Hilary Clinton's larger-than-expected victory in Ohio may have been won with votes from Republicans, and from independents who usually vote Republican.
Much has been made of Rush Limbaugh's other far-right commentators' pleas to Republicans to cast their ballots for her in open primary states like Ohio and Texas. Part of the strategy is to slow down Barack Obama, who analysts argue will be harder for John McCain to beat this fall. Others, like Ann Coulter, have gone so far as to say they actually PREFER Clinton to McCain. Such voters would certainly also prefer the former first lady to Obama.
Whatever the case, there is concrete evidence in Ohio that Republican cross-over voters did, in fact, play a significant role in delivering the Buckeye primary votes to the Senator from New York.
Ohio has a classic open primary. Party affiliation can be whatever a voter states upon entering the polls. Both of this article's writers, who usually vote Democratic or independent, chose to vote Republican in the 2006 primary, essentially because of a desire to oppose J. Kenneth Blackwell, the sitting Secretary of State, because of his role in his voter suppression during the 2004 election. In 2006, though our previous party affiliations were Democratic, each writer merely informed poll workers that we wished to cast a Republican ballot. Raised eyebrows notwithstanding, there were no problems getting them. The same opportunity allowed voters to cross-over last week.
There is clear statistical evidence that many Republican voters did cross-over. The Democratic Party "won at least 141,785 new voters in the four-county region" of Warren, Clermont, Hamilton, and Butler counties according to the Cincinnati Enquirer. Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner told the New York Times that in Clermont and Summit Counties, paper ballots ran out mostly due to a large number of independent and Republican voters crossing over to vote in the Democratic primary.
In Warren and Clermont counties, in southwestern Ohio, the number of votes cast in the Democratic primary are telling. The Cincinnati Enquirer reported that in Warren County, for example, there were 12,440 registered Democrats (9.49%) and 41,377 registered Republicans (31.57%) and 77,237 nonpartisan voters (58.94%). In Tuesday's primary, 27,855 voters (48.53%) asked for Democratic ballots, representing 223.91% of the registered Democrats in that county.
Warren County is notorious for a "homeland security" alert called by county officials on Election Day 2004, causing the ballots to be diverted to and counted in a restricted unauthorized warehouse.
In Clermont County, there were 14,496 are registered Democrats and 37,714 registered Republicans, as reported by the Enquirer. In the primary, 26,279 people voted Democratic. One Clermont County presiding judge reported running out of Democratic ballots and turning away at least 30 people, according to the Cincinnati Enquirer.
Election observers on 2004 claimed that 100 or so ballots in Clermont County has stickers over John Kerry's name, that would have caused the vote scanner not to register a marked Kerry vote.
In 2004, Warren, Clermont and nearby Butler County gave Bush some 140,00 more votes than Kerry. Bush's entire margin of victory in Ohio was less than 119,000 votes.
Dr. Richard Gunther, professor of political science at Ohio State University suggests that other factors are in play in Ohio. He sees a likely shift of independent voters, similar to the elections of 1930, 1932 and 1934. In those elections, spurred by the Great Depression, independent and Republican voters shifted their loyalties to the Democratic Party and Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, causing a fundamental realignment in politics that lasted for fifty or so years.
There were some technical issues with voting machines in Tuesday's election. The Enquirer reported on power outages in Darke and Hamilton counties and reports of electronic touch-screen voting machines problems in Montgomery County. Voters at one precinct in Lucas County (Toledo) voted on paper ballots after the electronic voting machines failed, according to the Toledo Blade.
Secretary of State Brunner has made significant strides toward guaranteeing freer, fairer and more transparent elections. In the wake of massive irregularities under Former Secretary of State Blackwell in the 2004 election, Brunner has committed the state to paper ballots. In Cuyahoga County (Cleveland), she forced the resignation of Republican Board of Elections (BOE) Chair Bob Bennett, along with the rest of the board. Bennett forced the county to spend $20 million on electronic touch-screen voting machines, which proceeded to crash in the 2005 primary. Among other things, they registered a 14% vote count error, according to a BOE study.
This spring Brunner ditched the machines in Cuyahoga County in favor of paper ballots. Ironically, the county ran out of the Democratic ballots, indicating a higher than expected turnout of voters for the Democratic primary. In response, a federal judge ordered several Cleveland polling stations to stay open until 9pm so everyone could vote.
In Franklin County (Columbus) a survey by the 16-member election protection team from the Columbus Institute for Contemporary Journalism showed that it took an average of 15 minutes to vote in inner city precincts such as ward #5 and #55. These two precincts had lines between three to seven hours long in 2004.
Restrictions on absentee and early voting were not present in this year's voting as they had been in 2004. Co-author Harvey Wasserman got his absentee ballot in the mail without incident this year, whereas it took four phone calls in 2004. The Franklin County Board of Elections opened with extended hours on the Monday before the primary to give voters greater flexibility.
Two days before primary election day, Brunner forced the resignation of Franklin County BOE Chair Matt Damschroder. Election officials told the Free Press that Damschroder met with Bush, Blackwell and Karl Rove on election day 2004. Misallocation of voting machines and other irregularities caused inner city residents to wait up to five hours to vote in his bailiwick. Prior to that election, in his BOE office, Damschroder accepted a $10,000 check for the Franklin County Republican Party from a representative of the Diebold voting machine company. Inexplicably, after Damschroder resigned, the Franklin County BOE, including two Democrats, voted to retain him as a "consultant" at over $11,000 per month salary.
Anecdotal evidence from Texas, where Clinton won the popular vote in the Democratic primary, also indicates Republican and Republican-leaning independent cross-over voting may have had an impact. While losing the popular vote by a narrow margin, Obama won that state's caucuses, and emerged from Texas with more Democratic delegates than did Clinton.
Evidence in general would suggest that the intrusion of normally Republican voters into the Democratic primary may signify what statisticians call an "asymmetrical entrance" of new voters. Such a phenomenon could signal malicious cross-over voters or signs of a Democratic realignment, or both. This would also cause errors in pre-election polls. The post-election exit polls may have been affected by the so-called "Bradley Effect," in which white voters casting ballots in an election where a white candidate is running against a black one tend to mislead exit pollsters about how they cast their actual vote.
This fall it is virtually certain that Ohio will once again play a key role in choosing the next president. Except for John Kennedy in 1960, no candidate has won the presidency without carrying the Buckeye State since the 1840s.
This spring, the Buckeye State has also played a critical part in the race for the Democratic nomination. And it would appear that Ohio Republicans and independents who generally vote Republican were key in handing the state to Hillary Clinton.
Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman are co-authors of How the GOP Stole America's 2004 Election & Is Rigging 2008 (www.freepress.org). With Steve Rosenfeld they co-wrote What Happened iin Ohio? from the New Press.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
96 Comments so far
Show Alllearnfromthepast,
Thanks for the links to the Rezko/Obama story.
25% of Clinton's White Voters in Mississippi were crossovers... even old Chris Matthews said they were following Limbaugh's marching orders.
I don't know what the hullabaloo is. The GOP thinks Clinton is more defeatable because that's what the polls say. The polls reflect the disenchantment of the Democratic base with the DLC, and the right wing's longstanding abhorrence of Clinton.
