Black Superdelegates in Congress Who Support Clinton Resisting Calls to Switch to Obama

By: Sherrel Wheeler Stewart, BlackAmericaweb.com

The 14 Congressional Black Caucus members who support Sen. Hillary Clinton are standing firm on their commitment as Sen. Barack Obama approaches the number of delegates needed to clinch the Democratic nomination and national discussion continues over her statements on race.

In an interview last week Clinton said, “working, hardworking Americans, white Americans” would support her instead of Sen. Barack Obama, suggesting a racial split among Democratic voters that favored her. She said she was referring to information previously published and the comments were not intended to be divisive.

Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, a longtime Clinton supporter, had sharp criticism over the weekend for Clinton’s remarks, calling the comment “the dumbest thing she could have ever said,” according to an article published in Newsday. Also in that article, he acknowledged that there are certain groups of voters that politicians realize they will not attract.

But still while speaking at a New York fundraiser for the senator, he encouraged support for her, according to an article published in Newsday.

“We have worked with Hillary Clinton, and we need Hillary Clinton now more than ever,” Rangel said.

STORY....

Is the Democratic Race Essentially Over? Voters, Pundits Alike Await Clinton’s Exit Strategy

By: Michael H. Cottman

With Sen. Barack Obama’s landslide victory in North Carolina and only a two-point loss to Sen. Hillary Clinton in Indiana, some Democrats said Tuesday that Clinton may now need something that was unthinkable just two months ago: An exit plan.

A senior Democratic strategist familiar with the Clinton campaign’s plans told BlackAmericaWeb.com Wednesday that shortly after the June 3 primaries in Montana and South Dakota, if a number of party figures known as superdelegates are switching their allegiance to Obama, then she would probably cut her losses and drop out of the race.

"She’s not going to tear the party apart," the strategist said Wednesday, "and she’ll be the first person up on the stage supporting Senator Obama."

READ ENTIRE STORY....

Obama Wins North Carolina Primary – and Most Delegates – While Clinton Ekes Out Indy Win

By: Associated Press and Michael Cottman, BlackAmericaWeb.com

Barack Obama swept to victory in the North Carolina primary Tuesday night and declared that he was closing in on the Democratic presidential nomination. Hillary Rodham Clinton, meanwhile, won a narrow victory in Indiana by two percentage points, 50 to 49 percent.

Returns from 99 percent of North Carolina precincts showed Obama winning 56 percent of the vote to 42 percent for Clinton, a triumph that mirrored his earlier wins in Southern states with large black populations.

That made Indiana a virtual must-win Midwestern contest for the former first lady, who was hoping to counter Obama's persistent delegate advantage with a strong run through the late primaries. Returns from 92 percent of the state's precincts showed Clinton with 51 percent of the vote to 49 percent for Obama.

"Tonight we stand less than 200 delegates away from securing the Democratic nomination for president of the United States," Obama told a raucous rally in Raleigh, North Carolina -- and left no doubt he intended to claim the prize.

MORE....

Clinton Excluded Nearly $24 Million of Husband’s Earnings from Senate Financial Statements

By: Greg Gordon, McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON - Sen. Hillary Clinton excluded nearly $24 million of her husband's earnings from Senate financial statements from 2004 through 2006, capitalizing on rules that permit senators to limit disclosures of some of their spouses' income.

Her decision, while fully consistent with Senate rules and norms, delayed the release of financial information about former President Clinton's soaring income until the couple released their tax returns in early April, under pressure from Democratic presidential rival Sen. Barack Obama. By then, about 40 states had completed their Democratic primaries and caucuses, meaning that those voters didn't get a clear look at Bill Clinton's finances.

Like Clinton, Obama listed his wife Michelle's salary and directors' fees only as "over $1,000," which complies with Senate rules. Obama and his wife, a Chicago lawyer, aren't as wealthy as the Clintons, however, and their finances are less murky.

GOP candidate John McCain's wife, Cindy, is the heiress to a beer distributorship and has owned stock in oil and pharmaceutical companies, but the specifics are elusive. McCain has declined to release his wife's tax returns, saying they keep their finances separately.

Watchdogs say these scenarios not only raise issues about the candidates' openness but that they also point to shortcomings in government ethics requirements.

Bill Buzenberg, the executive director of the Washington-based Center for Public Integrity, said that the disclosures by the Clintons and McCain were "inadequate."

"There's no other way to sugarcoat it," he said. "It's not transparent. It needs to be because it does potentially involve all kinds of entangling things we don't know."

The Clintons' tax returns show that Bill Clinton earned nearly $51 million from 2004 through 2006. His wife informed the Senate of about $27 million of it, consisting almost entirely of fees from his globe-trotting speaking tours, from which he has fetched as much as $400,000 for a single appearance.

