What to Watch in Mississippi

re: What to Watch in Mississippi

lamm01 — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 17:42:35 GMT

I'm hoping that white voters as well as Republicans will turn out for Senator Clinton. Those of us who have witnessed the assistance and help of the Clinton's over the years towards the African American community are a little disbursed that they now have turned their backs on her and are voting based on race. Maybe the white voters will in turn start coming out and voting for white candidates as stop measure.....

re: What to Watch in Mississippi

obama2008! — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 18:02:35 GMT

Obama camp questions HRC's experience

Posted: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 9:59 AM by Mark Murray

Filed Under: 2008, Security, Clinton, Obama

From NBC's Mark Murray

In one of its sharpest rebukes of Clinton's foreign policy experience, the Obama campaign has released a memo arguing that Clinton herself hasn't passed the commander-in-chief test. "When your entire campaign is based upon a claim of experience, it is important that you have evidence to support that claim. Hillary Clinton’s argument that she has passed “the commander-in-chief test” is simply not supported by her record," Obama adviser Greg Craig says in the memo.

"There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton played an important domestic policy role when she was first lady," Craig continues. "It is well known, for example, that she led the failed effort to pass universal health insurance. There is no reason to believe, however, that she was a key player in foreign policy at any time during the Clinton Administration. he did not sit in on National Security Council meetings. She did not have a security clearance. She did not attend meetings in the Situation Room. She did not manage any part of the national security bureaucracy, nor did she have her own national security staff. She did not do any heavy-lifting with foreign governments, whether they were friendly or not. She never managed a foreign policy crisis, and there is no evidence to suggest that she participated in the decision-making that occurred in connection with any such crisis. As far as the record shows, Senator Clinton never answered the phone either to make a decision on any pressing national security issue -- not at 3 AM or at any other time of day."

Below is the full memo...

To: Interested Parties

From: Greg Craig, former director, Policy Planning Office, U.S. State Department

RE: Senator Clinton’s claim to be experienced in foreign policy: Just words?

DA: March 11, 2008

When your entire campaign is based upon a claim of experience, it is important that you have evidence to support that claim. Hillary Clinton’s argument that she has passed “the Commander- in-Chief test” is simply not supported by her record.

There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton played an important domestic policy role when she was First Lady. It is well known, for example, that she led the failed effort to pass universal health insurance. There is no reason to believe, however, that she was a key player in foreign policy at any time during the Clinton Administration. She did not sit in on National Security Council meetings. She did not have a security clearance. She did not attend meetings in the Situation Room. She did not manage any part of the national security bureaucracy, nor did she have her own national security staff. She did not do any heavy-lifting with foreign governments, whether they were friendly or not. She never managed a foreign policy crisis, and there is no evidence to suggest that she participated in the decision-making that occurred in connection with any such crisis. As far as the record shows, Senator Clinton never answered the phone either to make a decision on any pressing national security issue – not at 3 AM or at any other time of day.

When asked to describe her experience, Senator Clinton has cited a handful of international incidents where she says she played a central role. But any fair-minded and objective judge of these claims – i.e., by someone not affiliated with the Clinton campaign – would conclude that Senator Clinton’s claims of foreign policy experience are exaggerated.

Northern Ireland:

Senator Clinton has said, “I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland.” It is a gross overstatement of the facts for her to claim even partial credit for bringing peace to Northern Ireland. She did travel to Northern Ireland, it is true. First Ladies often travel to places that are a focus of U.S. foreign policy. But at no time did she play any role in the critical negotiations that ultimately produced the peace. As the Associated Press recently reported, “[S]he was not directly involved in negotiating the Good Friday peace accord.” With regard to her main claim that she helped bring women together, she did participate in a meeting with women, but, according to those who know best, she did not play a pivotal role. The person in charge of the negotiations, former Senator George Mitchell, said that “[The First Lady] was one of many people who participated in encouraging women to get involved, not the only one.”

News of Senator Clinton’s claims has raised eyebrows across the ocean. Her reference to an important meeting at the Belfast town hall was debunked. Her only appearance at the Belfast City Hall was to see Christmas lights turned on. She also attended a 50-minute meeting which, according to the Belfast Daily Telegraph’s report at the time, “[was] a little bit stilted, a little prepared at times." Brian Feeney, an Irish author and former politician, sums it up: “The road to peace was carefully documented, and she wasn’t on it.”

Bosnia:

Senator Clinton has pointed to a March 1996 trip to Bosnia as proof that her foreign travel involved a life-risking mission into a war zone. She has described dodging sniper fire. While she did travel to Bosnia in March 1996, the visit was not a high-stakes mission to a war zone. On March 26, 1996, the New York Times reported that “Hillary Rodham Clinton charmed American troops at a U.S.O. show here, but it didn’t hurt that the singer Sheryl Crow and the comedian Sinbad were also on the stage.”

Kosovo:

Senator Clinton has said, “I negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo.” It is true that, as First Lady, she traveled to Macedonia and visited a Kosovar refugee camp. It is also true that she met with government officials while she was there. First Ladies frequently meet with government officials. Her claim to have “negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo,” however, is not true. Her trip to Macedonia took place on May 14, 1999. The borders were opened the day before, on May 13, 1999.

The negotiations that led to the opening of the borders were accomplished by the people who ordinarily conduct negotiations with foreign governments – U.S. diplomats. President Clinton’s top envoy to the Balkans, former Ambassador Robert Gelbard, said, “I cannot recall any involvement by Senator Clinton in this issue.” Ivo Daalder worked on the Clinton Administration’s National Security Council and wrote a definitive history of the Kosovo conflict. He recalls that “she had absolutely no role in the dirty work of negotiations.”