This is how they got rid of Cynthia McKinney. It's well known.
Why do Clinton supporters keep foaming at the mouth over this?
Get real. Obama's recent downturn in the national polls, although still ahead, is a direct consequence of Clinton's filthy campaign tactics.
Everyone knows THAT too. If she can't have it nobody can. Regarding this matter even old Riverman is correct.
What's the fuss? If you have a mole on your face, call it a beauty mark and get on with your life. Quit your snivelling.
Americans out of the U.S. have been apologizing and explaining how we - the US! - could have elections resembling a banana republic for the last two Presidential elections.
Please, let's not have this 2008 election stolen - again. We must regain the good view other countries always had of us.
Carole
Americans-Away-From-Home.com
You're conclusions are biased and you article is sexist. There is no concrete evidence that republican voters in Ohio crossed over and voted for Clinton any more than the alleged cross over vote went to Obama. You're basic premise is that a woman can't pull this vote on her own without the urging of a few whacks on am talk radio and the mass migration of republican voters, quite frankly you're article is offensive. I live and vote in Texas; a state that used to be a solid blue state with a long standing tradition of supporting strong democratic women, there was NO mass cross over vote here, you're data is indeed Anecdotal and you are twisting it around to suit your needs.
anne faith - unlike some of our progressive friends I am sure that either Obama or Clinton would be better than McCain for our country.
I also agree with you that voting for any candidate is more a decision based on gut feeling than on the reality of the candidates beliefs -whatever that may be. :-)
You are right that Kucinich deserves our trust but politics is a 'business' and people like Carter and Kucinich may fail us in getting policies enacted just because they are so honest.
Today's politicians spend allot of money on focus groups and marketing companies to 'package' and 'brand' their pitch. We are just voter groups to identify and win over.
Let's hope that in the future the Internet can help the everage citizen figure out quicker what is true and what is hype without relying on the filter of the media conglomerates.
For those that think Obama bringing about a 'new' age of politics they may want to read that he won his first race for the State Senate using politics as ussual:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070403obama-ballot,1,57567.... )
"Billary supporters, the real ones, would disagree with me, surely; for, and after all, they absolutely and insanely want her to win. But they'd "just" be anti-democratic and bigot, hypocrite, etc., which is not a persuasive approach with me."
I wonder what makes Clinton Democrats really tick. It seems like there is a VAST difference between progressive Dems and Clinton Dems. Witness the results in Mississippi, where the vast majority of white Dems went for Clinton.
There is definitely a difference here and it's worth noting. I think this race has more to do with race and class than gender.
Thanks, learnfromthepast. I will listen to that interview, and yes, Bill is a very good advocate for his wife; he can be very persuasive.
I will tell you that both my parents and two of my closest female friends are all strong Hillary supporters, and I don't begrudge them that support. They felt that Bill Clinton was a great president, that our country was at peace, that our economy was good, and they hope that Hillary would bring more of the same. My mother would love to have Bill back in the Whitehouse, even if only as an advisor. I don't share that view.
We all have our perceptions of the candidates, and there is no right or wrong answer when it comes to perception. A lot of this is just gut feeling, I think, as to who would be truer to their campaign rhetoric. Like I said, I'm a Kucinich girl. I trust him completely (and miss him terribly), unlike the other candidates, who have not earned my trust.
anne faith -Thanks for your considerate post
you are right that from all I know about Hillary and the Clintons you have not changed my mind
You seem to take a free hand in characterizing Hillary as 'just like Bush' from her votes and positions.
I happen to think she is closer to her husband (without the sex scandal) and if she wins she will likely govern in the same way he did. I also think that Bill Clinton's Presidency was a good one - despite the vehement opposition he faced from the conservatives and Republicans.
BTW - I listened to Clinton's interview on Limbaugh's show. I urge you to do the same as I thought the interviewer did a good job and Clinton as ussual was very persuasive as a proponent of his wife.
Here is a couple of links that gave me a better perspective on Obama's Chicago political experience and the Rezko trial (and house purchase assistance) that could potentially hurt him:
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4365942&page=1
Reformer: Trial Will Reveal 'Cesspool' of Obama's Allies
Trial for Indicted Fundraiser Tony Rezko Set for Monday
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections...
From The Times
March 3, 2008
Court case makes life difficult for Barack Obama
James Bone in Chicago
<>
http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/The_Obama_Craze_Count_Me_Out_5413.ht...
The Obama Craze: Count Me Out
by Matt Gonzalez‚ Feb. 27‚ 2008
One more thing about Clinton. Did anyone know that Bill Clinton was on Rush Limbaugh's show the day of the Texas primary? That, according to Andrew Sullivan:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/clinton-wen...
Learnedfromthepast, yes, you deserve facts, not rhetoric. But if the facts you know thus far about Hillary Clinton haven't dissuaded you from supporting her, nothing I say will change that. And let me just say that I am not an Obama supporter. I'm a Kucinich supporter. All the things people say about Obama -- voting to fund the war, supporting nuclear power, coal plants, the Patriot Act, the bankruptcy "reform" act, the Class Action Fairness Act, etc., etc. are absolutely true. He's no progressive.
But Hillary, in my opinion, is far, far worse.
You said it yourself: "Her [Iraq] vote was a culculated political move..." That's the point: it was calculated. She is a calculating person.
You think that we'd have a better shot at progressive policies, peace and universal healthcare with Clinton than with Obama. I just don't see it that way. She calls herself a progressive, but she's no progressive.
On peace, Clinton voted for the Iraq War and for the Kyl-Lieberman resolution that Georgie Boy will use as the excuse to bomb Iran. She supported the Iraq War all along and from day one, until campaign time. Then suddenly, she's against the war. But, unlike John Edwards, she never apologized for that vote or acknowledged that she was wrong. She's just like Bush in her willingness to lie and distort reality to achieve her ends and in her unwillingness to admit to making mistakes. We don't need another sociopath in the White House. Bottom line: She's the WAR candidate, not the peace candidate.
On "universal healthcare," as kathyodat noted somewhere on one of these threads, Hillary's plan would mandate that everyone enrich the insurance companies to obtain "universal" coverage, and if they don't pay, the government will garnish their wages.
HR 676 (of which Dennis Kucinich is a co-sponsor) is true universal healthcare: single-payer not-for-profit healthcare. No more health insurance companies, no more premiums or co-pays or deductibles or pre-existing conditions, etc. Hillary doesn't support that. Yet she has stolen the label "universal healthcare" and adopted it as her own.
She's willing to stab her own party in the back for the sake of her own ambition (e.g., saying that she and McCain have foreign policy experience, and Obama does not). I could go on and on and on.