Reporting rules for senators and presidential candidates allowed Hillary Clinton to describe the amounts of her husband's other income sources as "over $1,000." These included his more than $10 million in advances and royalties from two book deals, as much as $11.5 million from offshore partnerships that invested in a Chinese media company and more than $2 million from a Nebraska firm whose chairman reportedly spent $900,000 flying the Clintons aboard corporate jets for personal, business and campaign trips.

The sketchy disclosures on Clinton's statements might help explain why many Americans were surprised to learn, upon release of the couple's tax returns and a summary of their 2007 income, that they earned $109 million over the last eight years after leaving the White House buried in debt in 2001.

Jay Carson, a spokesman for Clinton's presidential campaign, said that like Obama, Clinton "reported all of her spouse's income in accordance with Senate ethics requirements, which are clearly spelled out." The rules require less information about spouses' income.

On at least three occasions in February, however, Clinton campaign officials reassured the public that her Senate disclosure forms offered a sufficient look into her finances.

"She has released, as part of the financial disclosure process as a senator, sources of her revenue every year she has been in office," Phil Singer, a campaign spokesman, told the Christian Science Monitor.

Obama was the first candidate to release a tax return, making public his 2006 filing early last year and stating that he wanted to set a new standard for openness.

In March he released full returns for the years 2000 to 2006 and beckoned Clinton to do the same. Obama's 2005 return revealed that his wife was paid $33,000 in directors' fees for Bay Valley Foods and $12,000 for serving on the board of Treehouse Foods.

In his Senate financial statements from 2004-2006, Obama reported that he and his wife earned about $1.4 million, mostly from his two books. In contrast, the couple's tax returns for those years, which include their salaries, listed gross income of about $2.9 million.

McCain didn't release his 2006 and 2007 tax returns until last month, after he had essentially locked up the Republican presidential nomination.

The returns don't mention his wife, but in a disclosure statement required of presidential candidates, McCain reported last year that his wife and their children had 2006 income of $2.3 million to $7.1 million from land in Arizona and California, family trusts and securities.

McCain's returns show that he earned $358,414 in 2006 and $386,527 in 2007. But his Senate statement put his 2006 income at $150,000 to $1.1 million, underscoring the vagueness of government financial statements, which list income and asset values in wide ranges.

Hillary Clinton's financial statements for the years 2001 through 2003 were more consistent with the couple's tax returns because her husband's income in his first years outside the White House came mostly from speaking fees that senators must disclose.

The financial gap between her Senate reporting and her husband's 2004-2006 earnings coincided with a period in which Bill Clinton began to enter private business deals that caused the couple's wealth to mushroom.

Watchdogs said this suggests the need to strengthen Senate reporting requirements aimed at guarding against conflicts of interest.

David Epstein, a Columbia University political science professor who specializes in congressional ethics, said he thinks that politicians shouldn't be compelled to release their tax returns every year, but "that's the way things work" because government disclosure rules are so weak that there's a clamor for further disclosure.

"My understanding was that Hillary was following the norms of the day in what she had to release," he said. "But does that say something about how easy it is for politicians to do favors and get away with it? Sure. ... There may be something wrong with the reporting requirements. The Congress is notoriously lax about policing itself."

The Center for Public Integrity's Buzenberg called the 1984 flap over the business activities of Democratic vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro's husband, New York real estate mogul John Zaccaro, "small potatoes compared to the millions and millions (of dollars) we're talking about with the former president."

He noted that Bill Clinton's presidential library in Little Rock, Arkansas, has refused to identify many of its donors.

The Clintons have taken other steps to comply with ethics standards, such as putting their investments into blind trusts and then selling their stocks -- including shares in oil, chemical and pharmaceutical firms -- last year as Hillary Clinton formally launched her presidential candidacy.

Will There Be Do-Overs in Michigan and Florida?

By: Nedra Pickler, Associated Press

WASHINGTON - (AP) Officials in Michigan and Florida are showing renewed interest in holding repeat presidential nominating contests so that their votes will count in the epic Democratic campaign.

The Michigan governor, along with top officials in Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign and Florida's state party chair, are now saying they would consider holding a sort of do-over contest by June. That's a change from their previous insistence that the primaries their states held in January should determine how the their delegates are allocated.

Clinton won both contests, but the results were meaningless because the elections violated national party rules.

The Democratic National Committee stripped both states of all their delegates for holding the primaries too early, and all Democratic candidates -- including Clinton and rival Barack Obama -- agreed not to campaign in either state. Obama's name wasn't even on the Michigan ballot.

