Wisconsin I just wanted to say THANK YOU!
To all the women who decided to vote for Barack THANK YOU we appreciate you going against gender and doing what your heart tells you too.
To all the YOUNG and COLLEGE folks in Wisconsin we WON because of YOU! My eternal thanks to you for making Wisconsin a win for Obama! It was because of you, and I'm sure most of you were first time voters, that Obama won by a significant amount.
Our country and the future generation will owe you much gratitude for what you did in Wisconsin and have been doing around this country and that is to TAKE IT BACK for ordinary folks!
I thank you immensely and infinitely .
In the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination, it’s now Hillary Clinton 39%, Barack Obama 31% and John Edwards 17% (see recent daily numbers). A Rasmussen Reports analysis suggests that something might have changed following Obama’s huge victory in South Carolina. The numbers still favor Clinton but-as every sports fan knows--sometimes the numbers don’t matter.
Daily tracking results are collected via nightly telephone surveys and reported on a four-day rolling average basis. Three-fourths of the interviews for today’s update were completed before the polls closed in South Carolina Saturday. The next Presidential Tracking Poll update is scheduled for Tuesday at 11:00 a.m.
Go Obama you can and will win CALIFORNIA and it will be all over for HRC.
Let me know what you think about which states Barack will win Feb 5th.
If Barack wins these 3 states he WILL be the nominee:
California
Georgia
Massachussetts
I think he will win GA and MA and a good chance for CA. Its over for Hillary if she loses all 3 of those states.
Further, I think Barack will win these states:
Alaska,
Idaho,
North Dakota,
Minnesota,
Illinois of course :-)
Alabama
Kansas
Colorado
Missouri
and Arizona!
I'm sooooo proud. I'm sooooo elated. I'm sooooooo HAPPY for Obama and Happy that Hillary LOST BIG...as of right now she may come in last. I hope she does. And we continue to send her packing. I can't stand that woman or her husband. Finally Good TRUMPS Evil!! YEAH!
OBAMA 08.....
ILLUSTRATION BY JASON WALTON
On February 5, New York Democrats will help determine their party's presidential candidate. It is an immensely important decision - and, for many Democrats, a difficult one.
It is crucial that a Democrat be elected in November. The Bush administration has done severe harm to the country, and all of the Republican candidates except Ron Paul seem determined to continue the Bush-Cheney policies.
Any of the four Democratic candidates would reverse course in every important area. All of them are far more progressive than the Republicans (Hillary Clinton the least so, Dennis Kucinich the most).
On many of the key issues, there's hardly a hair's-breadth of difference among the three top candidates -on their stands, and on what they propose.
But that's not what most voters will base their decisions on. They'll go with their gut.
Voters don't make "cold, rational decisions," the Times' David Brooks wrote last week. "In reality," said Brooks, "we voters - all of us - make emotional, intuitive decisions about who we prefer, and then come up with post-hoc rationalizations to explain the choices that were already made beneath conscious awareness."
And Brooks thinks that's just fine. "My own intuition is that this unconscious cognition is pretty effective," he wrote. "People are skilled at judging character." (You might wonder what that says about the election of George Bush, but intuition is undoubtedly playing a role in the Democratic campaign.)
This newspaper is endorsing Barack Obama, based on both intuition and issues.
Why not Hillary Clinton?
There's no question that Hillary Clinton is qualified to be president. She is bright, experienced, and politically savvy. But there are compelling reasons not to want her to be the Democrats' presidential candidate.
One is her vote for the Iraq war resolution in 2002, and her defense of that vote since. Clinton insists that she was misled, and that she did not think Bush would attack Iraq. She was either dangerously naïve or politically calculating, risking war in order to appear tough in a future presidential campaign.
Worse, she had another option. Prior to the vote on the war resolution, Michigan Senator Carl Levin introduced a substitute, a resolution that would have required United Nations approval before the US used force against Iraq.
In a New York Times op-ed piece last March, former Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee recalled efforts he and other senators made to get the Levin resolution approved. "We asserted that the Iraqi regime, though undeniably heinous, did not constitute an imminent threat to United States security," Chafee wrote, "and that our campaign to renew weapons inspections in Iraq - whether by force or diplomacy - would succeed only if we enlisted a broad coalition that included Arab states."