Rwanda:

Last year, former President Clinton asserted that his wife pressed him to intervene with U.S. troops to stop the Rwandan genocide. When asked about this assertion, Hillary Clinton said it was true. There is no evidence, however, to suggest that this ever happened. Even those individuals who were advocating a much more robust U.S. effort to stop the genocide did not argue for the use of U.S. troops. No one recalls hearing that Hillary Clinton had any interest in this course of action. Based on a fair and thorough review of National Security Council deliberations during those tragic months, there is no evidence to suggest that U.S. military intervention was ever discussed. Prudence Bushnell, the Assistant Secretary of State with responsibility for Africa, has recalled that there was no consideration of U.S. military intervention.

At no time prior to her campaign for the presidency did Senator Clinton ever make the claim that she supported intervening militarily to stop the Rwandan genocide. It is noteworthy that she failed to mention this anecdote – urging President Clinton to intervene militarily in Rwanda – in her memoirs. President Clinton makes no mention of such a conversation with his wife in his memoirs. And Madeline Albright, who was Ambassador to the United Nations at the time, makes no mention of any such event in her memoirs.

Hillary Clinton did visit Rwanda in March 1998 and, during that visit, her husband apologized for America’s failure to do more to prevent the genocide.

China:

Senator Clinton also points to a speech that she delivered in Beijing in 1995 as proof of her ability to answer a 3 AM crisis phone call. It is strange that Senator Clinton would base her own foreign policy experience on a speech that she gave over a decade ago, since she so frequently belittles Barack Obama’s speeches opposing the Iraq War six years ago. Let there be no doubt: she gave a good speech in Beijing, and she stood up for women’s rights. But Senator Obama’s opposition to the War in Iraq in 2002 is relevant to the question of whether he, as Commander-in-Chief, will make wise judgments about the use of military force. Senator Clinton’s speech in Beijing is not.

Senator Obama’s speech opposing the war in Iraq shows independence and courage as well as good judgment. In the speech that Senator Clinton says does not qualify him to be Commander in Chief, Obama criticized what he called “a rash war . . . a war based not on reason, but on passion, not on principle, but on politics.” In that speech, he said prophetically: “[E]ven a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.” He predicted that a U.S. invasion of Iraq would “fan the flames of the Middle East,” and “strengthen the recruitment arm of al Qaeda.” He urged the United States first to “finish the fight with Bin Laden and al Qaeda.”

If the U.S. government had followed Barack Obama’s advice in 2002, we would have avoided one of the greatest foreign policy catastrophes in our nation’s history. Some of the most “experienced” men in national security affairs – Vice President Cheney and Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and others – led this nation into that catastrophe. That lesson should teach us something about the value of judgment over experience. Longevity in Washington, D.C. does not guarantee either wisdom of judgment.

Conclusion:

The Clinton campaign’s argument is nothing more than mere assertion, dramatized in a scary television commercial with a telephone ringing in the middle of the night. There is no support for or substance in the claim that Senator Clinton has passed “the Commander-in-Chief test.” That claim – as the TV ad – consists of nothing more than making the assertion, repeating it frequently to the voters and hoping that they will believe it.

On the most critical foreign policy judgment of our generation – the War in Iraq – Senator Clinton voted in support of a resolution entitled “The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of U.S. Military Force Against Iraq.” As she cast that vote, she said: “This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.” In this campaign, Senator Clinton has argued – remarkably – that she wasn’t actually voting for war, she was voting for diplomacy. That claim is no more credible than her other claims of foreign policy experience. The real tragedy is that we are still living with the terrible consequences of her misjudgment. The Bush Administration continues to cite that resolution as its authorization – like a blank check – to fight on with no end in sight.

Barack Obama has a very simple case. On the most important commander in chief test of our generation, he got it right, and Senator Clinton got it wrong. In truth, Senator Obama has much more foreign policy experience than either Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan had when they were elected. Senator Obama has worked to confront 21st century challenges like proliferation and genocide on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He possesses the personal attributes of a great leader – an even temperament, an open-minded approach to even the most challenging problems, a willingness to listen to all views, clarity of vision, the ability to inspire, conviction and courage.

And Barack Obama does not use false charges and exaggerated claims to play politics with national security.

re: What to Watch in Mississippi

Benezwel — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 18:24:32 GMT

Obama's platform is "CHANGE AND A UNIFY AMERICA". Today, he is favored to win in Mississippi just because the African-American population there is huge, just as he was expected to win in South Carolina and other states where African-American are a majority. His white votes in his favor, are casted solely to stop Hilary Clinton

If Obama wins the nomination, America will have a nationwide severe case of voters remorse.

re: What to Watch in Mississippi

pedromatos — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 18:32:02 GMT

Hillary and Bill Clinton have made a significant issue about how the press is treating Hillary unfairly in their hyper-critical reporting on her and their “softball” reporting on Barak Obama. Hillary maintains she has been fully investigated by the media and Barak hasn’t!

As the Tony Rezko trial begins in Chicago, Clinton and her surrogates are linking Obama to Rezko and the media is speculating about whether Obama will be called to testify as a witness in the case. Obama has always admitted he received $85,000 in contributions from Rezko which Obama has now donated to charity rather than keep.

Yet the civil fraud trial of Bill Clinton for defrauduing Hillary’s largest donor in 2000 into giving her campaign more than $1.2 million, pending in Los Angeles courts since 2003, is now preparing for a November, 2008 trial. The discovery that is now proceeding after a February 21 hearing, and the pending trial, have NEVER been announced by the mainstream media.

