil disobedience that spread throughout the South.
The conventional wisdom wafting around Washington is that the prolonged Democratic race is hurting the party and could lead to a disaster in the general election. But thus far, there haven't been much poll data to back up that assertion.
Today, some new data were released that support the CW. Over the last two weeks (a long sample period), Gallup surveyed more than 6,000 Democratic voters nationwide to see if they would still vote for the Democratic nominee in the general election if their preferred candidate lost. They have some bad news to report for Democrats.
Twenty-eight percent of current Hillary Clinton supporters say they would vote for John McCain over Barack Obama in the general election. Nineteen percent of Obama supporters would vote for McCain over Clinton.
Posted by Chadwick Matlin, March 26, 4:12 p.m
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- For the second time in three days, Sen. Hillary Clinton told reporters that the pledged delegates awarded based on vote totals in their state are not bound to abide by election results.
It's an idea that has been floated by her or a campaign surrogate nearly half a dozen times this month.
Sen. Barack Obama leads Clinton among all Democratic delegates, 1,622 to 1,485, in the latest CNN count. Among pledged delegates, Obama leads Clinton 1,413 to 1,242.
"Every delegate with very few exceptions is free to make up his or her mind however they choose," Clinton told Time's Mark Halperin in an interview published Wednesday.
"We talk a lot about so-called pledged delegates, but every delegate is expected to exercise independent judgment," she said.
Clinton's remarks echoed her Monday comments to the editorial board of the Philadelphia Daily News.
"And also remember that pledged delegates in most states are not pledged," she said Monday. "You know there is no requirement that anybody vote for anybody. They're just like superdelegates."
Clinton also made similar comments in a Newsweek interview published two weeks ago.
The last time a major candidate lobbied pledged delegates to switch sides was at the 1980 convention, when Ted Kennedy's campaign tried to recruit delegates who arrived at the convention supporting eventual nominee Jimmy Carter.
After that battle, the Democratic Party altered a provision that required pledged delegates to support the candidate they had arrived at the convention to back.
Clinton advisers have cited the altered rule, which dates to 1982 and says only that pledged delegates "shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them."
The same year, The Democratic Party created a new category of delegate -- the so-called "superdelegates" -- party leaders and elected officials who are free to support any candidate they wish, regardless of vote totals in their home states.
Some states require their delegates to support the candidate they are pledged to but most do not.
Earlier this month, Clinton adviser Harold Ickes first raised the prospect that pledged delegates were not legally bound to vote as election results indicate -- an idea that has drawn sharp criticism from supporters of rival Obama. Watch more on the candidates' dust up »
"Despite repeated denials, the Clinton campaign has again admitted that they will go to any length to win," Obama spokesman Bill Burton said again Wednesday.
The Clinton campaign has said that they had not been planning to try to actively convince the Illinois senator's pledged delegates to switch sides and would not do so in the future.
But on a conference call with reporters Tuesday, Ickes defended Clinton's Monday remarks and repeated his view that pledged delegates were free to switch their allegiance at any time.
"I think what Mrs. Clinton was trying to make clear was that no delegate is required by party rules to vote for the candidate for which they're pledged," said Ickes.
"I mean obviously circumstances can change, and people's minds can change about the viability of a particular candidate and that's permitted now under our rules ever since the 1980 convention."
He added that although the rules permitted them to campaign pledged delegates to switch sides, they had not engaged in such an effort.
The timing of the latest round of comments was not an accident, according to veteran Democratic strategist Hank Sheinkopf.
"It keeps them in play. It makes party players understand that they're serious, and they'll stay in the game," Sheinkopf said.
He added that party insiders were likely to view the threat merely as a bargaining chip by an extraordinarily seasoned political team.
Clinton spokesman Phil Singer dismissed the criticism entirely.
"I don't think she floated that idea. I think she was repeating the idea," he told reporters Monday. "Simply stating a fact I don't think is a cause for hysteria."
By Dan BalzWealthy pro-Clinton Democrats escalated their efforts to keep the nomination battle between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton open through the remainder of the primaries and to encourage uncommitted superdelegates not to be guided solely by the pledged delegate count in casting their votes at the convention.