"We also urged our colleagues to take seriously the admonitions of our allies in the region - Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey," wrote Chafee. "As King Abdullah of Jordan warned, ‘a miscalculation in Iraq would throw the whole area into turmoil.'"
Clinton voted against the Levin resolution.
Worse yet, last fall she took a similar step on Iran.
It is no secret that some in the Bush administration, including the vice president, have been pushing - and continue to push - for an attack on Iran. A crucial vote furthering that effort took place in the Senate in October. The issue was the Kyl-Lieberman resolution, which urged the Bush administration "to declare Iran's 125,000-member Revolutionary Guard Corps a foreign terrorist organization."
In an October 14 New York Times article, Helene Cooper quoted foreign-policy experts' concerns about the resolution. The Guards, a Carnegie Endowment expert told her, "are not Al Qaeda. They're not a group of voluntary jihadists signing up to fight the United States. Many are conscripts taken from the regular army."
Members of the Guards are "far more representative of Iranian society than most Americans realize," wrote Cooper. "So labeling Iran's elite fighters as terrorists is a move that is more likely to drive the Iranian population closer to the hard-liners in Tehran."
The administration was divided on Kyl-Lieberman, with Dick Cheney and other force proponents supporting it and the state department, apparently, opposing it. Twenty-two senators, worried about the administration's plans for Iran, voted against the resolution. Among them were Democrats Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Pat Leahy, and Jim Webb, and Republicans Chuck Hagel and Richard Lugar.
Clinton voted in favor of it. (It is certainly troubling that while Barack Obama says he would have voted against the resolution, he was campaigning and did not vote at all.)
There are similar concerns about Clinton on other issues. Her stand on immigration sounds good. But her actions seem driven primarily by politics. In one debate last fall, she waffled on the Spitzer drivers-license plan, but in the next one, she played politics. While Obama tried to address the complexity of the issue, Clinton jumped in with a one-word refutation of the plan, leaving her besieged governor hanging out to dry.
Incomprehensibly, Clinton has supported a constitutional amendment banning flag burning. She has opposed lifting the ban on family travel to Cuba. (Obama wants the ban lifted.) This is either pandering in its worst form or an indication of where Clinton's sentiments lie and what positions she would take as president.
"The psychodrama that is Clinton's long fight with the right - and with deep-seated forces in the country - has tended to blind too many people to straightforward assessments of her actual views and political record," wrote Sam Rosenfeld and Matthew Yglesias in the American Prospect in April.
Clinton, they concluded, is less liberal than she seems and is one of the most hawkish of the Democrats.
"One area in which she has stood out from the Democratic pack," wrote Rosenfeld and Yglesias, "is in adopting socially conservative rhetoric and positions, whether pushing a bill banning flag burning, attempting to ‘reframe' the abortion debate, or calling for an increased federal role in video-game censorship."
And that gets at the heart of a major concern about Clinton: trust. It's hard to know what she believes, whom she would listen to if she were president, and to whom she would be beholden.
Trust is important. For the nation to make the changes it must make in domestic and foreign policies, there will have to be a lot of compromise in Congress - and the next president will have to convince Americans of the need for change. Without trust, it will be easy for special interests - big oil companies and pharmaceuticals among them - to overwhelm the president's message.
Finally, there is real doubt about whether Clinton can be elected. There is widespread, incomprehensible hatred of her among conservatives, and that is sure to grow during a general election campaign, fed by Republican campaign operatives, right-wing media, and the Swiftboaters. It is possible, certainly, that the majority of voters will be repulsed by the vitriol. But it's a risk, and that risk seems greater than that the majority of voters are closet racists.
Why not Edwards?
John Edwards would be a good president. And on some issues - health care, in particular - he is stronger and more progressive than Clinton and Obama. His attacks on corporate control of American policy deserve a place in every Democrat's campaign. And he has been much more vocal than Obama and Clinton on the need to address poverty.