Hillary was able to extricate herself as a co-defendant in the case in January, 2008 after years of appeals to be protected by the First Amendment from tort claims arising out of federal campaign solicitations she made. Her abuse of the intent of California’s anti-SLAPP law after the California Supreme Court refused to dismiss her from the case in 2004 is emblematic of her contempt for the Rule of Law.

Hillary will be called as a witness in both discovery and the trial according to the trial court Judge who so-advised Hillary’s attorney David Kendall when he dismissed Hillary as a co-defendant in 2007. A subpoena is being prepared this month and will be served personally on Hillary, along with Chelsea, Pa Gov. Ed Rendell, Al Gore and other well known political and media figures.

Yet the media has refused to report about this landmark civil fraud case- brought by Hillary’s biggest 2000 donor to her Senate race, regarding allegations that were corroborated by the Department of Justice in the criminal trial of Hillary’s finance director David Rosen in May, 2005. That indictment and trial was credited as resulting from the civil suit’s allegations by Peter Paul, the Hollywood dot com millionaire Bill Clinton convinced to donate more than $1.2 million (according to the DOJ prosecutors and the FBI) to Hillary’s Senate campaign as part of a post White House business deal with Bill.

The media - except for World Net Daily- has also suspiciously refused to report on Hillary’s last FEC report regarding her 2000 Senate campaign, filed in January 30, 2006. In a secret settlement of an FEC complaint by the plaintiff in Paul v Clinton, Peter Paul, the FEC fined Hillary’s campaign $35,000 for hiding more than $720,000 in donations from Paul, and it required Hillary’s campaign to file a 4th amended FEC report.

In that report Hillary and her campaign again hid Paul’s $1.2 million contribution to her campaign and falsely attributed $250,000 as being donated by Paul’s partner, Spider Man creator Stan Lee, who swore in a video taped deposition he never gave Hillary or her campaign any money.

Lee did testify to trading $100,000 checks with Paul to make it appear he gave $100,000 to Hillary’s campaign (admission of a felony) but none of that has been reported by the “overly critical” media!

Where is the outrage from Obama that the press is engaging in a double standard relating to his possible role in the Rezko trial and his refunding the $85,000 contributed to his campaign by Rezko- which Obama has always admitted taking. The media makes no mention of Hillary’s role as a witness in Bill’s fraud trial for defrauding Hillary’s largest donor- and Hillary’s refusal to refund the $1.2 million she illegally received from Paul, which she has denied taking from Paul ever since the Washington Post asked her about Paul and his felony convictions from the 1970’s before her first Senate election in 2000?

Visit Hillcap.org to see the video

re: What to Watch in Mississippi

Dustee — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 18:40:18 GMT

lamm01, people like you think it's a black/white issue for African Americans and you are totally wrong. Initially AA's were asing the question "was he black enough" and didn't want to through away their votes on him. But Hillary's campaign, with the help of her husband just had to play the 'race card'...discribing Obama as a drug addicted, tap dancing slumlord from Chicago. They didn't hold back on the stereotypical discription with help from some of the noted people from the black community. The black community didn't just turn their backs on Billary, but those from the political black community as well.

It hurts when you think you have a friend and they throw you under the bus just for the vote. They lost a dedicated following in the African Americans community.

re: What to Watch in Mississippi

herfan — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 18:49:37 GMT

DON'T BE DUPED!!!

Large numbers of Republicans have been voting for Barack Obama in the DEMOCRATIC primaries, and caucuses. Because they feel he would be a weaker opponent against John McCain. And because they feel that a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket would be unbeatable. And also because with a Clinton and Obama ticket you are almost 100% certain to get quality, affordable universal health care very fast.

You see, the medical and insurance industry mostly support the republicans with the money they ripped off from you. And they don’t want you to have quality, affordable universal health care. They want to be able to continue to rip you off, and kill you and your children by continuing to deny you life saving medical care. So they can make more profit for them-self.

Hillary Clinton has actually won by much larger margins than the vote totals showed. And lost by much smaller vote margins than the vote totals showed. Her delegate count is actually much higher than it shows. And higher than Obama’s. HILLARY CLINTON IS ALREADY THE TRUE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE!

As much as 30% of Obama's primary, and caucus votes are Republicans trying to choose the weakest democratic candidate for McCain to run against. These Republicans have been gaming the caucuses where it is easier to vote cheat. This is why Obama has not been able to win the BIG! states primaries. Even with Republican vote cheating help.

If Obama is the democratic nominee for the national election in November he will be slaughtered. Because the vote cheating help will suddenly evaporate. All of this vote fraud and republican manipulation has made Obama falsely look like a much stronger candidate than he really is. YOUNG PEOPLE. DON’T BE DUPED! Think about it. You have the most to lose.

The democratic party needs to fix this outrage. I suggest a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket now! All democrats need to throw all your support to Hillary Clinton. So you can end this outrage against YOU the voter, and against democracy.

Fortunately the Clinton’s have been able to hold on against this fraudulent outrage with those repeated dramatic comebacks of Hillary Clinton’s. Only the Clinton’s are that resourceful, and strong. Hillary Clinton is your NOMINEE. They are the best I have ever seen.