A group of major contributors to the Democratic Party sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi today calling on her to back away from previous comments and reaffirm that superdelegates should be free to back whichever candidate they believe would be the party's best nominee.
The contributors said Pelosi has laid out an "untenable position that runs counter to the party's intent in establishing superdelegates in 1984" by suggesting on ABC's "This Week" recently that supedelegates should support whichever candidate has the lead in pledged delegates. "If the votes of the superdelegates overturn what happened in the elections it would be harmful to the Democratic Party," she said.
The contributors, who include some of Clinton's biggest bundlers, said that, with 10 contests remaining and millions of Democrats yet to be heard from, any effort to short-circuit the process should be curtailed, and they suggested that Pelosi's declaration that superdelegates follow the pledged delegate count fell into that category.
Obama leads among pledged delegates and is not likely to relinquish that lead by the time the primaries end in June. Clinton hopes to narrow the gap and to finish the primaries ahead or very close to Obama in the popular vote.
"We have been strong supporters of the DCCC [Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee]," the contributors wrote. "We therefore urge you to clarify your position on superdelegates and reflect in your comments a more open view to the optional independent actions of each of the delegates at the national convention in August."
The letter was signed by nearly two dozen people, including Susie Tompkins Buell, Robert L. Johnson, Bernard Schwartz, Maureen White and Steven Rattner.
Johnson, the founder of Black Entertainment Television and one of the organizers of the letter, said the objective was to "to make sure this thing isn't over till it's over" and to "send a message to those who want to cut off debate, that that's not in the best interests of the Democratic Party."
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/26/clinton_donors_warn_pelosi_on.html
Barack Obama 's speech on race has left the public divided on whether he has sufficiently put the issue behind him, a poll shows.
Even so, The Wall Street Journal-NBC News survey released Wednesday showed that Obama's remarks and the attention paid to comments by his longtime pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, so far have had little effect on his race with Hillary Rodham Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Videos of Wright sermons include one in which he shouts "God damn America" for its treatment of minorities. He also has said the U.S. government invented AIDS to destroy "people of color" and has suggested U.S. policies were to blame for the 9/11 attacks.
In a speech last week, Obama rejected Wright's divisive comments but stood by him otherwise and said it is time for the country to address its racial schism.
By 55 percent to 32 percent, more who had seen or heard about Obama's speech said they were satisfied with his explanation of his association with Wright than said they were dissatisfied.
Yet people familiar with Obama's remarks were about evenly split between those who said they felt reassured about his feelings on race, and those who said they still had doubts. Slightly more said Obama has said enough about race than said he needs to address it further.
In all instances, whites were more dubious than blacks about whether Obama had handled the issue successfully. Democrats were far more supportive than Republicans, while independents were likelier to be divided.
Blacks have solidly supported Obama in the Democratic presidential contest, while whites have tilted toward Clinton.
About seven in 10 said they had seen Obama's speech or heard about it.
The poll said Obama and Clinton are each supported by 45 percent of registered Democratic voters. That is little different from a Journal-NBC survey in early March when Clinton had 47 percent, Obama 43 percent.
In a CBS News poll last week, most voters deemed Obama's speech a success.
The Journal-NBC poll was conducted March 24-25 and included telephone interviews with 700 registered voters, with an oversampling of 177 black voters. The margin of sampling error was plus or minus 3.7 percentage points for all registered voters, 4.3 points for white voters and 7.4 points for black voters.
Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press.
John Edwards was North Carolina's senator for six years, but he doesn't seem to be all that well-liked in the state these days. A recent poll from PPP (PDF) reports that 31 percent of North Carolina voters would be less likely to support Hillary Clinton if John Edwards endorsed her. Only 12 percent say they would be more likely to vote for Clinton after an endorsement. The poll didn't provide any numbers speculating what an Edwards endorsement would mean for Barack Obama.
Also of note, Obama narrowed Clinton's advantage among white voters to seven points—less than one-third of what it was when PPP polled voters a week ago. Obama gave his speech responding to the Jeremiah Wright controversy in the interim.