Regardless of who wins the Democratic nomination, wrote Christopher Hayes in the January 28 Nation, "the fact remains that the Edwards campaign has set the domestic policy agenda for the entire field. He was the first with a bold universal health-care plan, the first with an ambitious climate change proposal that called for cap and trade, and the leader on reforming predatory lending practices and raising the minimum wage to a level where it regains its lost purchasing power."
But Edwards has focused almost his entire campaign on domestic issues. As crucial as those are, the country faces so many foreign-policy challenges that it's essential to elect a president who recognizes their importance.
It's also a concern that Edwards hasn't yet captured the interest and enthusiasm of voters. Unquestionably, the mainstream media have treated him unfairly, virtually ignoring him during the early campaign period. And American politics' reliance on money has also been a handicap. But Mike Huckabee has able to overcome both well enough to become a contender, at least up to this point. Edwards' populist stand and, as the economic news worsens, his focus on helping the middle class, should have resonated more than it has.
The negative tone of Edwards' campaign may be part of the problem. The country doesn't need the almost mindless happy talk of a Ronald Reagan, but Obama's message of hope and change seems to be connecting with voters more than Edwards' anger-tinged attacks.
As for Kucinich...
By far the most liberal of the Democratic candidates, Kucinich proposes free education from kindergarten through college, withdrawal from NAFTA, and - unlike Obama, Clinton, and Edwards - true universal health care: a single-payer, universal health care system.
Some of his positions and proposals have more rhetoric than substance, however, and his anger is troubling. In addition - or perhaps as a result - he stands, to put it bluntly, absolutely no chance of being elected. You can vote for him out of commitment to important liberal positions. You can vote for him to make a statement. But this is a crucial Democratic primary. Democrats who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 helped give us George Bush and Dick Cheney.
For Obama:
For many Democrats, a key issue is Hillary Clinton's longer experience in government. That is unquestionably an issue. Voters have been so conditioned to be terrified that a candidates' length of time in government service seems to have overwhelming importance.
Voters need to question their emphasis on "experience," however. As columnist Nicholas Kristof put it in the Times on Sunday, if government experience is the principal qualification in this race, Hillary Clinton should endorse John McCain. "To put it another way," Kristof added, "think which politician is most experienced in the classic sense, and thus - according to the ‘experience' camp - best qualified to become the next president. That's Dick Cheney."
Certainly we don't need a naïf walking into the White House next January. But along with experience, voters must consider how a new president will act on that experience. We must also consider whom the new president will listen to: who the presidential advisers will be. On both counts, Obama is stronger.
Obama's critics say that Obama lacks substance. Liberal columnist Ted Rall calls him an "empty suit." Obama talks about change, Hillary Clinton and others have said, but he doesn't say how he'll accomplish it.
Either these critics are not listening to Obama, and not looking beyond the debate soundbites, or they hope voters aren't.
Read in-depth articles about him, and study his issues papers, and you find plenty of substance. You may not agree with his proposals (and many of them differ little from Clinton's and Edwards'), but the charge of "no substance" is simply wrong.
He wants to reduce Americans' dependence on foreign oil and address climate change. He supports raising fuel-efficiency standards. He supports a cap-and-trade system in which polluters will have to pay for emissions, "rather than giving these emission rights away to coal and oil companies." He would use some of the revenue to invest in clean energy, in research and development, and in helping workers affected by the transition to a new kind of economy.
He wants the US to rejoin international efforts to combat climate change and wants to create an international global energy forum of the world's largest energy-consuming nations.
He wants every home buyer eligible for mortgage-interest deductions, not just those who itemize their deductions. He wants to expand the Earned Income Tax Credit, eliminate income taxes for senior citizens who make less than $50,000, create a tax credit for the first $4000 of college costs, and expand the Child and Dependent Care tax credit.
He proposes a "Zero to Five" plan that would provide money for pre-school programs and child care. He wants to expand funding for scholarships for teachers who will work in "underserved" districts and create a "Career Ladder" program to help train and reward quality teachers.
He wants to expand loan programs for small businesses. He wants to double federal funding for scientific research. He wants to close corporate tax loopholes. For homeowners caught in the subprime crisis, he wants a fund that would help them refinance or sell their homes.