Progressives have already been burned once by the Clintons, who turned their back on gay rights, on protecting the Haitians, on helping the poor (think "welfare reform'), on NAFTA, etc., etc. Do you really want to get burned again?
cranky_chatter March 10th, 2008 8:20 pm
"When someone that seems intelligent otherwise, is hellbound and determined to parrot the corporate media out here in the netherrealm of the internet…
Well, guess what…
Yup, they are paid operatives."
maybe this is true, anything is possible, i remember back in the 1980's, the word on the street was reagan had infiltrated over 1000 anti nuclear groups in the USA. it's possible this was true, but i had a hard time naming 20 antiwar groups in 1984 - if i assume the numbers were accurate, every peace group w/ more than 20 people was infiltrated (including the one i participated with). let's be real... we have to do our own homework. i've always assumed that anyone could be 'listening' at all times, privacy is no longer sacrosanct. stand up and speak truth................
and the same espionage tactics (listening to the words spoken in the inner sanctums of fascists/corporate/religious nuts/racists) employed by the right can be used by the left. there's a wonderful book, an anarchist cookbook: recipes for disaster by the crimethInc. ex workers collective. the book details how you should approach such an endeavor (going to a kkk meeting, attending a republican caucus, becoming a stock holder of exxon, etc...)
http://www.crimethinc.com/books/
cranky_chatter March 11th, 2008 1:36 am
"If I think CNN has negligible credibility MY judgment is lacking? I suggest you unplug the idiot box and renew your library card."
since i'm the only person who quoted CNN (iowablackbird March 11th, 2008 12:28 am), i'll assume your comment was directed towards my post. first, it was CNN quoting a newsweek article, i had read the article earlier in the week (sunday) but i couldn't remember the site (my memory fails me sometimes) so a quick google later i found the quote (which was redistributed on CNN's newswire).
irrespective of the secondary source, the quote is attributed to hillary clinton - she actually said pledged delegates can shift their allegiance if they wish (not super delegates- pledged delegates from the primarys and caucuses). in english this means clinton doesn't believe the voters wishes need to be honored at the convention (hence the orwell quote).
this really supersedes any of these discussions b/c if the pledges themselves are meaningless why even vote? also isn't it a little ironic that a foreign policy adviser of obama is ridiculed and dismissed for describing hillary's tactics but hillary herself can ridicule the whole concept of pledged delegates and no one seems to care ?
ps... my library card has never expired and i don't own an idiot box. also cranky- today there's a nice brief interview with george mcgovern and jim hightower over at democracy now about superdelegates, i hope you caught it if not.....http://www.democracynow.org/ (3/11/80).
the original clinton interview where she suggests pledged delegates can go where they choose...
http://www.newsweek.com/id/120062/page/2 .................
also... beforkids and sllawerence, you both are absolutely correct about the sorry state of literacy/critical thinking abilities here in the US........
...peace..............
Riverman -- Everyone's vote counts on a jury of one's peer, and it is equally so for our republican form of representative democracy.
The problem isn't intelligence, but free access to truthful information.
The test you mentioned is elitist, and provides no way to guarantee that these privileged voters would be any better. Our system today works on one's wealth, as the more one has the more influence that is funneled into govt corporate welfare, which perpetuates the class gradient.
PBS is far too subservient to corporate and non-govt'l organization (NGO), and all election debates MUST be free and independent of the corporate revolving door of $ => Influence => Payola => more $ … … …
Kill off the media empire, govt "national security" secrecy hoax, and return the media and investigative journalism to the people, and watch the govt start being afraid of the people for a change - as it MUST BE.
Namaste
… … … … … Mahatma Gandhi … & … ML King … … Inspiration … … … … …
« We must be the change we wish to see in the world »
« There is a sufficiency in the world for man's need but not for man's greed »
« We adopt the means of nonviolence because our end is a community at peace with itself » — MLK
anne faith - we all have allot to learn and without doubt we'll learn much about the Obama phenom.
It would be more helpful if you countered my opinion with some fact then empty rhetoric.
The Obama 'brand' is good politics - time will prove if it is good for America.
I have to admit I don't buy into BS easily and prone to critical investigation of political rhetoric - and thankfully with the Internet we can all do so without the filter of the media conglomerates.
It is a fact that Wall Street is supporting Obama's business friendly economic policies and healthplan and that the media that helped sell us Bush's Iraq War is ignoring his Chicago political baggage as well as his dissengenious criticsm of Hillary on NAFTA and her War vote - but you can be sure McCain will not.
I urge all of us to search for information about these two candidates as vetting Obama and Clinton is our job - if we leave it up to big media we'll surely get what we deserve.
Here is a decent article with good information about Obama's support from Wall Street.
http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&...
BeForKids (10:44) said: I think we need to address our defective educational system.
Right on. And the parental role is crucial, too. No matter what, I read to my kids every night, almost from birth. They are both avid readers today, they both do lots of research before they vote or form opinions, and the trend continues with their children. But here's what's happening, and I think that BeForKids is right: it's the educational system.
From New Pairodimes:
The U.S. Population is Functionally Illiterate
As I discussed recently in the Ray Bradbury post, and the discussion about the CATO expert believing we as voters are too ignorant to vote intelligently, I found something while searching on google that is dismaying to those of us who are politically and intellectually engaged.
1/3 of high school graduates never read another book for the rest of their lives.
42 percent of college graduates never read another book after college.
80 percent of U.S. families did not buy or read a book last year.
70 percent of U.S. adults have not been in a bookstore in the last five years.
and more:
http://newpairodimes.blogspot.com/2007/06/u.html
anne faith, you're right. What we would get from another Clinton is universal corporate profits and garnished wages to provide them. The worst of it is, "a plan for every pocketbook" meaning if you can't afford health care we have a cheap worthless plan for you.
kathyodat
Thank you moonshadow, but you're wasting your time talking to riverman. He's some crazy religious nut who thinks women should be chained to the bedpost.
kathyodat
Learnedfromthepast said:
"Let's not be so judgemental of Hillary... Her [Iraq] vote was a culculated political move and very few of us can judge her as we don't know what Clinton(s) know. ... My best guess is that if you want progressive policies, Peace or universal Healthcare your best bet would be with another Clinton."
I think you still have much to learn.
Seems straightforward to me. Rush Limbaugh told Republicans to run out and vote for Hillary because she would be easier to beat and they did. What I think is hilarious is that they then expected to be able to vote again in the Republican primary. Perhaps hilarious is the wrong word because our country is so full of pathetically ignorant people making political decisions. Unlike riverman, who believes people need to be disenfranchised because they are born defective, I think we need to address our defective educational system. We are losing many bright minds we need because of social neglect. You cannot serve two masters, and Clinton has chosen hers, via the DLC.
kathyodat
Thank you, Vince, for your concise and well-thought-out post!
Riverman, what possible logic is there in alienating woman voters by your rants implying that we are incapable of logical thought? Smacks all too much of Victorian assertions that women could not be doctors, could not vote, could not fill in the blank because of the way their brains worked. The same sort of thing has been said about any minority that the white power structure wanted to keep down. We're 51% of the population and you should be encouraging us to vote for your candidate instead of driving us away with your ill-considered and insulting arguments.
P.S. Insisting that God does it this way is not logical. Belief in God is not empirical proof, it is faith. If you want to impress me, leave God out of your arguments and give me the facts so that I may analyze them logically.
Just another example of how much effort goes into persuading the public that it actually has a say in who we put in office.
" COMarc March 10th, 2008 11:53 am
I always like Mr. Wasserman's point of view. But his analysis always falls short with me.