Florida and Michigan moved up their dates to protest the party's decision to allow Iowa and New Hampshire to go first, followed by South Carolina and Nevada, giving them a disproportionate influence on the presidential selection process.

But no one predicted the race would still be very close this late in the year.

Ironically, Michigan and Florida could have held crucial primaries if they had stayed with their traditional later dates. They may yet do so if they decide to hold new contests as Clinton and Obama compete to the wire.

Clinton has been insisting that the desires of more than 2 million people who cast Democratic ballots in the two states should be reflected at the convention, which would help her catch up to Obama in the race for convention delegates. Obama has said he wants to see the delegates from the two critical swing states participate, too, but not if Clinton is rewarded for victories in boycotted primaries.

Now the Clinton campaign has begun expressing openness to a do-over. "Let's let all of the voters go again if they are willing to do it," Clinton adviser Terry McAuliffe said Tuesday night on MSNBC. "Whatever we have to do to get people in the system, let's do it."

The new contests could be part of a strategy for Clinton to come back in the race and attract votes from superdelegates who are not bound by any primary or caucus votes, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell told the network.

"Let's assume for the moment Hillary Clinton wins Ohio and Texas, she wins Pennsylvania, Florida and Michigan have primaries in June, she wins both of those," said Rendell, who has endorsed Clinton. "Then, can the superdelegates look at that and say, 'Gosh, she's won the last five big primaries in a row. She's won almost every big primary since we began.'"

Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, a Clinton supporter, told the Detroit Free Press that Clinton's victory in Ohio changes "the landscape a bit." She said it could open the door to a caucus, if it can be privately funded and both candidates agree.

Granholm, a Democrat, and Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, a Republican, issued a joint statement Wednesday demanding that their states' delegates be seated. "We each will call upon our respective state and national party chairs to resolve this matter and to ensure that the voters of Michigan and Florida are full participants in the formal selection of their parties' nominees," the statement said.

Crist told reporters at a news conference Tuesday that he does not support having another primary at taxpayer expense. He said he discussed the option with Sen. Bill Nelson, the state's senior Democrat. "He said the only way to consider the possibility of that is to have the Democratic National Committee pay for it," Crist said. The Florida Democratic Party said the state estimates the cost would be $25 million.

Getting funding from the national committee might be difficult when the party has a general election to wage. Last August, the DNC offered to spend $800,000 for a later caucus, but the Florida state party rejected the idea because the amount would have only been enough to set up 150 caucus sites for the state's 4.1 million Democrats. "It wasn't a real offer. It just wasn't. It was not something anybody could agree to with a straight face," said state party spokesman Mark Bubriski.

DNC Chairman Howard Dean issued a statement Wednesday that seemed to leave the matter for the states to resolve.

Dean said Michigan and Florida have two options: Either submit a new plan for a process for choosing their convention delegates, or appeal to the Convention Credentials Committee, which resolves issues about the seating of delegates.

"The Democratic Nominee will be determined in accordance with party rules, and out of respect for the presidential campaigns and the states that did not violate party rules, we are not going to change the rules in the middle of the game," he said.

Michigan Democrats are discussing holding a "firehouse" contest in May or June that would be an alternative to a traditional primary or caucus and run by the state party, said a Democratic Party official who has been part of the discussions. "Firehouse" contests usually have fewer polling places and shorter voting hours than traditional state-run primary elections.

The party official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the discussions are private, said there was general consensus that it could not be held at taxpayers' expense and would attempt to generate participation from about 1 million state Democrats.

House and Senate Democrats from Florida and Michigan planned to meet Wednesday night on Capitol Hill to discuss ways of getting their state's delegates seated at the Democratic National Convention in Denver in late August, Democratic aides said.

Florida Democratic Party Chairwoman Karen Thurman said the party is open to another vote, as long as it meets three criteria. Both candidates would have to fully participate, a source of funding would have to be provided and it would have to allow all the state's Democrats to participate, including those serving in the military overseas. So far, she said, no suggested alternative has met those requirements.

"It is very possible that no satisfactory alternative plan will emerge, in which case Florida Democrats will remain committed to seating the delegates allocated by the January 29th primary," Thurman said in a statement.

Obama's campaign says whether to have a repeat contest is up to the national committee, but has signaled a willingness to participate. "We're going to abide by their rules as they exist now and whatever happens in the future," Obama campaign manager David Plouffe told reporters Wednesday.

"I don't think it's for our campaign or her campaign -- we're in a heated contest here -- to have to be the facilitators here," Plouffe said. "This is between the DNC and those state parties."