He wants an additional increase in the minimum wage and wants the minimum wage indexed to inflation.
On immigration: He would fund increased border security. He would permit immigrants who are in the country illegally but are "otherwise playing by the rules" to pay a fine, learn English, and get in line to become citizens. He would increase immigration limits "to a level that keeps families together and meets the demand for jobs that employers cannot fill." He would reverse increases in citizenship application fees and speed up background checks. And to reduce immigration pressures, he would have the US government work with Mexico to promote more economic development there.
On Iraq: He wants to have all US combat troops out within 16 months. He would keep some troops in Iraq "to protect our embassy and diplomats," but he pledges not to build any permanent bases in Iraq. He wants the United Nations to "play a central role" in getting reconciliation among the factions in Iraq. He says he would "launch the most aggressive diplomatic effort in recent American history to reach a new compact on the stability of Iraq and the Middle East." He wants an international working group to address the issue of Iraqi refugees and proposes a fund of at least $2 billion to expand services for the refugees.
He wants to increase support for ex-offenders' job training, substance-abuse aid, and mental-health counseling - and create a prison-to-work program.
To address the concentrated poverty in US cities, he wants to create a Promise Neighborhoods program, modeled after the Harlem Children's Zone.
Presidential candidates don't come up with these kinds of proposals on their own. All of them have teams of advisers. And in the crucial area of foreign policy, both Obama's leanings and his advisers are telling.
James Traub's lengthy November profile of Obama in the New York Times Magazine includes a focus on US challenges in foreign policy. "The United States has had only one foreign policy and one national-security strategy since the transforming events of 9/11," writes Traub, "and this set of doctrines has been shaped by the very distinctive worldview of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and the men and women around them."
Traub cites the Princeton Project on National Security, a bipartisan study chaired by Anthony Lake, Bill Clinton's national security adviser, and George Shultz, Secretary of State under Ronald Reagan. The study "brought together many of the foreign-policy thinkers of both parties," wrote Traub, to "think through a post-post-9/11 strategy."
The foreign-policy strategy of the future, the experts concluded, must "offer different tools for different situations, rather than only the sharp edge of a blade," wrote Traub, "must pay close attention to ‘how others may perceive us differently than we perceive ourselves, no matter how good our intentions'; must recognize that other nations may legitimately care more about their neighbors or their access to resources than about terrorism; and must be ‘grounded in hope, not fear.'
"A post-post 9/11 strategy must harness the forces of globalization while honestly addressing the growing ‘perception of unfairness' around the world; must actively promote, not just democracy, but ‘a world of liberty under law'; and must renew multilateral instruments like the United Nations."
"In mainstream foreign-policy circles," wrote Traub, "Barack Obama is seen as the true bearer of this vision."
One foreign-policy expert told Traub: "There are maybe 200 people on the Democratic side who think about foreign policy for a living. The vast majority have thrown in their lot with Obama."
"There's a feeling that this is a guy who's going to help us transform the way America deals with the world," Ivo Daalder - who was a National Security Council official under Bill Clinton and is now an Obama adviser - told Traub.
And Traub offered this assessment of Obama from Anthony Lake (also an Obama adviser): "He has the kind of mind that works its way through complexities by listening and giving some edge of legitimacy to various points of view before he comes down on his, and that point of view embraces complexity."
Obama's message of "change" has resonated with some voters, particularly young ones. Clinton insists that she, too, represents change. And certainly a Clinton administration would be a marked change from the horrors of the Bush-Cheney years. But two things point to the difference in the magnitude of change that Obama represents.
One is the issue of dynasty. As one of our letter writers noted recently, if Clinton is elected and serves a second term, the country will be headed by members of only two families - Bush and Clinton - for 28 years. (And you could add to that the fact that prior to his election as president, Bush senior served eight years as vice president, giving us 36 years of the Bush-Clinton dynasties. And down in Florida, Jeb Bush waits in the wings.)
The other issue is the conduct of the Clinton campaign: the early assumption of inevitability and the no-holds-barred politics. Sly references to Obama's youthful drug use (ignoring Bill Clinton's own), insinuations that there are unpleasant surprises waiting to be exposed, behind-the-scenes whisperings that Obama is really a Muslim: this is old-style, dirty campaigning. It represents the past, not the future.