In this case, he fails to take the last step. He points out the higher number of Democratic voters than expected in Republican areas. But he fails to take the next step which is to tell us which candidates got support in these areas. Did these Republican strongholds go for Clinton? ...
..."
IF YOU DIDN'T READ THE ARTICLE, then that's the way to get the answer to the above, for I believe it's minimally inferred in strong terms that the answer is 'yes'; based on the article and its title, anyway.
And the additional details about the 2006 and 2004 elections are fine of the two writers to have referred to in this article, and people reading articles should not treat articles meant for readers in general as if meant only for oneself.
" COMarc March 10th, 2008 11:58 am
...
If you don't like the rules, work to have them changed. But you can't possibly say that this result wasn't 'legitimate'."
THE AUTHORS OF the article did not claim otherwise. They did not conclude saying that they know she illegitimately won in Ohio, but did say, or infer anyway, that if the Republican and Independent voters who switched over did so only to try to make sure that Billary and not Obama would win, then these voters were not honest, but 'malicious'. And I'd say that all such votes are illegitimate [and] anti-democratic.
Billary supporters, the real ones, would disagree with me, surely; for, and after all, they absolutely and insanely want her to win. But they'd "just" be anti-democratic and bigot, hypocrite, etc., which is not a persuasive approach with me.
Fitrakis and Wasserman did not say the switch happened for malicious reasons. After all, they clearly state that last-minute switching has happened before and at a time when the switch was understandable. They also leave it sufficiently stated that today is such a period, though without guaranteeing that switches are now happening for honest reasons. They stated all they evidently can about this aspect for now.
forgot an important fact in lower ohio at least they sure love their confederate flags(counted five in my 10 mile drive to work) not including the ones on cars Hello can we say racist.
not only did repukes vote for hillary (I personally know of 5) this state has been going in the hole for years. someone said it best " their more interested in being entertained than educated". NO ONE talks of how to be part of the change majority sit back and pray for it to suddenly happen. was one of the biggest supporters of the govenor, but got grossed out on how he has been kissing up to hrc every chance he gets. must be something in if for him.lost all respect for him. he should have stayed neutral on this one. he stood behind her at the famous rally and shook his head in agreement while she scolded obama about nafta, after her husband put it into play. it may be good for other states, but as our governor knows how nafta is killing ohio by the day. she also had the balls to come to lordstown (general motors) and give the same "I!ll help you story. WHAT A JOKE!!!! at least the union gave no endorsement. they at least have sense to know that every election , they promise to help ohio, but after these people elect them it's like we don't exist. you would think they would learn but oh no every four years it's groundhog day in ohio. WILL THE LAST PERSON LEAVING OHIO PLEASE TURN OUT THE LIGHTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
johncpt
Wasserman and Fritakis are driving forces in Election Reform today. They are gifted and brilliant investigators.
You call them "the worst kind of rabble rousers?" and have the audacity to compare them with Rush Limbaugh... even to assert that they're worse than Rush Limbaugh? If we find credibility in this article we are "RABBLE?"
How dare you presume to parrot the corporate media and speak disdainfully of the reasoned opinions of the others on this board.
If I think CNN has negligible credibility MY judgement is lacking? I suggest you unplug the idiot box and renew your library card.
In the words of Jack and Jill Politics today, responding to Ferraro's ABSURD and DESULTORY remarks...."If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."
"Kiss my lucky Black Ass." JnJ
Folks, there is a distinguised difference between, Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton. Why are people attempting to potray the two as One? They are different. Obama voted against the Bush Deception to invade Iraq. Clinton voted with Bush/Chaney to invade Iraq.
Granted, both voted to fund the process in an effort to provide for the Troops. (Another play on the People by Bush/Cheney: If the Troops had their way, there would only be Blackwater employees in Iraq)
Clinton, as demonstrated by the Republican support in the Ohio and Texas primaries, is deeply ingrained in the Status Quo Establishment. Integrity is spelled, "Win at any cost; Sell your soul for the nomination; We must stay the course; Redo Florida and Michigan; Let the Superdelagates decided" Honor has no place in Politics.
On the other hand, Obama has established a degree of Integrity that is frightening to a People that is void of such. Bush/Cheney, McCain Russert/Limbaugh and so many others. His authentic desire to restore Constitutional Integrity, employ new approaches to solving National and Foreign Issues. Accountability of Elected Officials to the American People, and Justice for the Unjustly treated. These unique qualities, undemonstrated in many others, have created Hope, and Trust from the People.
Many of you will respond with convenient facts to support your idea, however the Spirit of the matter in America is real. The time has arrived that we must rid ourselves of this immoral idea that is covertly destroying the GOD Given Rights of All to enjoy Fruit of the Earth.
This article would have us believe that Limbaugh would actually be truthful about whether Hillary is the Democrats best candidate? come on!
riverman101 - you write "hillary must be thrown out of all govt as well as all the other yes voters !!!!"
Perhaps Hillary is not the 'monster' the Obama camp accuses her to be?
Let's take the vote by 77-23 by the Senate (and Hillary) to give Bush the right to go to War if Iraq refused to give up weapons of mass destruction.
Let's assume that Clinton(s) has connections that told them that Bush Jr was gunning for Iraq and was going to use 9-11 as his pretext, and perhaps that he had already given the order to invade (widely reported).
It has been said that Politics is War without the blood - and the politics used against the Clintons prove this to be true and we even see it used by Obama with big media cheering him on.
Let's not be so judgemental of Hillary when we all saw that big media united to to spread the Bush/Cheney lies about Iraq's 'weapons of mass destruction' she knew much more than we that marched in opposition to the War.
Her vote was a culculated political move and very few of us can judge her as we don't know what Clinton(s) know.
I will remind you that besides bringing Peace to Ireland Bill Clinton was very close to bringing Peace to Israel/Palestine but the Neo-Cons via Richard Pearle spread the word that Israel should wait for a better deal with Bush Jr.
http://www.elandslide.org/preview.cfm?term=Richard%20Perle
Why Obama has even chosen to attack Bill Clinton's accomplishments and hold out Reagan as his role model?
I would support Obama but all the trashing of the Clintons is getting old (as in old politics) and perhaps shows the true colors of Obama and his backers.
My best guess is that if you want progressive policies, Peace or universal Healthcare your best bet would be with another Clinton
great idea woody, new primary structure/new convention-rules is the way to go.
------------------------------------------
hillary suggested had a similar idea yesterday (a rule change) - i think she's a few steps ahead of us Clouseau's, we always show up after the damage is apparent. she suggested delegates pledged to voters in caucuses that already voted (like the folks in IA, NV, TX, WA ect...) aren't necessarily obliged to abide by their committed pledges. in other words, anythings possible. when i read that article i realized i'm truly living in oceania. a land where the power of voice/words overrides all reason. i will lead you......pledges don't matter....i will lead you....
{Posted: 08:27 AM ET
Clinton noted Sunday pledged delegates can still vote for whomever they choose.
(CNN) — In a new interview, Hillary Clinton again seems to raise the prospect that "pledged" delegates - those awarded based on election results - might still be considered up for grabs..
"There are elected delegates, caucus delegates and superdelegates, all for different reasons, and they're all equal in their ability to cast their vote for whomever they choose," she told Newsweek in an interview published Sunday. "Even elected and caucus delegates are not required to stay with whomever they are pledged to."}
'but if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought' - orwell
....peace.........