You should be angry America. “This is not a game” (Hillary Clinton)

Sincerely

jacksmith...

re: What to Watch in Mississippi

BigPapiforprez08 — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 19:04:51 GMT

Hillary is only using the joint ticket to try to convince people that a voter for her is a vote for him too, it's just a political ploy herfan....Barack astutely pointed out the gigantic flaw in her argument yesterday when he spoke about it. Citing President Clinton, who in 1992 said the most important thing to consider in a VP is whether they can take over the job if something happens to the president in the first week, Barack asked if that meant Hillary thought he was ready to be president. This VP talk is a huge mistake for Hillary if Barack continues to pound that point home or if the media actually was balanced, instead of flipping from one to another based on election results. If Hillary wants Barack to be VP, then she either thinks he's ready to be president, which goes against everything she's said the past weeks, or she's just using it as a political ploy. Either way, it goes to show how duplicitous and ill-intentioned she really is, and the type of same-old politics president she'd be, something this country doesn't need.

And to talk about your point about 30% of Barack's vote being Republicans who think he won't win in November, how does that explain how he beat her in open primaries and amongst independents and moderate republicans before McCain was the nominee? Why would a Republican vote for him before they had a nominee to run against him? That makes absolutely no sense. You just don't want to admit that he would unite the country more than she would, considering her unfavorables are higher than anyone. People hate Hillary, the only reason she's in this is because the corporate political machine backs her and because of who her husband is. Barack is the only one who represents real change in our system, and more people are finding that out every day. MI and FL are thinking about caucuses, and Barack will win those and make her look like a fool and take this nomination

re: What to Watch in Mississippi

Maggie22 — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 20:49:52 GMT

Over on The Field, Al Giordano is predicting that Obama picks up just one delegate tonight -- because of the way the districting works in MS.

It's possible he's being conservative (after having been overly optimistic on 3/4), but his analysis looks right to me here.

re: What to Watch in Mississippi

Strohkr — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 21:02:46 GMT

Well said jacksmith!

re: What to Watch in Mississippi

Jazzy3 — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 21:09:56 GMT

what's wrong with the Dems. they need to split the delegates 50/50 in Florida and Michigan and call it even. That way the delegates can be seated in November. Why would they do a re-vote when it cost millions of dollars :( Everyone knew ahead of time that the delegates had been stripped. Come on people *WAKE UP AND STOP BLOWING MONEY*

re: What to Watch in Mississippi

glborchert — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 21:14:39 GMT

Herfan - what you recount is exactly the opposite of what happened in Texas, where tens of thousands of Republicans turned out to vote for Hillary because they DO NOT WANT TO FACE BARACK in the fall. I know. I live in a very red community in a county that brags about being the reddest county in the country. I worked at the polling place on primary election day last week. I spoke with scores of Republicans before and after they voted. I would guess - honestly - that between 10% and 15% of Hillary's vote in Texas was Republicans who crossed over to vote for Hillary, NOT BECAUSE THEY PREFERRED HER, but because Rush Limbaugh told them to.

You have this wrong. Actually, the opposite of what you say is true.

re: What to Watch in Mississippi

Jaspermoon — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 21:19:11 GMT

I am getting sick and tired of this "people hate Hillary" line. If this was accurate, why is she getting half the votes? Wake up people, this is going to the end. Hillary will have the Popular vote, Obama will have the delegates, what will we do then??? Give it Obama like the Supreme Court gave it to Bush, or go by the VOICE OF THE PEOPLE, which is the popular vote!!!

re: What to Watch in Mississippi

toddinaustin — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 21:38:21 GMT

Jazzy 3 - adding Fla and MI 50/50 leaves the candidates in virtually the same position they were in before adding those delegates (OK, Obama's lead falls by a negligible amount). So, that's for all practical purposes the same result as not counting their votes. Which leaves us right where we started. To your credit, you're not the only one failing this basic fairness exam - a number of so called pundits have failed it as well by suggesting the same thing.

re: What to Watch in Mississippi

shekey — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 21:54:20 GMT

First, it is not fair to do a re-vote as Obama was not even on the ballot in Michigan. Leave it like it is. It didn't come up until Hillary realized that she could actually lose. Second, it's not "everybody hates Hillary". Hillary is putting herself in this position with her rhetoric. I was once a huge Hillary fan, but I do not like the tone of her campaign. I wouldn't say that she has won the popular vote if Obama has won 28 states to her 14. Third, let's face it; a majority of "Good Ol Boys" don't want Hillary, but they don't want Obama even more. That's what makes me sick: how we do things in America and in the Corporate arena. Take the gloves off and discuss the facts without getting upset so that Hillary can quit blaming Obama on her inability to convey the message to the people in which would make her seem most intelligent, a decision maker, charasmatic and credible. I'm tried of these two sets of rule. Now we want to change them because Bush's time is up. The entire World laughs at us. This is the funny thing; they hate us for being Americans not because of our race.

re: What to Watch in Mississippi

bgaineshunter — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 22:04:32 GMT

Look people. I'm an African American woman who's struggling with this vote. However, I'm going to put this out there: The issues that are most important to African Americans haven't been mentioned. Not by Clinton. Not by Obama. Many of us were on the verge of being totally alienated, period, by both parties. I'm at a point where staying home on election day is becoming an attractive option. I just may register as an independent next time around. Early on, Clinton and Obama seemed almost indistinguishable on the basis of platform. What separated them were basically race and gender. I was more familiar with the Clintons and, therefore, more inclined to vote for Hillary. Plus, I just moved from California, after living more than 20 years there. There, I had learned to refer to interracial people as interracial, multicultural or biracial. A big stink was made about that during the late 1980s and 90s. Then this election came along and lo and behold people who are of mixed black/white racial heritage are African Americans. That's news to me, even though I had a grandmother who had a white father and a black mother. I had learned to adjust my thinking.