Some commentators have noted that among the advisers to both Clinton and Obama are people who served in the Clinton administration. But the Obama advisers are people who have broken with the Clinton approach.
The nation needs fresh ideas, fresh approaches, fresh blood: change. Barack Obama best represents it, and he offers the best hope for it.
Hillary and John Edwards both say that their plans are the only ones that cover everyone and leave no one out because they will mandate coverage, which means EVERYONE has to have coverage, regardless, and if you don't get coverage than you will be punished in some way. Hillary doesn't say how she plans to enforce the mandate and Edwards says he will enforce the mandate through wage garnishment and intercepting tax refunds.
EDWARDS:
U.S. residents who can afford to pay for health insurance could have their wages garnished or tax refunds withheld in the event that they do not obtain coverage.
Edwards also said that the proposal would enroll uninsured residents in health plans when they use the health care system or public services. He said, "So if you don't have health coverage, and you go to the emergency room, you get enrolled. If you are a five- or six-year-old and you go to kindergarten or sign up for school, you get enrolled, if you're not on a health care plan. If you go to the library, you get picked up."
LINK: www.theodoresworld.net/archives/2007/12/edwards_plan_to_enforce_health.html
I'm mandating healthcare for every man woman and child in America and that's the only way to have real universal healthcare."
LINK: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/11/edwards-weighs.html
HILLARY:
Senator Clinton’s plan is a virtual clone of the new Massachusetts health care law then Governor Romney signed.
Massachusetts Healthcare Plan Costs Skyrocket By Monisha Bansal CNSNews.com Staff Writer January 25, 2008 (CNSNews.com) - According to recent reports, the cost of Massachusetts' health insurance mandate will rise 85 percent, or $400 million, in 2009. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R), meanwhile, has been on the presidential campaign trail praising the program he put into place.According to The Boston Globe, the cost increase is largely due to an increase in the number of people signing up for state-subsidized health insurance. State and federal taxpayers are likely to shoulder the cost increase.
LINK: www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200801/POL20080128a.html
Her statement that individuals will have to buy health insurance because her plan will have made it affordable is probably the biggest challenge. How will she be able to mandate affordable health insurance costs when the average cost of employer-sponsored family coverage is already up to $12,000 per year?
How do you enforce a mandate if comprehensive family health insurance costs $12,000 a year? If you think that number is too high for a reformed system, just take a look at Massachusetts or current FEHBP coverage. You can’t mandate comprehensive coverage along the lines of the FEHBP plan and expect that the costs are going to be anything less than what the typical FEHBP plan offering costs today--an FEHBP that already have guaranteed insurability and the more efficient distribution model Mrs. Clinton is proposing.
LINK: http://healthpolicyandmarket.blogspot.com/2007/10/analysis-of-senator-hillary-clintons.html
My Personal SUMMARY:
How do you mandate a family to do something they just don’t have the money for? Obama's health care plan DOESN"T mandate coverage. He makes it affordable so that everyone can afford the coverage. Under a a mandate there is no guarantee that the cost will be affordable even for those who will not qualify for the gov't subsidies. This is Obama's point.
Its not that people don't want coverage, its that they can't afford coverage. If people could afford coverage they would get health insurance. Therefore a mandate will guarantee that the cost of the coverage will be a burden on some of those who don't qualify for a subsidy. Look at the state of Massachusetts for example which is Hillary's plan in a nut shell. They are now questioning the mandate they enacted because health care costs are still soaring in the state by 7-8% and they will have to raise taxes to accomodate the increase in costs and the increase in costs comes from the mandate.
People it is just like with car insurance which is a mandate, but how much did the cost of car insurance increase after it was required by law that we all have it? A mandate does not provide cheaper coverage, it provides everyone coverage, but because there is no choice and its mandated those that offer the car insurance coverage milk the system because they no everyone MUST have coverage...