More on superdelegates and the rules. The rules in the Republican primary called for "winner take all" in many states. Had that been the rule in the democratic primaries, Hillary would have 1349 delegates and Obama would have 1305 delegates to date. By convention time, it is likely that the two canditates will be in a virtual tie and Superdelegates will decide. It will be very unfortunate for those of us who would like to see more progressive government, if either camp "boycotts" the election because they were so personally invested in ONLY their candidate that they could vote for no other democrat; and would prefer to accept McCain and his sidekick Lieberman taking us into yet more unnecessary wars and economic policies that weaken the middle class.
arkitekton - my sentiments exactly. Sloppy, lacking real facts, repeating hearsay and conjecture. If you're going to rage against the machine you should first make sure there is ammunition in your weapon.
Should all the California superdelegates vote as Californians voted? All the NY superdelegates as NY voted? Texas, New Jersey, and Massachusetts voters (including Kennedy and Kerry) as those states voted? In the Texas primary - which most resembles a general election - over 2 million voters voted with a nod to Hillary. In the Texas caucus that popular will was reversed by a subset of primary voters who were either able to persuaded to vote twice. What is democratic about that? When all is said and done (especially if Florida and Michigan revote); it is very possible that one candidate will have gathered more popular votes, and another candidate more delegates. In the green party, there is not primary system to put Ralph Nader on the ballet. Same for the liberatarian party. At the end of the day, the Democratic party is still a political party with its own rules. As wacky as the Texas two-step was; superdelegates are part of the rules. Any candidate can make superdelegates a moot point by reaching the convention with the number of delegates necessary to win a first ballot nomination. That won't happen. If one of the candidates gets arrested for accepting bribes before the convention; I think it is the DUTY of the superdelegates to vote for the other, more electable one even if he/she has fewer delegates. That is the extreme, but the rules are written to allow the superdelegates to break a virtual tie by voting for who THEY (not you or me) thinks is the best candidate. Perhaps they'll change the rules after this.
personally i believe ohio was lost for a variety of reasons, that many have noted, including........
scketchy polls- bradley effect/ bad allocation of time during the campaign/ nafta-canadagate / red telephone ad/ NBC bias -SNL sketches/ unreasonable expectations -examine the polls 8 weeks out of the election, obama made a hell of a comeback/ the debate performance / rezco -- (all points elaborated upon at http://www.progressive.org/node/6159/print. i also believe al gore jimmy carter, and john edwards soon will have to accept responsibility for a 3rd clinton term if they do not speak out and endorse obama soon, why are they so timid? what are they waiting for? (maybe the photo op at independence hall?)
of course several of the reasons above are indirectly or directly tied to republicans/conservatives working in colusion to stop obama's momentum (i mean how in the world can she assert the other democratic candidate - remember the other one paired down from a field 8/9 isn't qualified. basically she just called over 10 million americans who voted for obama - dumb (i mean none of those voters honestly believed obama was qualified to be president? right? hey is he black? really? he is mighty articulate isn't he - high rhetorical oratory, migh, migh)
nafta-canada/nbc-snl/nbc-debate/republican crossover (influenced by limbaugh) all can be attributed to corporate-conservative america rejecting obama and going with the sure bet (the one mccain can easily beat) - honestly besides hillary wall street practically owns the whole family (bill/chelsea). i'll put it in context there are only a handful of people in the world who have oil tankers named after them - in the world-, and then there's a few people in the world who were full fledged board members of walmart for at least 5 years (probably more oil tankers named after people in the whole world don't ya think). of all the fouls committed, the republican crossover voting bothers me the least. the masses can be reeducated before the general by their neighbors and the media once they realize he's (obama) is going to win.
unfortunately the owners of General Electric, Clear Channel Communications, WalMart, Exxon-Mobil are more distant, ethereal, almost invisible - yet undoubtedly the real force, the visible/invisible hand, behind american power. funny, if hillary wins we'll have a former exxon brd member leaving - have a great life condy!!! - and former brd member of walmart & her husband - moving up to the head of the table. how fitting.
i'm under no illusion that obama also doesn't represent their interests, that's because conventional wisdom mandates that their intersts are our interests. however, i have faith, and of course i can't prove faith, that mr obama will be more than a happy smile on a fascist face. obama is no allende unless we make him one, it's up to us........
see you in the streets of denver.....
....peace......
Folks-
If you agree with the logic that superdelegates should not overrule the will of the voters, you should think about taking a few minutes to send a letter like the sample one below. It has the potential to be a very powerful act of mass nonviolent resistance.
***
You may contact your Democratic senators and representatives at:
http://www.senate.gov
http://www.house.gov
Dear Senator XXX,
I am a registered Democrat and I've voted in every election since 1988. Should Senator Obama lead in pledged delegates and popular vote at the time of the convention and the superdelegates do not follow, I will stay home in November. No Democrat in any race will get my vote, and I will strongly urge other Democrats to stay home as well.
Please share this with your fellow superdelegates.
Thank you,
XXX
Oops, I meant 10% MORE Obama voters did not vote down the democratic primary ballot in the senate, judge races.
Canuckchuck___Things must really be getting bad. Your last post sounds so grim, you have evidently lost your sense of humor. Come on, get back in the groove, we have too many posts already that claim all is lost, no hope, so it doesn`t matter what we do.
I agree we could go over the cliff, but no one can predict what is going to happen, and we may come out of this yet. We have 300 mil people and many are doing all they can to keep going. The problem makers are a minority so it is not right to give up on the USA.
In Texas, exit polls showed about 13% of voters identified themselves as "crossover" (which is typical) and they mostly went for Obama - about 54% to 46%. People lie in exit polls you say? OK, the verifying statistic is a comparison of how Obama versus Hillary voters voted "down ballot" (that is in senate, judge, sheriff, etc. in the democratic primaries). One would expect that more "crossover" voters would not be interested in voting down the ballot. Sure enough; in Texas about 10% Obama voters did not vote down the ballot in other democratic races. Those, I think will be statistics that Superdelegates - who more more savvy and less conspiratorial in nature - will be interested in. They may be interested in whether on election day, the candidate at the top of the ticket will also be attracting voters who will vote for Democrats down the ticket. That and whether the candidate will have the best chance of winning the swing states like Florida and Ohio or 40% of the votes in all the mountain state where all the electoral votes will be going to McCain. I voted in both the Texas primary and caucus. The primary was easy and most like a general election - quick and private. The caucus took over two hours in the evening - hard for blue collar workers on 2nd shift and middle income families with children at home waiting for dinner...Hillary voters.
I am all for letting Independents vote, but Republicans? Thats nuts. I wonder who Osama voted for, but he is in Crawford making videos, so I guess he can not vote for Hillary in Texas, him being as Republican and all. Oops, guess he could in Texas too.
Fitrakis and Wasserman are engaging in the most contemptible rabble rousing imaginable here. This article is worse than the trash that comes out of the mind of creeps like Limbaugh. How dare Fitrakis/Wasserman suggest that Limbaugh sought to "help" Hillary by suggesting that republicans vote for her? This is a disgusting lie. Limbaugh was obviously seeking to destroy Hillary, by the very act of seeming to support her, and all the nincompoops in the dem party, fell for this nonsense.
jp
I beleive Hallary's campaign promises about as much as I believed Bush's 2000 election promises.
