By Jennifer Parker

Apr 18, 2008 5:07pm

In Canada, Clinton Co-Chair/Fundraiser Downplays Candidate’s NAFTA Rhetoric

At Toronto’s Empire Club of Canada this week, two former US ambassadors to Canada — one Democrat and one Republican — debated how concerned Canadians should be that the Democratic candidates are serious about re-negotiating NAFTA.

It was the Democrat, James Blanchard, who told Canadians not to worry, according to Canadian press accounts. 

Blanchard, former Governor of Michigan, is a Michigan state co-chair of Sen. Hillary Clinton’s campaign, one of her major "HillRaiser" fundraisers, and served as US Ambassador to Canada during the administration of former President Bill Clinton.

Hillary Clinton has pledged to voters that she will force Canada to re-negotiate the deal or the US will opt out of it.

"I’ve said that I will renegotiate NAFTA, so obviously we’d have to say to Canada and Mexico that that’s exactly what we’re going to do," Clinton said during a recent debate. "We will opt out of NAFTA unless we renegotiate it.”

But Blanchard seemed to pooh-pooh that bold statement, telling attendees that Democrats are more concerned about China and Mexico than they are Canada.

”Their concern is job loss or unfairness in dealing with countries that have low wage and labor standards and low environmental standards,” Blanchard said, according to the Canadian Press. ”I have not seen anything that would constitute a threat to trade with Canada."

The story said that Blanchard this week "played down her antipathy toward the free-trade deal, saying she has visited Canada many times and understands the country well."

Conversely, the Republican, former Massachusetts Gov. Paul Cellucci — who served as US Ambassador to Canada for President George W. Bush — said "there ought to be some concern here in Canada" because both Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama have "been making some pretty strong statements" against trade agreements such as NAFTA.

The sincerity of the Democrats’ opposition to various trade deals has emerged as an issue in the primary season, as the candidates pursue labor union voters in industrial states such as Pennsylvania, which will hold its contest this Tuesday.

An Obama economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, met with Canadian officials and left the impression he was assuring them not to take Obama’s anti-NAFTA rhetoric too seriously.

Clinton, for her part, has claimed to have always opposed NAFTA even though she help promote the trade deal in 1993.

Her campaign adviser, Mark Penn, met with Colombian officials to help promote the Colombian trade deal that Clinton herself opposes. Her husband also supports the deal and was paid $800,000 by a pro-trade Colombian company in 2005 to deliver speeches in which he promoted it.

When Blanchard resigned as Bill Clinton’s ambassador to Canada, the Montreal Gazette reported that he "helped pave the way for the so-called "concessions" on labor and environmental issues that gave Prime Minister Chretien a face-saving excuse for dropping his opposition to NAFTA."

Blanchard eventually became a lobbyist, and has represented Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cisco Systems, and Qualcomm. As a HillRaiser he has committed to raising at least $250,000 for Clinton’s campaign.

– jpt

User Comments

Good work Jake, but does it really surprise us? T
he whole Hillary campaign is one big free trade lobbyist train, with Bill, Penn and Wolfson steering the whole thing. Only Hillary, to please the “screw ‘em” folks because she needs their votes, wants us to believe that she’s opposed to NAFTA and the Colombia trade agreement.
But here we got proof again, so that’s important.

Posted by: kingston | April 18, 2008, 5:17 pm 5:17 pm

I would make a comment to all those Hillary people…
I told you so… is all that comes to mind. Do your homework.

Posted by: Becky | April 18, 2008, 5:23 pm 5:23 pm

s.b…. .Please, you are worried about him scratching his face….. Will you people not stop…..

Posted by: Becky | April 18, 2008, 5:25 pm 5:25 pm

I am so upset. I’ve been reading about the Peter Paul story all day long and now this. Why won’t anyone answer my questions about Peter Paul. Who is he?

Posted by: answer | April 18, 2008, 5:32 pm 5:32 pm

This is why Obama will lose in the General Election. It is already written in stone. Barak will win the nomination and lose the General. Hillary supporters are sick and tired of negative press. It’s too late, we are done, finished. Nothing anybody says will bring us together in August. The press has been anti-Clinton from the very beginning. I hope you’re happy. I’m speaking to all Obama supporters and the press. WE ARE DONE!