Top Earmark-er Clinton Grants $303,000 to 'Gay' Lobby Group By Fred Lucas CNSNews.com Staff Writer January 24, 2008 (CNSNews.com) - A group that lobbies for needle exchanges, for allowing more immigrants with HIV/AIDS to legally enter the country, and for condom distribution in prisons received a $303,000 federal earmark pushed by Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.). That was one of 261 earmarks Clinton personally helped usher through Congress. That's more earmarks than any other member of Congress seeking the presidency, according to an analysis by the watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW).
The funding for the earmarks came through the $555 billion FY 2008 omnibus bill, which included 11,000 earmarks. Clinton's 261 earmarks were more than twice as many as any other member of Congress seeking the presidency, the CAGW analysis showed.
THE ENTIRE ARTICLE CAN BE READ HERE:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200801/POL20080124e.html
Someone needs to counter Hillary on her supposedly 35 years of experience. All we hear is "my 35 years" of fighting for you..."in all my 35 years of experience'...."because I have been fighting for 35 years"....HUH?
What 35 years is she speaking about. She went to Wellesley then to Yale. While at Yale she was not fighting for American's she was part of the Nixon impeachment counsel team. Then she went to Arkansas to help Bill win a congress seat, which he lost, then she helped him win governor of AR, and then went to work in CORPORATE AMERICA as a corporate lawyer and partner in the Rose Law Firm, and as a member of Walmart's Board....I hear that she worked on the Children's Defense Fund...but when and for how long?
Further still, the ENTIRE time Bill was the governor of Arkansas for 12 years I think...she was working for the Rose Law firm....WHAT 35 years of experience is she talking about. PLEASE media and Obama challenge her on this. Its BS!
Lastly, she claims SCHIP...the children's health insurance...but she was 1st lady when that passed in the mid to late 90's. Don't let her take credit for that and what did she do in the White House besides DIVIDE alot of people? What experience is she talking about. HOLD HER ACCOUNTABLE...WHAT 35 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE? This is ANOTHER LIE and nobody is calling her out on it, as usual!
Just wanted to bring up a topic for discussion regarding the TV News Media, ie CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, etc. and how it seems to me, they give more airtime to HRC than Obama. Why is this? Is it because HRC and Billy make headlines and gather viewers and enhance ratings regardless of the mud they sling? It seems that Hillary and Bill get their vitriol played over and over again on all the tv news media outlets and Obama is left out in terms of his truthful, accurate, honest, right on remarks back to them. Ex: his stance on the war. I haven't heard the news media cover the fallacy of the Clintons interpretation of his comments. Play the entire comment Obama said and criticize the Clintons for distorting it and call them out on it. Further, regarding the Clintons' nastiness instead of saying "yes its nasty, but its working"...Ugh... Anyone else have an explanation for this. It makes me turn off ALL media and as a citizen I should be able to get truthful, objective, unbiased news...but it seems that corporate america who owns the news outlets control the message too?
We can only defeat the Clintons through a grass roots organization and turning out the vote for Obama as the news media and those voters who depend on it for their information and believe it to be the gospel will not work for our candidate and they will be responsible for why there is another Clinton presidency...but thats good for them because that gives them more of a chance to earn ratings because of all the numerous "unethical" things that will undoubtedly come out of this 2nd presidency.