Remember compassionate conservatism, and no nation building?
Fiscal responsibility and a nation of laws?
Hillary is just another lying bag of shit politico, full of dirty tricks and corporate cash.
Maybe she should run as Obama's VP? Then she could be President after some white supremist retard does a MLK on his ass...
VINCE LAWRENCE: Good posting on that higher thing than logic.
CFRANKY CHATTER: I am glad you raised the point about Rush Limbaugh. Most who post on this site are BY NATURE independent thinkers. Maybe we were born with good BS detectors, and therefore it is difficult for us to understand the types of people who think someone with major influence in media could be wrong! Rush and his ilk make people struggling through lives of quiet desperation feel good because they are told it's OK to hate others, and feel superior to those who suffer. Rush is to the politics of free speech what the imbecile who yells "FIRE" is to the movie going crowd. I'd like to see him penalized, too. He should be stripped of all media influence. On the other hand, there will be a special karma for those like him who helped to raise the tide of hate and divisiveness in times that desperately call for caring and unity.
Wow, one just has to LOVE American democracy! Watching the circus from the outside is entertaining, disconcerting and confusing. Unfortunately, it also affects the world outside the bubble.
I understand from articles I have read that the Repubs who crossed over are now angry and feel disenfranchised because they were not told that once they had voted, regardless of affiliation, they were unable to vote a second time, but for the Republican candidate. Geez! How unfair! Only able to vote once in a caucus/primary? (Okay, some Texan Democrats can do this.)
cranky_chatter, that would explain some of these Clinton supporters who keep repeating the same talking points, and ignore her shortcomings because there's no question who Big Pharma would prefer in the Oval Office. Then you have people who are willing to turn a blind eye to see a woman in office. I would love to see a woman in office, but even more, I want to see someone with integrity, principles, sound judgment and leadership qualities. In 48 years of watching Presidents, I've seen every one of them seriously age in office. Even playboy Bush. It's an incredibly demanding job, and frankly, Hillary already looks like she's on the verge of falling apart. She's not showing good judgment in the way she's attacking Obama, she's harming her party in her efforts to harm him. McCain already looks ready to retire. We may well end up with his Vice President, whoever that might be. Already the wisdom out is he should choose someone young. I am glad Obama didn't get down and dirty like Hillary, I would have been disappointed in him if he did. But he meant it when he said he wants politics to bring out the best in us, not the worst. And when the going gets rough, he doesn't take the easy way out. I have to admire that. If he had, he would have betrayed the hopes and ideals of our young people, but he didn't, and I like him even better than before, and Hillary even less.
kathyodat
One poster wrote: "There's evidence that the same thing happened in parts of Texas."
Unfortunately, there's no evidence that "the same thing" happened in Ohio. Bob and Harvey don't actually present any facts directly supporting their thesis.
There's a case to be made, and a sound article on this subject to be written, but the authors haven't done it.
I found out researching the fat cats... megapharms specifically... that they have unlimited resources.
They hire trolls and disinformation agents for sites exactly like this one.
Unlimited resources... sound paranoid?
When someone that seems intelligent otherwise, is hellbound and determined to parrot the corporate media out here in the netherrealm of the internet...
Well, guess what...
Yup, they are paid operatives.
consider your covers pulled, BUB
http://isaacs.newsvine.com/_news/2008/03/06/1348806-election-fraud-again...
Butler County in southwest Ohio is the most Republican county of all Ohio's 88 counties. 26 county offices and none of them are held by Democrats. Yet, the strangest thing happened on Tuesday... the Butler County Democratic Party increased in registered members by over 200% and now has more registered members than the Republican Party. Hillary Clinton won this county in the Democratic Primary by 10%.
Election Fraud Against Obama In Ohio: More Comes Out
Barack Obama won only 5 out of 88 counties in Ohio and those counties were the ones where Democrats are abundant. Yet Hillary Clinton won the state by only 10%. I have been told directly by Republicans here in Ohio that they voted for Hillary for the express purpose to either cause a split convention or to get her nominated because they know she is the weakest candidate against John McCain. To a person they will all be returning to voting Republican in the general election. To a judge monitoring the elections, Marilyn Hatfield, numerous Republicans taking a Democratic ballot said they were voting for Hillary "because of that thing Rush said." (Source: Hamilton Journal News, 3-6-08)
3599.36 Election falsification reads:
No person, either orally or in writing, on oath lawfully administered or in a statement made under penalty of election falsification, shall knowingly state a falsehood as to a material matter relating to an election in a proceeding before a court, tribunal, or election official, or in a matter in relation to which an oath or statement under penalty of election falsification is authorized by law, including a statement required for verifying or filing any declaration of candidacy, declaration of intent to be a write-in candidate, nominating petition, or other petition presented to or filed with the secretary of state, a board of elections, or any other public office for the purpose of becoming a candidate for any elective office, including the office of a political party, for the purpose of submitting a question or issue to the electors at an election, or for the purpose of forming a political party.
Whoever violates this section is guilty of election falsification, a felony of the fifth degree.
A person that commits election falsification can face six to twelve months in prison as well as a $2,500 fine according to Ohio sentencing guidelines (Source: http://www.clelaw.lib.oh.us/Public/Misc/FAQs/Sentencing.html)
______________________________________________
I am SO FUCKING disgusted with the Clintons and it is pretty clear to me that her camp was complicit in these crimes.
Which Clinton is for vice?
After reading this article and watching You Tube with Dennis Kucinich and 10,000 votes from Republicans for his Democratic opponents, why are you all getting so upset about Hillary. What you need to do is say over and over again, President McCain, President McCain, etc.,etc., because that's who you're going to get.
This country has done nothing, absolutely nothing about our election process since we found out in 2000 it's broken beyond repair. We need to start over but that's not going to happen because all people do is complain to one another.
CLINTON FOR VICE.
Here are the facts regarding Obama's promises to renegotiate NAFTA and his adviser's assurances that it was just campaign rhetoric. These facts have been confirmed and reconfirmed. No one denies them.
Anyone on this forum trying to spin this and say it somehow didn't happen, or if it did it happened to Hillary Clinton, should really be ashamed of yourself.
(1) Obama's senior economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, met with Canadian consul general in Chicago, Georges Rioux, and political and economic affairs consular officer, Joseph DeMorain, on February 8, 2008, regarding NAFTA and Canada-U.S. trade.
(2) DeMorain took notes during the meeting and then wrote a memo for the Ottawa government, stating: "[Goolsbee] candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign. He cautioned that this messaging should not be taken out of context and should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans."
(3) Goolsbee has since said his statements at the meeting were misunderstood.
(4) The Clinton campaign was not involved with any of this in any way.
(5) The Clinton campaign has never told the Canadian government that her promise to voters to renegotiate NAFTA was "political positioning," or any thing of the sort.