Posted by: Lois, California | April 18, 2008, 5:37 pm 5:37 pm

Kingston, its at least two seperate events. Second of all, its a single finger at both events. The second finger only appears close to the first one as its being lowered.
It is however the CROWD REACTION and then Obama’s reaction that tells the story in the videos not the still shots.
The first time I saw the first video from one angle I though it was nothing until the crowd reacted and then he reacted. Then I watched it agian.
Then I saw it from a different angle and saw another video of a seperate event at exactly the same time in his speech doing the same thing. it is 100% undeniable. He is giving Hillary Clinton the finger like a school child.
Perhaps the two finger photo is from a third event where he is trying to cover his blatent juvenile unpresidential actions.
He needs to be held accountable for this. Jake knows that the same speech is given several times a day. one photo of him using two fingers to scratch his face is not proof of anyting.
Watch the undeniable video on The Swamp blog. The LA times video is a different event.

Posted by: s.b. | April 18, 2008, 5:39 pm 5:39 pm

Newsweek released a new poll today that shows a major swing among Democrats towards Obama.

Posted by: Dan | April 18, 2008, 5:40 pm 5:40 pm

I agree the Democrat can not winthe white house with Obama as the nominee.
100% or I wouldn’t be doing this.
He is unelectable and unpresidential. The video of him giving Hillary the finger at one speech is unmistakable and absolutely clear. The fact that he did it at at least one other speech at the same moment is proof.
All the republicans need to do is make a video out of this footage and he won’t be elected. The list of reasons of why he is unelectable grows longer every day.
If Democrats are dumb enough to nominate him, they deserve to lose, and they will.

Posted by: s.b. | April 18, 2008, 5:43 pm 5:43 pm

Embassy tight-lipped on whether NAFTA leak probe covers Wilson
“The CTV story reportedly orginated from Harper’s chief of staff Ian Brodie, who told reporters in Ottawa that Hillary Clinton’s campaign assured Canadian officials they need not worry about her NAFTA rhetoric.
There’s been no explanation for why the focus shifted to Obama in the CTV report that went to air.”

Posted by: kravitz | April 18, 2008, 5:48 pm 5:48 pm

S.B,
Why can’t you get a life? Why can’t you act your age? It’s so pitiable the extent you and your fellow Hillary supporters have degenerated. So it has gone to to the extent that obama can’t even scratch his face? It’s so disgusting the level that american politics has reached. It is now a race to the bottom.
I am now more convinced than ever that we need a change and we need it urgently! May God save America!

Posted by: Dew5050 | April 18, 2008, 5:49 pm 5:49 pm

This is not FAIR. I voted for her because she said she would work against the effects of NAFATA. I hate this…. what is wrong with her?

Posted by: not fair | April 18, 2008, 5:49 pm 5:49 pm

NO……………………..
More lies. More lies. I can’t believe I stood up for her all this months.

Posted by: what???? | April 18, 2008, 5:50 pm 5:50 pm

I knew she wasn’t telling the truth as soon as I heard about mark Penn and Columbia. This does not surprise me at all

Posted by: nafta | April 18, 2008, 5:52 pm 5:52 pm

DISAPPOINTED CLINTON SUPPORTERS…FOR THE GOOD OF AMERICA…PLEASE THROW YOUR SUPPORT BEHIND SEN. OBAMA…WE CANNOT HAVE ANOTHER 4 YEARS OF THIS MESS…
OBAMA ’08

Posted by: H. Aslan Aslani-Far | April 18, 2008, 5:54 pm 5:54 pm

This is just amazing how can we vote for this women. Im a white female in PA and I will no loger support this women. She continues to lie to the American people no wonder Amercians by in large dont trust this women. I hope all people in PA and come out and reject Hillary Clinton dirty tricks. She is shameless.

Posted by: MARIE SUE ANN-ERIE, PA | April 18, 2008, 6:01 pm 6:01 pm

Obama will never be elected President. John McCain will.
He is at least qualified enough and mature enough for the job.
Obama is unelectable.