What has swung me into the Obama camp was the race card being played. Not by Obama. I realized that no matter how much choice biracial children think they should have, society will limit them. I've tired of the Democratic Party taking my vote for granted and the Republican Party's continuing invalidation of the problems African Americans face. We make you feel guilty. My father used to tell me that when I visited after years of him ducking child support payments and my ending up in foster care. Perhaps it's history that causes the guilt; just like it's history that causes the shame many African Americans feel.

Bill Clinton was certainly better to us and for us than Ronald Reagan. (Yes, we do have some unique problems.) But under Clinton's leadership the EEOC and affirmative action were irreparably weakened. Perhaps without Clinton the programs would have been destroyed altogether. But does it matter? No. Weakened or missing, I don't consider myself anymore than a fly buzzing in the ears of this society. I was torn at first and really never should have been. Woman means white in this society. For Ferraro to have the audacity to make the comments she did today, shows I should have set home 1988, too. It wouldn't be so bad if it were just her. Unfortunately, I've heard so many comments coming from white women over the years that totally invalidate my existence that I don't identify with them at all. As for how whites votes on election day, I don't care. This is your country. I'll assume you'll continue to run it the way you always have

re: What to Watch in Mississippi

Madison08 — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 22:07:28 GMT

"The Voice of the People " argument doesn't work. The popular vote is virtually irrelevant to the Democratic National Committee rules for the nomination process. Where are points awarded for anything except delegates. Hillary wanted to enforce the rules when she was ahead, but in her typical clintonesque attitude now wants to change the rules because they aren't working for her.

re: What to Watch in Mississippi

hotstuff — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 22:11:31 GMT

To lammo1

I´ve been following your posts all over the net. Unfortunately, they have not been very

flattering to you. When you reduce these elections to a black vs white rift, how do you explain

Obama´s successes in 25 of the 37 elections so far? All of them had black majorities? Like in

Iowa? Maine? If it were just the blacks alone supporting Obama, he would have been out since Super Tuesday, which was actually the game plan of Hillary! That the majority of blacks now supports Obama has to do with Billary insulting them in South Carolina. Until then, they were on Hillary´s side!

Knowing your history on the trail, I´m pretty aware that no amount of logic can sway you from

your prejudiced fixations nor convince you of their absurdity. This trait is very common among

most of Hillary´s supporters. Like candidate like supporter?

My painstaking scientific analysis has led to the following conclusion:

Just like Hillary, most of her blogging supporters are suffering from what I have now dubbed

"The Hillary Disease", namely:

WARPED LOGIC

LACK OF CONSCIENCE

It´s totally OK to support the candidate of your choice but you have to come up with logical

reasons or else say you have an emotional attachment. Anything else is blatant rubbish!

re: What to Watch in Mississippi

chillywill — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 22:55:04 GMT

Thank you pedromatros for your report about the difference in media coverage of Sen. Obama and the Clinton's especially with Paul v Clinton. We've gotten so desensitized and come to expect her whining and double talk that it's no big deal when she makes statements that don't match reality or when she make claims about herself that don't match her record. The Paul case should be drawing as much attention as any of the issues the Clinton's have raised about Sen. Obama but yet we really have to dig to find these. Mrs. Clinton getting called a monster by an aide drew more attention!! Oh, I did see a piece on national news last evening that in Pennsylvania some long lost video of Mrs. Clinton in her childhood was found and this was played along with commentary on how intelligent of child she was. I believe this took up as much time as the media reporting about Sen. Obama's recent victory in Wyoming and I would bet that it will draw more coverage than his win in Mississippi unless of course there can be some negative spin on it or some twist to benefit Mrs. Clinton. Hold on the whining and smearing has already been started in Pennsylvania by Mrs. Clinton and the media is certainly giving this coverage. I suppose if I watch any late night television in the near future I am going to have to shut it off or watch some smear campaign against Sen. Obama and than hear the whining that she's being treated unfairly and its been said that Sen. Obama is only rhetoric and his followers are mesmerized. She hasn't released her tax information, she's involved in a fraud case, she hasn't yet told us about her foreign policy experience that she boastfully claims, it's been stated that she is the most secretive politician in America today, and she is the most polarizingand divisive politician in America today but we should be more suspicious of Sen, Obama than her. She's really been treated unfairly!!

re: What to Watch in Mississippi

POKER MAW — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 22:58:54 GMT

Bgaineshunter, please dont sit at home. If we do not vote no one listens. I am voting for Hillary but you and all others need to vote for the person you think is best.All those who sit at home , in any election, just tell the goverment do what you want. Yes, you may cancel my vote but I would rather that happen then you not have a voice at all.

re: What to Watch in Mississippi

christian15213 — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 23:02:58 GMT

Thank you Hotstuff. Newsweek should really take this racist freak off the air. Ramano we have heard your rhetoric before... On to something new BUDDY.

re: What to Watch in Mississippi

Mchris1947 — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 23:14:54 GMT

I think it would be useful if we ALL take a step back and honestly evaluate why we choose the cadidates we do, AND be willing to say so with honesty and clarity. The irony of this Democratic Primary season, is that it seems to have exposed many in the Democratic Electorate (even the so-called liberals), as being closet racist, closet sexist, and almost immune to anything that resembles an actual investigation of policy issues to determine our voting preference.

If you believe that "it's high time a woman serves as President of the United States - men have been doing it for more than 200 years", well this is your great opportunity.

If you believe that "it's high time a minority serves as President of th United States - whites have been doing it for more than 200 years", well this is your great opportunity.