Obama leads by 21 points overall.
WASHINGTON - The tax returns for Sen. Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, offer new insights into the power couple's rising fortunes. They chronicle the candidate's rise from state legislator to U.S. senator and beyond.
The tax returns are dated between 2000 and 2006, showing a steep increase in family income.
For example, the first return indicates that the Obamas' combined income was $240,505. That included Obama's salary as a young state senator in Illinois, $16,500 in fees as a "foundation director/educational speaker," and his wife's salary as a hospital administrator.
But just six years later in 2006, the Obamas' combined income was $983,826, some $740,000 more. Obama had become a U.S. senator by then, making about $165,000 a year, and his wife's income from the University of Chicago Medical Center had sharply climbed to about $265,000 a year.
Obama's book-writing career had also become profitable, earning him $551,240 in author fees for 2006 alone.
Michelle Obama also made an additional $51,200 that year, as working as the director of TreeHouse Foods. According to the company's website, it's a "food manufacturer servicing primarily the retail grocery and foodservice chains."
The Obamas' best financial year came in 2005, when their total combined income was $1.6 million. That included $1.2 million in author fees for Obama's best-selling books. Michelle Obama's salary that year was $316,962 plus another $45,000 from TreeHouse Foods.
The Obamas also became more charitable as their incomes grew larger. In 2000, the couple gave $2,350 to charity, or about 1 percent of their total gross income.
In 2006, they donated $60,307 to charities, or about 6 percent of their gross income.
In 2005, the Obamas note a $5,000 donation to the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, where the controversial Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., was Obama's pastor. If Obama tithed more regularly to the church, there's no record of it in these tax returns.
The returns do not appear to shed any new light on the Obamas' controversial purchase of their Chicago home in 2005.
They spent $1.65 million on the property. At the same time, the wife of indicted Chicago campaign contributor Tony Rezko bought the adjoining lot for $625,000.
Critics have charged that Obama could not have bought the house unless the Rezkos bought the adjoining lot, and Obama has subsequently apologized for the "bone-headed mistake" of getting involved with someone was under scrutiny for alleged political corruption.
The Obamas don't appear to have substantial stock holdings. Their 2005 return, for example, lists modest dividends for UBS, JP Morgan Chase and Northern Trust Bank.
It also lists a $2,072 gain for the sale of Biopharma stock and a $15,208 loss for the sale of SkyTerra Communications stock.
While the Obama tax documents cover the basics for a seven-year period, there are many supporting documents that have not been released.
Meantime, Sen. Hillary Clinton has yet to release any of her records, but a spokesman says they will be made public in the next few weeks.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23796726/
I'm so hopeful in our politics and system because of Sen. Obama. Hearing about "Tanya Harding" strategy from Clintons making me little upset. I know this movement of millions would not rest until Sen. Obama is in the Whitehouse.
Yes We Can!!
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/25/807581.aspx
Hillary Rodham Clinton adviser James Carville is refusing to apologize for comparing New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson to Judas.
Carville made the comparison to The New York Times after Richardson, once a member of President Clinton's Cabinet, endorsed Hillary Clinton rival Barack Obama last week for the Democratic presidential nomination. Carville called it an "act of betrayal," and pointed out that it came during Holy Week.
"Mr. Richardson's endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out (Jesus) for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic," he said.
Richardson told "Fox News Sunday" that he wouldn't respond by getting "in the gutter like that."
"That's typical of many of the people around Senator Clinton," Richardson said. "They think they have a sense of entitlement to the presidency."
Carville told CNN on Monday that Richardson had committed an "egregious act" and he intended to make a sharp response to it.
"I wanted to use a very strong metaphor to make my point," Carville said. "I doubt if Governor Richardson and I will be particularly close in the future."
Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson told reporters Monday that he didn't agree with Carville's comment.
"If I had said it, I would apologize," Wolfson said. "I did not say it, and if I had I would, but that's up to him."
Richardson served as ambassador to the United Nations and energy secretary during the Clinton administration.