HILLARY SUGGESTS RUNNING WITH BARACK

Even though she's still trailing Illinois Senator Barack Obama in committed delegates to win the Democratic presidential nomination, New York Senator Hillary Clinton is already hinting at Clinton-Obama ticket -- with her on top.

"That may be where this is headed," Clinton said. "But of course we have to decide who is on the top of the ticket. I think the people of Ohio very clearly said it should be me." She said Democratic voters have begun to focus on who would be the best commander-in-chief.


"I really think that now that Senator John McCain is going to be the nominee, Democratic voters have begun to take their decision very seriously, and that works to my benefit," Clinton said on NBC's "Today" program.


And what does Barack Obama think of Hillary's idea? Apparently not much. At least not now.


"We are just focused on winning this nomination," he told reporters aboard a plane shortly before it took off from San Antonio to Chicago, according to Newsday.


Interesting, Obama seems to be in a unique position where he has to constantly remind folks that he the leader in the race, not Clinton.


"We will continue to win delegates. We will continue to campaign in every state and, by taking that approach, I am pretty confident we will have won more states, won more delegates and won more of the popular vote" and, going into the convention, "we are going to be in a stronger position," he said.


"We've had a very tough contest," Obama said. "Senator Clinton is a tough, hard-working candidate." He had just won 11 states in a row, he said, "which is why we have the strong lead in delegates."


Tuesday, Clinton won a close contest in Texas, 51 to 48 percent, and flat out beat Obama in Ohio 54-44 percent. She also took Rhode Island, and Obama won in Vermont.


Many attribute the former First Lady's victory to her attacking Obama on some ill-timed events that have affected him negatively.


The senator from Illinois and his campaign have made news because of Tony Rezko, one of Obama's campaign contributors, who is facing criminal charges in Chicago, and after a Canadian trade official claimed an Obama campaign adviser had suggested the candidate's statements about NAFTA were different from what his actual policy would be.

REP. JOHN LEWIS DROPS CLINTON FOR OBAMA

Georgia Congressman John Lewis had been a steadfast supporter of Sen. Hillary Clinton and enthusiastically announced his endorsement of her presidential run in October. But that backing officially ended Wednesday with the announcement that he has switched his support to her Democratic rival, Sen. Barack Obama.


Lewis told NBC News that his decision to end his support for Sen. Clinton was "tougher" than leading the 1965 "Bloody Sunday" march from Selma to Montgomery, when police nearly beat him to death on the Edmund Pettus Bridge.

In a written statement, Lewis said Obama's campaign "represents the beginning of a new movement in American political history" and that he wants "to be on the side of the people."

Lewis, a superdelegate who gets a vote at this summer's national convention in Denver, faced tremendous pressure to back Obama after his constituents supported the Illinois senator roughly 3-to-1 in Georgia's Feb. 5 primary, and about 90 percent of black voters statewide voted for Obama, according to exit polls.

"After taking some time for serious reflection on this issue, I have decided that when I cast my vote as a superdelegate at the Democratic convention, it is my duty ... to express the will of the people," Lewis' statement said.

"John Lewis is an American hero and a giant of the civil rights movement, and I am deeply honored to have his support," Obama said in a statement.

Clinton, questioned about Lewis during a satellite interview with Houston television station KTRK, said: "I understand he's been under tremendous pressure. He's been my friend. He will always be my friend. At the end of the day it's not about who is supporting us, it's about what we're presenting, what our positions are, what our experiences and qualifications are and I think that's voters are going to decide."

OBAMA PHOTO CAUSES MORE CLINTON FRICTION

A photograph of Democratic Sen. Barack Obama dressed in traditional local garments during a visit to Kenya in 2006 is making its way around the Internet and has caused yet another flare up with rival Sen. Hillary Clinton.


The picture shows Obama wearing a white turban and a wraparound white robe presented to him by elders in Wajir, in northeastern Kenya, the home of his estranged late father.


The Drudge Report posted the photo Monday and said it was being circulated by "Clinton staffers."

It also quoted an e-mail from an unidentified aide from the Clinton campaign.

Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson denied that Clinton was involved in the dissemination of the photo.


"I just want to make it very clear that we were not aware of it, the campaign didn't sanction it and don't know anything about it," said Wolfson. "None of us have seen the e-mail in question. If anybody has independent reporting that they've done on it I would welcome it."


During an interview with WOAI radio in San Antonio, Obama addressed the issue by saying voters are "saddened when they see these kind of politics."


"Everybody knows that whether it's me or Senator Clinton or Bill Clinton that when you travel to other countries they ask you to try on traditional garb that you have been given as a gift," said Obama. "The notion that the Clinton campaign would be trying to circulate this as a negative on the same day that Senator Clinton was giving a speech about how we repair our relationships around the world is sad."