What is surprising to me is the spit and venom fired off by partisans of BOTH Obama and Clinton. A vote for Clinton does not by itself equal a vote for racism. A vote for Obama by itself it not inherantly sexist. In spite of our claims that Democrats stand for the "common man", and the assertion that we're an all-inclusive Party, it turns out that race and gender are all that really matters in choosing the Leader of The Free World???

And it is no accident that the media, MSNBC included, is stirring up the very worst in our nature with articles like this one. While "digging into the numbers" to see "who's voting for who" seems innocent enough, stories like "Why Women Don't Vote For Hillary", and "Is Obama Black Enough", have served to cast the decision of who should be the Democratic nominee in the most simplistic light possible even BEFORE Super Tuesday. Before the Primary Season started, people openly questioned Obama's Blackness, even going so far as to lable him as less Black than Bill Clinton, who was famously described as "Our Nations First Black President"??? Meanwhile, Hillary detractors were casting her as a polorizing figure even among women??? Now that the Primary's have been running for 2 1/2 months, now the arguements are reversed: "Blacks are voting for Obama ONLY for his Blackness", and women and whites are being admonished to do the same as some sort of defensive move??? Really???

So now according to this article, the only thing we're supposed to care about in the MS Primary is whether Blacks vote all Black, and if Whites or women do the same. That's all that matters???

The great debate of this Primary should revolve around "Experience vs. Judgment": What constitutes "real" experience? How much sould we require in a President? Or how about, "Charismatic Leadership vs. Dogmatic Political Will": Do we want our leaders to inspire the Electorate to action, or assure US that they have the Will to do our bidding for US?

It is a sad case indeed if all this comes down to simply voting for the one who "looks the most like me!"

re: What to Watch in Mississippi

valadezaj — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 23:23:06 GMT

Obama is the BLACK candidate. He only wins cause all the blacks vote for him. Anyone who isn't black is invisible to him.

re: What to Watch in Mississippi

markcan72 — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 00:00:30 GMT

It is ashame that in the "most democratic" nation in the world EVEN in contemporary times that a person would not vote for another person because of their race and gender is just mind-blowing to me. Racism and sexism are just as bad as communism! How ignorant do you have to be to judge someone based on the way the look? Surely us sane people can educate ignorant people why it would be a mistake to judge someone on their race and gender. Also, I'm shocked that Geraldine Ferraro would say that Obama is only winning because he is black when Hillary only won because her husband was the President of the United States. Hello? Did she ever think about that?

re: What to Watch in Mississippi

menberg — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 00:05:23 GMT

Why is it so much about black and white race issue in this country? Forget about race and gender issue. Let's talk about real issue here. There are so many people suffering in this country from all kinds of matter. This starts from news media. There are so many one sided journalism, I am sick and tired of those media bias toward to certain people. It seems to me media is treating Obama as golden child. Is it not? Almost everyday, there are gun shooting at school or department store and everywhere. Some people worry about their welfare day by day. Even if they have a job, it is not enough to make.

So, Let's talk about some real matter here. This election is very important to all of us. Instead of go with great speech, sit back and think about who whil the most take care all these matters and do the job. There is no time to learning process. We need somebody who really can tackle the job for this country is facing right now.

re: What to Watch in Mississippi

rebelwithoutaclue — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 00:06:07 GMT

Not all the people who vote for Obama are black, and I am one of his non-black supporters. I am attracted to Obama because he is of my generation. Unlike the "Greatest Generation" and the "baby boomers" we have always heard so much about, Obama represents the culmination of the subsequent generation of experience and brings with him that generation's view on our ever-changing (for both good and bad) world. I know some people include people our age group in the tail end of the baby boomer generation, but most do not. We know that the old world views no longer work well for our current struggles, so why tie ourselves to to them by electing their champions? Is Obama an unknown gamble? Perhaps he seems that way to many of the old guard, but I'm sure baby boomers remember when they were derided by their "Greatest Generation" parents for their forward looking ideas. I am willing to let the post boomers have their first chance to assume their inevitable place in history at the helm of our political leadership not because the candidate that first made it there is black, but because he is capable and visionsary. He seems willing to try new approaches where the old policies say no go. Well, I may not be the smartest guy on my block, but I know that no go means no progress. And boy do we need progress no matter what color the champion of that progress may be.

re: What to Watch in Mississippi

Time for Change — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 00:30:50 GMT

The Media continues to make this a race and gender issue. The American people must resist this!

re: What to Watch in Mississippi

mjno — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 00:44:42 GMT

I wish our party would see what a mess it is in. TO sum up our feelings in PA, see the TINA FEY clip from Saturday NIght Live supporting Hillary Clinton. She makes some quite valid points.

http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/index.shtml#mea=221773

re: What to Watch in Mississippi

mjno — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 00:46:34 GMT

YO REBELWITHOUTACLUE, OBAMA is a baby boomer and so is Hillary. I wouldn't base my vote on age and peer group. Not every baby boomer is alike.

re: What to Watch in Mississippi

lisloubb — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 01:24:08 GMT

I am sure disapointed in the american People!!! For not looking at Hillary as a person other than a clinton, She is only a Clinton by marriage. And not looking at Obama for who he realy is and I don't mean color. I think most that are voting for Obama are afarid HILLARY WOULD DO A GOOD JOB. LOUIS FROM FL>

re: What to Watch in Mississippi

ladenebean@hotmail.com — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 01:25:54 GMT

I agree with menberg, rebelwithoutaclue, and Time for Change. Why can not media and everyone else accept this election is not about gender or race. It is about our united need for change. Things cannot go on as they have been. The economy is failing, we are loosing our homes and jobs. Money is being shippped over seas instead of being spent on our needs. Things have to change or collectively we are lost. We must have someone of integrity and intelligence, someone of the now to lead us.