Here's the entire memo: http://www.nytimes.com/images/promos/politics/blog/20070303canmemo.pdf
Here's the latest news summary from Canada, stating that "Hillary Clinton never gave Canada any secret assurances about the future of NAFTA such as those allegedly offered by Barack Obama's campaign, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's office said Friday": http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5gNMJKvj5eQRQBNSeQj3bTyETSa...
OldBadger (3:47), this is not about hating Hillary. That is an illogical reason to vote against someone. I can speak only for myself, but I'm betting there are a few posting here who will agree that we have REASONS, and very good ones, for not wanting Clinton to get the nomination. Those reasons may or may not be accompanied by strong feelings but they surely are couched in history--the history of her actions and alliances.
BeForKids points out the WalMart Connection. As a feminist, you need to research that. She failed to stand tall for her sisters who were employed by WalMart. Add the Tyson connection that included drug-running by a major Tyson family member. Add Whitewater. Add her voting record. Add presenting herself as personally more equipped to handle an emergency when neither she nor even one of her staff can come up with one--not one--instance when this has occurred.
Your comment that hatred of Hillary is tearing the Democratic Party up from the inside: Have you considered that HILLARY is tearing up the Party from the inside? She keeps changing the rules of what criteria makes whom ahead in the race. She has stated her admiration for herself and for McCain as capable to run the country but claims that Obama has only a speech delivered in 2002 to recommend him. How is this unifying to the Democratic Party? She has attempted to kill Obama with faint praise when she says she knows of no reason for anyone to label him a Muslim "that she knows of". This is extremely disingenuous and patently nasty. She condemns Obama's staff for name-calling, but says her own staff's name-calling ("Obama is like Ken Starr") is an "historical reference" and is a "true statement". There are different rules for Hillary: she doesn't HAVE to reveal her tax records--just everyone else who's running. How imperial is that?
If you can logically research her record and still support her, then in a democracy, you are welcome to do that, but that doesn't make the rest of us Obama maniacs. It quite possibly makes us thinkers. As a feminist, I would love to support a woman for President. But I won't vote for someone solely on the basis of their gender.
BTW, I am old and female, too, so get a grip yourself!
riverdebris101: As in all mammals- men compete, women choose. Which do you think requires more "logic"?
Given the fact that babies are the natural result of sexual pairings bewtween men and women and a man only has to invest 5 minutes (4?3?2?1?) and a tasblespoon of semen and a woman may have to invest years of her life and the blood and marrow of her body as the result of a coupling, who do you suppose is doing the more serious logical calculation as to what is a good male to copulate with?
You really should drop the facade of the bumkin and participate on this forum honestly, because honestly, no one takes you seriously.
Someone way up near the top was wondering what is likely to happen in Pa. Would be very surprised if Clinton did not win big there. Western Pa. has the most elderly population in the U.S. outside of Florida, though Philly is more affluent and upwardly mobile, not to mention a substantial black community. The rest of the state is largely rural and conservative (remember Rick fruitcake Santorim?)
What worries me most is that Obama himself seems to have lost confidence, but this may just be how the media is framing their coverage.
The point of electing a new administration would be to bring Americans together.
Hillary can't do that, and besides Bill would come with her and what would be the point of having a vice president, a secretary of state, secretary of the treasury, secretary of housing etc. Bill would be the entire cabinet, but only if meetings were held on a stage in a large auditorium filled with people.
The Clintons have already had 8 years in the White House. Bill was good as president; lousy as supporting spouse.
Many Democrats can't stand her after seeing her campaign. Republicans never could stand her.
So how would Hillary bring us together?
The biggest story, by a long shot, is Canada interfering in the election of Ohio and Texas.
The MSM goofs have fogged the story so badly that it's nearly impossible to get a clear picture.
But here's a try.
The Press Sec. to the Prime Minister of Canada told a group of reporters that were waiting at the Capitol for the budget to be released at 4 p.m. that the Clinton campaign called to tell them at her talk about NAFTA was all BS.
The PM of Canada does not let any of his staff talk to the press without his permission......that means anybody and he had a office from the Energy department who leaked a stroy to the press arrested and removed from is office in handcuffs.
Then one of Canada's TV networks released a story that Obama's campaign person made the statement not to believe his comments on NAFTA. That statment was not true. The campaign person did not say that, at a meeting with a low level Canadian offical in Chicago. He repeated Obama's position which was stated on the debate and in Obama's book.
The PM named Harper is a junior George Bush....loves him, uses the same pollng people that the GOP use in the US and has followed the Pretender in Chief down the same path.
What really annoys me is that another country can interfer in our elections and little is said about it, but of course we interfer in elections all over the world.
New rules for elections: (just a few)
1. you can only voted for the party you are registered too in a primary election. That's your right but only to the party you are alined with. Independents can not vote in the primary election. I can't in PA
2. Primary elections should be held by all states on the second weekend (yes weekend) of April. The could stop some of the crap like not enought machines or ballots or whatever and give people more open times to vote.
3. The winner should be by popular vote, not delegates. If they need a drunken party go to it but not for the picking of a candidate.
4. GET RID OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE. This is a must... popular vote wins............period.
5. Change the general election to the first weekend in January so that we don't have such a lag time between election and swearing in. Again longer times periods to vote.
I was stunned in '04 by the way Kerry jumped from way back to being the front runner. I was sure then that it was just one more fix by the republicans. I'm sure the same fix is in now.
I knew just one democrat in the town I live in, and she's dead now. Of the republicans I know, about 1/4 of them would vote for Obama, as they would have voted for Edwards in '04; 1/4 will stay home, and the rest would vote for Clinton because that's what they've been told to do, and they follow along like the good little borgs the are. They're currently repeating all the negative lies about Obama they've been spoon fed, and if contradicted, will swear it's God's truth.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again - they want Hillary to be the winning candidate because a lot of those who'd stay home because they won't cross party lines, and McCain affects them the same way Clinton does, will vote because they'd rather see McCain win than Clinton.
The GOP, plus the conspiracy between Clinton and the Canadian government to single out Obama in the so-called "Nafta-gate." If Obama makes it, I hope he never invites Harper to Washington nor accepts an invitation from him to visit Canada.
The issue of crossover voting is legal but galling. What we need is open primaries with all candidates, Republican and Democrat, in the mix. The two highest vote-getters, regardless of party will face off in the general elaction.
Did Republicans....?
Maybe, and maybe in Texas, too. I know of at least one registered Republican who voted for Hillary in the Democratic primary. Doesn't seem fair somehow.... does it?
Ireland is baffled at Hillary Clinton's mendacity as she played absolutely no major role in brokering peace in Northern Ireland. She was merely a bystander.
Why does such a seemingly nice person insist on mortifying herself by incessantly telling lies and doing and saying anything she believes is necessary to win the nomination.
Are Hillary's inherent traits those Americans want in a Presidential candidate? The facts on the ground would suggest otherwise.
Please read this report.
Irish blast Clinton''''s foreign policy claim
BELFAST, Northern Ireland, March 9 (UPI) -- David Trimble, who helped broker peace in Northern Ireland said Sen. Hillary Clinton''''s role in those negotiations was that of a cheerleader, not a participant.