BARACK AND HILLARY TANGLE IN OHIO

and Texas. For Clinton, who absolutely must win to have any kind of chance at getting the Democratic presidential nomination, last night's debate isn't likely to help her cause, the consensus seems to say.

The two US Senators sparred over health care, the war in Iraq and trade, particularly the North American Free Trade Agreement which was negotiated in her husband's first term — but is seen by labor and other critics as a chief culprit in the loss of manufacturing jobs in Ohio and other industrial Midwestern states.


Both candidates have called for renegotiating parts of the trade pact, but in different terms.


It was their final debate before next Tuesday's contests, which also include races in Vermont and Rhode Island.


Clinton needs big wins after 11 successive Obama victories and after Obama's steady increase in gathering delegates. It seemed unlikely the debate at Cleveland State University would provide that lift.


Neither one seemed to knock the other off stride.


"I don't think the debate changes a lot. Both came across as strong in the ways they've always been seen as strong," said Wayne Fields, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis who studies political rhetoric. Neither one managed to seriously erode the other's credibility.

OBAMA UPDATE

Reports out of New York City say Illinois Senator Barack Obama's primary night results were greatly undercounted in several areas ... in some cases leaving him with zero votes when, in fact, he had pulled in hundreds, said the Board of Elections.

Unofficial primary results gave Obama no votes in nearly 80 districts, including Harlem's 94th and other historically black areas - but many of those initial tallies proved to be wildly off the mark, the board said.


Because of recounts, in some districts, Obama may end up in a tie or even defeating Hillary Clinton, the Democratic senator from New York.


"Outrageous" is what Brooklyn City Councilman Charles Barron called the understated figures


"I think this is an all-out effort to stop a campaign that is about to make history and render America's first black president," he said. "We need some kind of independent or federal agency to investigate this."


In other Obama news, the Democratic presidential candidate met in secret with John Edwards on Sunday. The meeting was confirmed by his campaign managers, but wouldn't say if won an endorsement.


Edwards dropped out of the presidential race after failing to win any of the earlier state races. Both Obama & Clinton are actively seeking his support because of his appeal to working-class Democrats who are heavily represented in Ohio's primary and Pennsylvania's April 22 contest.


Finally, it appears that Obama's winning ways are causing Bill Clinton to come apart at the seams. He's starting to lose his cool - in public - more and more. The latest case was in Canton, Ohio when the former US President got in the face of Robert Holeman an Obama supporter.


"I think he even hit me in the face with his hand," Holeman said. "He did give me a little pop. It was okay, because I understand his tenacity for his wife."


Some staffers from the Clinton camp expressed to reporters that Holeman was an Obama plant, however that was categorically denied by the Obama spokesperson Ben LaBolt. Also, a spokesperson for President Clinton who was near the confrontation, said there was no physical contact.

ELECTION ANALYSIS: 'Super Delegates' positioned to decide Democratic presidential race.

The way the race for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination is shaping up, a select group of less than 1,000 people could determine whether the party's presidential nominee is Illinois Senator Barack Obama or New York Senator Hillary Clinton.

This select group is composed of the party's so-called super delegates - lawmakers and party officials who can vote for anyone they choose regardless of the outcomes in their state primary or caucus.

The magic number of delegates needed to win the Democratic presidential nomination is 2,025. Currently, Obama leads Clinton by roughly 100 delegates.

However, if the latest polls are to be believed, Clinton is expected to win in the delegate rich states of Texas and Ohio on March 4th. If she does, she will draw even or pull ahead of Obama and throw the race into a virtual dead heat with the two expected to split the remaining states relatively evenly.

Thus, by the time the Democratic Party convention rounds around in August, it will be the super delegates who will be in the position to determine the winner. Currently, both Obama and Clinton are vigorously courting the super delegates. Both former President Bill Clinton and his daughter Chelsea have been on the phones for Mrs. Clinton. But Obama supporters have not been shy about calling the super delegates either.

Currently, Clinton is thought to be leading among the super delegates but Obama has been gaining support and few are prepared to predict how the votes will flow in August.

IN OTHER SUPER DELEGATE NEWS ...

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution is reporting that Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) refused to say Saturday if he plans to vote for Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination at the party's national convention in August.

Lewis turned a lot of heads on Thursday when he apparently told a New York Times reporter that he would cast his ballot at the convention for Obama, rather than Hillary Clinton, whom he has endorsed.

On Friday it was a different story as Lewis' office told the AJC that the Times' story was "inaccurate," but refused to give any other details and has not responded to requests for clarification.