DJones@News-Herald.com Top area Democrats disagree about who their party should nominate March 4 to run for president in November - as do their Republican counterparts. That is clearly evident when looking at the short list of potential delegates for their candidates when each party holds its national convention this summer. They disagree over Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama, and Republicans Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson. The disputes are friendly, except for some Democrats behind Clinton and Obama. In both parties, many delegates' names are familiar in the 14th Congressional District of U.S. Rep. Steven C. LaTourette, R-Bainbridge Township. The district spans all of Lake, Geauga and Ashtabula counties; large parts of Summit and eastern Cuyahoga counties; and small sections of Portage and Trumbull counties. For Edwards, the 14th District delegates are Lake County Commissioners Robert C. Aufuldish and Daniel P. Troy, and state Rep. Lorraine Fende, D-Willowick. Troy supported Edwards in 2004. In the same district, Clinton's delegates include Janet Carson, the Geauga County Democratic Party's vice chairwoman. Another Clinton 14th District delegate is Willoughby Hills City Councilman Kevin Malecek, vice president of the Lake-Geauga Young Democrats. Clinton/Obama conflict "On the Democratic side, it looks like the only real contest is between Clinton and Obama. I think Edwards is all but done, unless miracles happen in Nevada and elsewhere," Christopher Skubby, political science chairman at Lakeland Community College in Kirtland, said last week. "But in both parties, there are very confusing and unsettled primaries around here." Clinton is strongly supported by U.S. Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, D-Cleveland, whose 11th District covers the East Side of Cleveland and eastern Cuyahoga County from Euclid to Beachwood. However, Obama is preferred by leaders of the 11th District's Cleveland chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. The 11th District delegate list for Obama includes the Rev. Marvin McMickle, a former Cleveland NAACP president who once ran against Jones; and Subodh Chandra, former Cleveland law director who once ran for Ohio Attorney General. Current Cleveland NAACP President George Forbes also endorses Obama. In the 11th District, Edwards' delegates include such activists as Euclid Democratic Club President Kent Smith. In the same district, Edwards also is endorsed by former Ohio Senate Minority Leader C.J. Prentiss. "Hillary's got the support of Congresswoman Jones and Gov. (Ted) Strickland, and I still don't know if Barack Obama has the momentum in all Ohio," said Skubby, the Lakeland professor. Kim McQuaid, the political science professor at Lake Erie College in Painesville, also is watching. "The talking heads once had it as Hillary Clinton with a huge lead and unchallengeable. They were dead wrong. There is now Hillary and Obama to watch," McQuaid said. Added John C. Green, director of the Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics and distinguished professor of political science at Akron University: "Senators Clinton and Obama are very creditable candidates. Race and gender aside, these are people with real credentials. They are making dramatic change, which can create real turmoil. The times they are a-changing." Watch Republicans Among Republicans, the best-known area delegates are aligned mainly with Giuliani, Romney and Thompson. In LaTourette's district, Giuliani's area delegate roster includes state Sen. Tim Grendell, R-Chester Township. In the same district, Romney's delegates include entrepreneurs such as Kirtland businessman Jerry C. Cirino. In the 10th District of U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, a Romney delegate is Jim Trakas, the former Cuyahoga County Republican Party chairman who also is running for Kucinich's seat. Dark-horse Thompson's delegates include Janet F. Clair, the Lake County Republican Party chairwoman; Curt Lau, a party officer; and Morgan McIntosh, president of Lake-Geauga Young Republicans. "I can't think of this many Republicans at such a time," Skubby said. "It's a very confusing and unsettled election." We need to send them the message that WE want them to support OBAMA, not Hillary and not Edwards. Lets Speak up.
A coalition of California Latino leaders announced their support of Barack Obama today in press conference held in the Obama for America Los Angeles Headquarters.
State Senator Gilbert Cedillo (D-22), Vice Chair of the Latino Legislative Caucus, has announced his support for Senator Barack Obama. He had previously backed New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson. A longtime champion of social justice, Senator Cedillo cited Senator Obama's commitment to bringing about fundamental change in Washington, creating economic opportunity for all Americans, and push for comprehensive immigration reform. Senator Cedillo represents the communities of Los Angeles, Alhambra, Maywood, San Marino, South Pasadena, and Vernon.
I'm SOOOOO thrilled that someone who was endorsing Bill Richardson is throwing their support around Obama and NOT Hillary! Thank you State Senator Cedillo. Thank you for your support!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIZAuKedoa8
Truth 08. Inspiration 08. Hope 08. OBAMA 08!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4l9yRezxsA&eurl=http://thinkonthesethings.word This video on You Tube shows David Brooks, from the PBS Jim Lehr News Hour, saying that the Bush Whitehouse likes Hillary Clinton and want her to be elected because she is the one who can be trusted with the Bush Legacy more so than any of the Republican candidates. Did I hear this right? Hillary is Bush in disguise and they are afraid of Obama. Please get this word out and send the video along to all the pro Obama supporters and even to the misguided Hillary supporters so they can be more informed about who Hillary really is and throw more support behind Obama. Go Obama 08!