We (I'm of the boomer age group) are tied to our time. We can only look forward with remembered lust, we cannot go into tomorrow. We have to turn over the reins and trust the next generation. They are inheriting a mess we allowed to be made. Senator Clinton is not capable to siezing tomorrow and guiding us through it, she is tied to her time. It does not mean she is not capable, she is for yesterday, not for tomorrow.

Media focus on gender and race is based on historic knee-jerk reactions of the American populous for generations. Media has not taken time to listen to the now generation shaking off the skackles of racism of all kinds (color, gender, spiritual, ethnic, etc.) to focus on issues of importance to all of us. Food prices are going through the roof over night. Gas prices, inspite of reserves being at all time highs, are increasing for no apparent reason other than to gouge. Home owners are still facing massive foreclosures. Jobs are being lost. Companies are shutting down, jobs are being lost, people are suffering. And $30Billion a day is being shipped over seas.

We need real change.

re: What to Watch in Mississippi

DoveSong — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 01:31:34 GMT

Let the people vote as they wish without their color being a factor. It is meaningless to contiue the polarizing of our nation. We are still babies as a nation - still unsophistcated - still living in huts. If not one news source reported it, then it wouldn't matter. Reporting these insignificant statistics and making them so important makes them take on a life of their own. Now the story isn't about politics or the race for the presidency - it is about racsim in America.

re: What to Watch in Mississippi

mjno — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 02:05:49 GMT

I have been following the results of Mississippi, and it isn't what the pollsters predicted. Hillary was actually ahead with first 3% of precincts. Obama has only 2 more delegates than Clinton. hmmmm. I guess it isn't about race in Mississippi

re: What to Watch in Mississippi

valadezaj — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 02:07:49 GMT

As expected Obama won Mississippi. Whoop dee doo. Obama's victories have meaningless because blacks are voting as a block. Blacks vote for Obama only because of his color not because of a real look at the facts. I wonder what the race would look like if people actually ignored gender and color and looked at things objectively? It doesn't matter anyway as Hillary will win through the super delegates. Then the blacks will be BEGGING for Obama to be vice prez. LOL

re: What to Watch in Mississippi

donaroo — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 02:29:47 GMT

Let's just consider this. Obama is in fact inspiring to many people who are well educated and weary of a political system that is obviously very broken. He offers the hope of looking at our very critical problems and coming up with a pragmatic program that might help solve some of those problems. He has a history of working across party lines to carry out these programs. The fact that he had a father who had a significant degree of melanin in his skin seems of little consequence to many of us. Some people come to his aid when politicians find it necessary to impugn his abilities because of his youth or his ancestry. Still, you find even this desire to aid him as a reason to denigrate the man. Some of us are honestly bemused by the rest of you. Perhaps this crusade shall fail. Perhaps, we shall never emerge from the pit.

re: What to Watch in Mississippi

Ngouabe — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 02:33:18 GMT

Women have carried Clinton in most of her victories and nobody complained about it!!!

as soon as blacks vote for Obama, people dismiss it: so how about Wyoming few days ago where he beat Clinton by a sizeable margin? . Please put your your personal racial steretypes aside and look at this candidate for what he has to offer.

re: What to Watch in Mississippi

ropeaj — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 02:38:51 GMT

I wish that people would just stop demeaning the Obama victories. When he wins white states people complain that they're small states. When he wins southern states its because of the black vote. After reading valadezaj's post, I've can't decide if this person is either stupid or ignorant. Blacks have overwhemingly voted for white democratic candidates for more than 40 years. So now that blacks are voting for a black candidate that somehow is a problem?? Give me a break. I think Clinton supporters, including the valadezaj, need to focus on winning the nomination the old fashion way and not stealing it through the super deleagates!!!

re: What to Watch in Mississippi

Not stupid in Alabama — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 02:48:42 GMT

ropeaj, they only had white candidates to vote for. I just hope that even if Obama isn't the nominee they will still vote for the democrat. We can't afford another Republican administration.

re: What to Watch in Mississippi

Not stupid in Alabama — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 02:53:28 GMT

What he has to offer Ngouabe? What is that? He hasn't done anything he can stand on yet. Obama is a Made Man, a politician who is relying on others to get nominated, and that won't be enough to get him elected.

Emil Jones, Jr. decided he wanted to make a black senator, so he appointed Obama sponsor of virtually every high-profile piece of legislation, angering many rank-and-file state legislators who had more seniority than Obama and had spent years championing the bills.

"I took all the beatings and insults and endured all the racist comments over the years from nasty Republican committee chairmen," state Senator Rickey Hendon, the original sponsor of landmark racial profiling and videotaped confession legislation yanked away by Jones and given to Obama, complained to me at the time. "Barack didn't have to endure any of it, yet, in the end, he got all the credit.

"I don't consider it bill jacking," Hendon told me. "But no one wants to carry the ball 99 yards all the way to the 1-yard line and then give it to the halfback who gets all the credit and the stats in the record book."

www.dallasobserver.com/2008-02-28/news/obama-and-me/2

re: What to Watch in Mississippi

valadezaj — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 02:57:28 GMT

Hello ropeaj! Super delegates are part of the rules. So Hillary will win fairly. The fact of the matter is the super delegates will do what's best for the party. After Hillary wins Pennsylvania and the FL and MI redoes she will have won all the big states and have narrowed the margin with Obama. Who do you think the super delegates will want to pick? A candidate with no experience who only won because of his race? Or a candidate who has 35 years of experience has ACTUALLY voted in the senate compared to someone who only votes present and carried all the states democrats need to win. Hillary will win and if she's still feeling generous Obama can have the VP slot

re: What to Watch in Mississippi

Not stupid in Alabama — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 02:57:31 GMT

ropeaj, why do you think Obama is winning in "open" primaries in Republican states with no black voters? Because the Republicans want him to be the nominee. Why? Because they believe they can defeat him. It isn't just his (lack of) record, or his ties to Rezko. It's because he is black. Racism still exists in this country. Try living in Alabama or Mississippi or Georgia and you will find that it is an undercurrent people don't admit with pride they way they did in the 50's, but it's still there.