Jeff Zeleny, the reporter for the Times who wrote the original story, told the Atlanta paper that Lewis was clear in his support for Obama.

OBAMA AND CLINTON FACE OFF

The first Democratic Debate between Senators Obama and Clinton took place Thursday evening at LA's Kodak theatre (which easily seats over 3,000) in front of a packed house.

The venue, sprinkled with the likes of Steven Spielberg, Alfre Woodard, Hill Harper, Isaiah Washington and his wife, Rob Reiner, Stevie Wonder, brimmed with the excitement over the most significant presidential election the United States has ever seen with a black man, Barack Obama and a woman, Hillary Clinton, competing for the chance to become the democratic party’s newest leader of the free world.


The set-up for the debate mimicked that of a heavyweight bout in Vegas, though the debate some were looking for did not occur. The commentator seemingly gave their “weight and stats” as they stepped on stage as though we’d see nothing shy of an Ali/Frasier rematch as we ready for, what is popularly called Super Tuesday.


But quite the opposite was the atmosphere of this debate. Hillary and Barack carried quite a mature discussion on the peril and future of America.


The debate exhibited the many similarities between the two candidates and for the first time in this campaign they both made it clear that voting Democrat is a win-win situation. The two ultimately are building momentum for their party against the Republicans.


“They are more of the same,” Sen. Clinton said of the Republican candidates. “Neither of us, by looking at us, is more of the same. We will change our country.”

Sen. Obama also gave rousing remarks as they pertain to the Republicans and the war stating, “I think I will be the Democrat who will be most effective in going up against a John McCain, or any other Republican -- because they all want basically a continuation of George Bush's policies…” But then there was a shift in the response that clearly chastised Senator Clinton, via her vote in Congress, for giving Bush permission to invade Iraq. “…I will offer a clear contrast as somebody who never supported this war, thought it was a bad idea. I don't want to just end the war, but I want to end the mindset that got us into war in the first place.”


There were various times in the debates where harsh reality checks were made between the two candidates. But, Sen. Obama’s harshest chide would come by way of Sen. Clinton’s vote that she has not completely acknowledged as a mistake regarding the war, but rather chooses to rationalize.


“You know, I've said many times if I had known then what I know now, I never would have given President Bush the authority,” explained Sen. Clinton. “It was a sincere vote based on my assessment at the time and what I believed he would do with the authority he was given. He abused that authority; he misused that authority. I warned at the time it was not authority for a preemptive war. Nevertheless, he went ahead and waged one, which has led to the position we find ourselves in today.”


Sen. Obama’s clear opposition to the war from the very beginning set him in a strong position regarding this issue. He repeatedly garnered applause when explaining the importance of such a mistake on Sen. Clinton’s part.


“I don't want to belabor this, because I know we're running out of time and I'm sure you guys want to move on to some other stuff, but I do just have to say this -- the legislation, the authorization had the title, an authorization to use U.S. military force, in Iraq. I think everybody, the day after that vote was taken, understood this was a vote potentially to go to war,” clarified Sen. Obama. “I think were very clear about that…if you look at the headlines. The reason that this is important, again, is that Senator Clinton, I think, fairly, has claimed that she's got the experience on day one. And part of the argument that I'm making in this campaign is that, it is important to be right on day one.”


Sen. Clinton has often used her experience against Sen. Obama to state her claim for the presidency. The recent backlash regarding her remarks that Sen. Obama was not comparable to the late President John F. Kennedy or Martin Luther King, Jr. because of his lack of experience possibly fueled a strong endorsement from the late President’s daughter, Caroline Kennedy and his brother Ted Kennedy.


“You know, Ted Kennedy said that he is confident that we will get universal health care with me as president, and he's been working on it longer than I think about than anybody,” noted Sen. Obama. “That's what I did in Illinois, to provide insurance for people who did not have it. That's what I will do in bringing all parties together, not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together…”


Sen. Clinton later shoots back to Sen. Obama that she too is endorsed by members of the Kennedy family saying, “Well, I have the greatest respect for Senator Kennedy and the Kennedy family. And I'm proud to have three of Senator Robert Kennedy's children, Bobby and Kathleen and Kerry, supporting me.”


There is also the issue of African American politics as they pertain to Sen. Obama. He has been brought to task regarding his policies by many. The fear is that he isn’t going to represent African Americans enough. When race is introduced into this campaign, there has been a lot of back and forth. The Black caucus has been split down the middle in their endorsement of both candidates. Toni Morrison, who once famously called Bill Clinton America’s first black president, has formally aligned herself with the Obama camp with an eloquently written formal endorsement.