Presidential contender Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., in exercising her wild imagination she expounded another of her fabrications when she told CNN Wednesday that she "helped bring peace to Northern Ireland" - simply because foreign policy experience has now become one of the latest issues in the Democratic presidential race.
"I don''''t know there was much she did apart from accompanying Bill (Clinton) going around," Trimble said, adding, "I don''''t want to rain on the thing for her but being a cheerleader for something is slightly different from being a principal player," The Sunday Telegraph reported.
Conall McDevitt, who served as the chief negotiator during the Good Friday Agreement talks that ended the conflict between England and Northern Ireland, said there was "no contact with her" during the negotiating processes. "So in a classic woman politicky sort of way I think she was active ... She was certainly investing some time, no doubt about it. Whether she was involved on the issue side I think probably not," McDevitt said.
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/To
p_News/2008/03/09/irish_blast_clintons
_f
oreign_policy_claim/9676/
Hatred of Hillary is eating up the Democrat party from the inside. It doesn't deserve to rule the country, any more than the Republicans. I have never heard so much paranoid hysteria in my life as these attacks on Clinton by the Obama maniacs. But since I am old and female, and a feminist, obviously I am a wrinkly whose ideas do not count. Get a grip!
Rory, there is a big difference! Obama was attracting moderate Republicans who are fed up with the neo-con direction of their party. Maybe, future Democrats.
Clinton received the votes of hard-core followers of Limbaugh, who dutifully marched from their radios to the voting booths. These voters will support McCain in the general election.
Yes, but Obama won the majority (53%) of the "Republican" votes in Texas, and there is ample evidence that many of his earlier "Democratic" primary victories may have been won with "votes from Republicans and from independents who usually vote Republican."
So if you're looking for the Democrat most non-Democratic voters have been supporting this season, I'd say he's the obvious candidate--not Clinton.
rumiluv, you're wasting your time with these "Hillary can do no wrong" people. The story WAS corrected to reflect that, but it is more comfortable for these people to stick with the original version. Also, most people tend to believe what they first hear, and not consider any new information that may come up. Human nature. Look how many people still insist on believing Saddham caused 9/11.
From the LATimes:
"The Canadian Press story said Brodie (PM Harper's chief of staff) was asked about remarks by Clinton and Illinois Sen. Obama that they would seek to renegotiate NAFTA.
The source quoted Brodie as saying that "someone from Clinton's campaign is telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt . . . that someone called us and told us not to worry," according to the Canadian Press report.
On Thursday, Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said, "We flatly deny this report."
Brodie did not respond to a call seeking comment.
On Monday, the Associated Press released a leaked Canadian government memo that said Obama's senior economic advisor had told Canadian officials that Obama's NAFTA comments were "political positioning."
The news helped Clinton defeat Obama decisively in Tuesday's Democratic primary in Ohio, where the trade treaty is unpopular.
Some Democrats, as well as Canadian opposition parties, have accused Harper's Conservative government of meddling in the U.S. presidential election process.
Canadian opposition parties are demanding that Brodie be fired.
Harper told lawmakers that the government would investigate the entire affair.
The source of the leaked memo had not been determined."
The Clinton campaign took the memo and ran with it, not caring that it was untrue.
What is significant here is that Harper runs a tight ship and no one, especially his chief of staff, says anything publicly without his approval. This would be the only memo that ever leaked out of his administration, at a critical point in US elections, and affecting the outcome of an important race. Obama was pulling ahead of Clinton in Ohio polls until this came about. Fancy that.
kathyodat
Of course Republican right wing nuts would vote for Hillary.
Hell, she places herself akin to McCain in terms of CIC toughness, and disses Obama ---- the disgusting MONSTER!
It is amazing how little MSM coverage there has been of Hillary Clinton's four (4) deceitful, back-stabbing attacks on the leading Democrat candidate (Obama) last week.
As Maureen Dowd said of Clinton's destructive trashing of the leading Democrat [which still goes unreported by the NY Times / Clinton machine], "What could be more shameless than suggesting to Democrats that John McCain would make a better commander in chief than Obama?"
Several of the Sunday shows re-ran the video of Hillary earlier this week, saying that Obama is less qualified than McCain to be Commander in Chief ---- and take those 3AM crisis phone calls.
There is no way to spin this --- Hillary has said that the leading candidate of her party is not qualified to be the Commander in Chief.
Such a statement is beyond the pale (although I can think of many other descriptions, such as 'pond scum').
I just finished reading Susan Faludi's fabulous new book, "The Terror Dream: Fear and Fantasy in post 9/11 America"
Hillary should read it. She would then realize how much harm she has done to her party.
Not only has she emasculated Obama, but in her selfish and totally misplaced attempt to 'go negative' on him she has likely handed McCain an insurmountable psychological edge over any Democrat ---- in that a contest based on macho toughness, applies at a deep sub-conscious level, an advantage to just the sort of tightly wound, vicious, vengeance / protector image that exactly matches the image of McCain that most Americans hold.
Hillary may not only have handed McCain an edge over Obama, but also herself.
Talk about 'going negative'?
Clinton is emasculating and destroying the leading Democratic candidate.
And for what?
Imagine if Clinton were to become president now, and dealing with foreign leaders.
Won't it be helpful for the US to have every foreign leader thinking, "Oh, yea, I'm going to trust this bitch who stuck a knife in the back of her own party's leading candidate, and only won, by saying that he would not be as capable a commander in chief as the Republican opponent"?
How could most foreign leaders ever trust someone that low?
rumiluv, your version of these events is false. What I said was accurate.
Bob K., Canada has explained that it was the Hillary campaign, NOT The Obama Campaign that stated that redoing NAFTA was campaign rheoric to be taken with a grain of salt. This disinformation will not go away.
Published on Monday, March 10, 2008 by The Free Press
Did Republicans Give Hillary Her Victory in Ohio?
I would think many of the elections lately are fishy.
allyourbasearebelongtous March 10th, 2008 1:14pm, makes an excellent point about cross-over voters in Ohio:
"Obama won hamilton county in southwest ohio which is just about as ultra-rightwing in general as you can get in this country."
That would seem to indicate that the Republicans who crossed over were voting for Obama.
Goebbels sez,
Thank you for the correction about Washington state. I had relied on FairVote.org for information about open-primary states. http://www.fairvote.org/?page=1801
cranky_chatter,
You and others who are angry at Clinton for being a "Centrist" and believe that "Clinton and Obama are WORLDs apart" -- implying that Obama's agenda is to the Left of Clinton's agenda -- need to realize that Obama's campaign rhetoric is largely a fraud and his true agenda is to the Right of Clinton's agenda.
Of course, Obama's duplicity has been publicly revealed recently. In two instances his promises to voters were contradicted by his senior advisers' assurances that the promises were only campaign rhetoric. First, his senior economic adviser told Canadian officials that Obama's promise to renegotiate NAFTA was just rhetoric, and then his senior foreign policy adviser said in an interview with the BBC that Obama's promise to withdraw from Iraq was just rhetoric.
But, those examples are just the tip of the iceberg.
For another revealing look into Obama's true agenda, consider the bill he authored which would have required nuclear power plants to notify governments in the event of radiation releases. After meeting with his nuclear industry campaign contributors, Obama amended the bill's language so that the notification requiremen