And the Republicans want to take advantage of it to get another Republican in the White House. How will that benefit Black Americans?

re: What to Watch in Mississippi

andyellan — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 03:09:38 GMT

Andy Romano, I belive you can do a better job than what you are currently doing - Thanks for all your math but keep your analysis to the issues and stop bringing up racial, sexist issues - these are things that nobody needs to go to school to see - do your job like a professional journalist and stop fueling the racial/ sexist divides. We have heard/had enough of those. Who will help to salvage your country? that is the question that should be uppermost on your mind at this point in time and not if a black vote or female vote counts. This recent article is below expectation..........The question was asked in Abraham Lincoln's days " ....ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your cuntry....". Here you have someone who's offering himself with same spirit and all you do is to post articles that shift intelligent readers attention from the real issues, man you need to wake up! Good morning America - everyday is a new day, let America rule and let racial/ sexist divides be dethroned!

re: What to Watch in Mississippi

Not stupid in Alabama — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 03:14:19 GMT

valadezaj, it's not generous, it's politics. Obama would bring in the black vote, and she might carry enough of the workers and women to actually swing some of the states that have gone Republican in the past.

In spite of the horrendous economy, in spite of the morass in Iraq and Afganistan, in spite of the spiraling federal debt and subprime mortgage crisis and volatile market, the Republicans could win again. Who would that help? The billionaires who pay less than 5% of their income in taxes? The corporations who rely on the administration to make sure the federal agencies and courts don't enforce the federal laws?

Clinton/Obama is a dream ticket - a historic ticket. She has the experience, and he's smart enough to learn the ropes from her.

Go Democrats!

re: What to Watch in Mississippi

Not stupid in Alabama — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 03:17:44 GMT

Are you black andyellan? Of course it's important to report on the racial patterns in who is voting for Obama. You think the Republicans aren't tracking the patterns and won't use that information to motivate the white voters in Mississippi in the general election?

Get real.

re: What to Watch in Mississippi

valadezaj — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 03:19:14 GMT

Well actually I don't think he should be VP either because of the experience argument. However you're right that Obama will unfortunately have to take that position to keep the party together. We'll just have to pray nothing happens to Hillary while she's in office.

re: What to Watch in Mississippi

Bill in Georiga — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 03:20:53 GMT

Interesting writings, Andrew.

In the Mississppi results, be sure to look at the 13% of folks in the exit poll for the Dem. primary who claim to be Republicans. They voted 79% for Clinton.

Is this the Limbaugh effect? Racism among some white voters? It's very had to imagine that Clinton could get that much support from Mississippi Republicans in the fall. Without those Republican votes on Tuesday, Obama would have had 63% or so.

re: What to Watch in Mississippi

andyellan — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 03:25:18 GMT

Remember that the worst crisis HRC has ever had in her life is the "... Monica Lewinsky crisis......." in her own words. People, shine your eyes, listen very hard and don't forget easily as this election campaigns continue. The greatest agents of change are people who've never been there or done that......but those in whose hearts and bellies lie a strong fire/desire to cause things to change the cause of events .....in whose belly is the firebrand streaming? McCain? Obama? Hillary? ....... I don't mean power by force/all means..... I mean " fire in the belly to serve the people and hear the silent wishes of the unheard".

re: What to Watch in Mississippi

andyellan — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 03:33:34 GMT

It really doesn't matter whether am black or white - am what I am and (un)fortunately I can't vote, just intrigued by the turn of events and seriusly praying that America does not make a second mistake - I am educated like you and I'd like that journalists answer to their call and not write cheap articles that Tom, Dick and Harry on the streets can write. Thanks for your comment, but am being very real

re: What to Watch in Mississippi

Jena — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 03:35:21 GMT

Limbaugh is having a profound impact on the Democratic primaries. His urging Republicans to go out and vote for Clinton in order to create chaos is working. She won Texas by only 4% - and 4.2% of the total primary vote was from Republicans effecting the Limbaugh strategy. Her final win in the primary had a huge impact on the perception of momentum going to Clinton.

And now we find that 9.3% of the vote in Mississippi was these Republicans again voting for HRC.

re: What to Watch in Mississippi

perfectimpressions — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 04:59:28 GMT

I'm curious about something. Can anyone give me a breakdown of how Obama has done in closed primary states - states where you must be a registered Democrat or declare a party affiliation prior to voting?

I know he's doing well in most crossover states - that's supposed to be part of the strength of his argument (He can bring in independents and Republican crossovers - althoug, if I read the comments here, in Mississippi the majority of Republican crossover voters supported Clinton). But has he carried any primaryies without such crossover voting?

Please note this is not a question about caucuses. I consider caucuses to be fundamentally flawed - with people having to declare publicly their candidate, there are too many opportunities for intimidation. Actual elections mean the voter is there with just their ballot and their conscience - and is thus a truer test and harbinger of how an election would go, IMHO.

re: What to Watch in Mississippi

seti2008 — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 07:09:24 GMT

Checking system