During the debate the question was raised by a caller, Kim Millman from Burnsville, Minnesota, who stated that "there's been no acknowledgement by any of the presidential candidates of the negative economic impact of immigration on the African-American community. How do you propose to address the high unemployment rates and the declining wages in the African-American community that are related to the flood of immigrant labor?"


Sen. Obama responded saying, “Well, let me first of all say that I have worked on the streets of Chicago as an organizer with people who have been laid off from steel plants, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, and, you know, all of them are feeling economically insecure right now, and they have been for many years. Before the latest round of immigrants showed up, you had huge unemployment rates among African-American youth. And, so, I think to suggest somehow that the problem that we're seeing in inner-city unemployment, for example, is attributable to immigrants, I think, is a case of scapegoating that I do not believe in, I do not subscribe to.”


The crowd applauded Sen. Obama’s remarks as he went on to say, “I believe that we can be a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. Now, there is no doubt that we have to get control of our borders. We can't have hundreds of thousands of people coming over to the United States without us having any idea who they are.”

Ultimately, the debate exhibited both candidates ability to run the country in the direction of the people’s interest while also sparking innuendo of them becoming what the media has already coined a “dream ticket.” When asked if they would consider running together they both, once again, agreed.


“We've got a lot more road to travel. And so I think it's premature for either of us to start speculating about vice presidents, et cetera. I think it would be premature and presumptuous,” said Sen. Obama. “Part of what I would like to do is restore a sense of what is possible in government. And that means having people of the greatest excellence and competence…But you know, it is really important, I think, for us also to give the American people this sense, as they are struggling with their mortgages and struggling with their health care and trying to figure out how to get their kids in a school that will teach them and prepare them and equip them for this century, that they get a sense that government's on their side, that government is listening to them, that it's carrying their voices into the White House.”


Super Tuesday, February 5, will see a pivotal election that will be held in these 22 states (three have primaries where only the Democratic Party will be voting): Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho (Democratic Party Only), Illinois, Kansas (Democratic Party Only), Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico (Democratic Party Only), New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah

DID HILLARY STEAL NEVADA CAUCUS?

Headlines say that Sen. Hillary Clinton won the Nevada caucus on Saturday, but caucus workers for Barack Obama are accusing Clinton camp of using illegal tactics to secure the victory.


Also, Obama's campaign held a conference call with reporters stating that he actually won more pledged Nevada delegates than his Democratic rival, 13-12, due to Obama's win outside of Clark County.


MSNBC.com explains of the math: "The more populous Clark County, which Clinton won, awarded an even number of delegates, and Clinton and Obama split those down the middle. Meanwhile, the more rural areas, which Obama won, awarded an odd number of delegates, which gave Obama the edge.


"But the Associated Press -- as well as NBC News -- had reported that the delegate split being Clinton 13, Obama 12. Who is wrong here? Per the Obama camp, the state party is still gathering results, and they believe the AP has incomplete numbers."

Nevada Democratic Party chairwoman Jill Derby has come forward to dispute the claim, stating: “The calculations of national convention delegates being circulated are based upon an assumption that delegate preferences will remain the same between now and April 2008. We look forward to our county and state conventions where we will choose the delegates for the nominee that Nevadans support.”

Meanwhile, Obama's campaign manager David Plouffe claims there were over 200 separate allegations of irregularities at caucus sites. And Hilary Clinton's campaign tactics in the days leading up to the Nevada caucus are being criticized by eyewitnesses in various reports and blogs.


A precinct captain reporting from one of the Obama field offices in Clark County told dailykos.com "the scene here is ugly."


"Everyone is reporting election irregularities on the part of the Hillary campaign," the precinct captain said. "There is widespread cheating and voter suppression going on all over Clark County--and it's obviously coming in from the top down. Whether it made enough of a difference to swing the election is another question--but there is no question that Hillary was running a scorched-earth, no-holds-barred campaign in which all of her surrogates were instructed to cheat in every way possible."


Various witness accounts of the allegations began popping up on the Internet during Saturday's caucus. Several are listed below:

• From blogger "LV Pol," an Obama supporter: "For starters, we noticed that Hillary's supporters were breaking the rules by placing Hillary signs where they were not allowed and we asked them to take them down, which they did. We then noticed, that a car sporting Hillary signage, was double-parked, blocking people who needed access to handicapped parking. We told a woman who just had a hip replacement to park her car right beside the car. The next controversial issue involved the voter cards disappearing into the Hillary camp, so that the Edwards and Obama people were left with no cards. When we asked them to give us back some cards, we then noticed that they had all been pre-marked for Hillary." Read LVPol's entire post here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/19/192211/885/640/439715

• From "RunnerAAA," an Obama supporter: "When I entered the cafeteria, where my precinct was located along with two other precincts, all I saw was three 'Hillary tables.' I put this in quotes, because it turns out that these three tables were actually the registration tables for the separate precincts. This was the first of many problems and rules broken by the Hillary camp. Next, we had to find a place to set up. As there are four candidates left in the democratic primary, each candidate is supposed to get a corner of the 'room.' The Hillary camp seemed to think there were only two people in the race and placed their signs and tables across one half of the 'room.' We kindly reminded them that there are four candidates and that we each needed a corner. After speaking with the Temporary Chair, they reluctantly took down the signs and we had to move their tables ourselves. The tension was clearly building between the Clinton and Obama volunteers." Read RunnerAAA's entire post here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/19/201119/655/611/439744


There was also a problem with Clinton supporters closing doors earlier than the scheduled time. EUR received an expletive-filled e-mail rant from an Obama caucus chair, stating: "I've never seen so much robbery in all my life from f***ing democrats. Those Hillary people,,,,,,,, closed the doors on our people and we had to call the cops in some precincts to have locks cut from doors, those bastards slipped people in the back doors, they sent people home at 11:30 when it was illegal to prevent people from voting before noon, they called Obama a nigger in some areas, we had fights, we had Hillary crooks who were caucus chairs for the democratic party just pick up cards and send the people home.......no count.................WE WERE F***ING ROBBED."

Another account of the same issue was blogged by RunnerAAA, who wrote of the Clinton camp: "They started closing the doors at 11:30 a.m. (instead of 12 p.m.) as the state party had previously instructed. We had to call the Democratic Party in order to get the doors open again, for a Hillary volunteer who wouldn't settle for anything less. I would later find out that many precincts had the same problem with Clinton volunteers refusing to let people in after 11:30."


Blogger "ThereIsNoSpoon" listed the following infractions committed by Clinton supporters at http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/19/162953/644/790/439573


• No less than eight Obama captains (including myself) have reported that Clinton operatives tried to close the doors at 11:30--a full thirty minutes before the doors were supposed to close. In some cases I am hearing they actually succeeded, and voters were turned away before more knowledgeable people could get there to reopen them. The Clinton campaign had obviously told their people to be there by 11:30--and they knew that the higher the turnout, the worse for them.

• At least two reports of Clinton operatives telling the uncommitteds and Edwards supporters, once their numbers were deemed not viable, that they had to leave. Whether these tactics succeeded or not, I do not know. Obviously, the Clinton campaign knew that voters not already in her camp were unlikely to join her camp (I know from my own experience that I convinced many more undecideds than my opponent Hillary operative), so they attempted to suppress their vote.

• At least one report of Clinton operatives telling Obama supporters with viable numbers that they were not viable, and had to leave. From what I hear, some of those voters did in fact leave.

• At least two reports (including my own) of disabled voters being coerced into the Clinton camp against their will, or even having their voter card filled out for them against their will.

• A few reports of probable out-of-state Clinton operatives being counted among the voters--though since checking ID is illegal, and other Hillary operatives from in-state would vouch for them, it's impossible to say.

• At least one report of two large men standing outside the door checking voters for whom they would support, and telling all Obama people they were at the wrong location.

• At least one other report of Hillary operatives doing the check-in, and telling all Obama supporters that they were not on the list, could not register at the location (not true), and that they could not caucus.

• At least one report of ballots being filled out in advance for Hillary in mass.

• At least one report of Hillary supporters saying that the caucus location was just the Hillary room--and that Obama supporters had to go to a faraway location.

• At least one report of a voter registration list only in Spanish, and only with Hillary supporters on it. Obama supporters later found the registration list with the rest of the people--in the garbage can of the ladies restroom.

• Several reports of Hillary signs on the registration table, and Hillary supporters in Hillary shirts doing registration.


In other Obama news, UK's Times Online is pointing out that Oprah Winfrey is being called a "traitor" by some of her female fans for choosing to support Obama over Clinton. It all apparently started with a message on her Oprah.com Web site titled “Oprah is a traitor.” The discussion that followed included hundred of comments both agreeing an disagreeing with the declaration.

In the original post, a reader called austaz68 said she “cannot believe that women all over this country are not up in arms over Oprah’s backing of Obama. For the first time in history we actually have a shot at putting a woman in the White House and Oprah backs the black MAN. She’s choosing her race over her gender.”


A subsequent comment, 2nurselady wrote: “I don’t think Oprah is a ‘traitor’, but I do think she may be alienating a lot of her fans.”


One suspicious reader posted the message: “All the rude and hateful messages on here can’t be from Oprah fans. Someone’s campaign (wonder who?) is sabotaging the message boards.”