Posted by: s.b. | April 18, 2008, 6:01 pm 6:01 pm

s.b.: You realize you very nearly described Gerorge W. Bush, don’t you?

Posted by: H. Aslan Aslani-Far | April 18, 2008, 6:02 pm 6:02 pm

Our Founding Fathers never tried to build this contry based on spin.
But they built this country based on the principles of integrity, truthfullness, honesty and honor.
Hillary Clinton is just destroying this lagacy that has brought this country dso far.

Posted by: JohnS | April 18, 2008, 6:04 pm 6:04 pm

Marie sue from Erie PA. I agree with you. We should not vote for Hillary she is the biggest lier on this earth. She represents these large companys and their intrest. She is so phonie. I urge all PA folks to go out and reject the Clinton distruction machine. Hilary is NAFTA all over again.

Posted by: Judith Leonard-PA | April 18, 2008, 6:05 pm 6:05 pm

I am through with this primary. I for one will be voting for McCain in the fall!!! All of you Obama supporters better get your act together and make it to the polls in November, although I don’t think it will help. As Marrow would say!!! “Good Luck and Good Night”

Posted by: Lisa | April 18, 2008, 6:05 pm 6:05 pm

MARIE SUE ANN-ERIE: It is critical that Democrats win this election…if you are turned off by Hillary Clinton, please consider voting and supporting Sen. Obama. To the extent that you are comfortable, any help swaying friends on the fence to do so too will only help the cause in November…for Clinton supporters who may feel slighted by her not getting the nomination, we will need a few months for those wounds to heal before the General Election in November…but, can you imagine another 4 years of this?

Posted by: H. Aslan Aslani-Far | April 18, 2008, 6:05 pm 6:05 pm

I will no longer fight for Hillary. Enough is enough.

Posted by: not this time | April 18, 2008, 6:06 pm 6:06 pm

PLEASE SAY NO TO HILLARY FOLKS!!
HILLARY IS NAFTA ALL OVER AGAIN
HILLARY IS NAFTA ALL OVER AGAIN
HILLARY IS NAFTA ALL OVER AGAIN
UNION WORKER COME OUT IN DROVES AND VOTE AGAINST NAFTA AND HILLARY. PLEASE FOR THE SAKE OF THIS GREAT NATION.
UNIONS AGAIST NAFTA AND HILLARY!!!

Posted by: PA UNION AFDC | April 18, 2008, 6:08 pm 6:08 pm

Proof of what? The majority of our oil comes from Canada, not the middle east. They do have some clout.
That said, if wages are what cause the jobs to go elsewhere and product manufacturing to diminish, THAT is what you focus on the negotiation.
You want to beat Canada? That’s easy. Go buy some canadian-made furniture (say a TV table). The workmanship is simply terrible. It looks like the kind of cars the US manufactured during the years of wide open pot smoking at work in the last seventies. So beat the Canadians the old fashioned way: BETTER QUALITY PRODUCT.
A NAFTA renegotiation doesn’t cut equally for all partners. That’s why we have to have it.
But if you really want to chase a real issue, figure out how to finance the restart of manufacturing. Look at the enormous sums going into software development and computer systems. We have to figure out how to do that for other kinds of products. Nail this to the masthead at work:
NO PRODUCT. NO MARKET. NO SALES. NO PAY.
Which one do you want to fix first?

Posted by: len | April 18, 2008, 6:09 pm 6:09 pm

The disturbing thing about this all is, when Hillary Clinton was asked if there was a conflict of interest with her supposed public opposition to the Colombian Trade Deal, while Bill was being paid $800,000 to help push it through Congress, she said, “…How many Angels stand on a pin?” This after she loaned her campaign $5 million in February to continue her run for the Presidency. She she and Bill have a joint account, as most married couples do, this is a conflict of interest, yet she doesn’t seem to see the problem. Hmm, Bill got paid $800,000 to help the Colombians with a Trade Deal I oppose than went right into funding my drive for the presidency, yet that money is not going to influence my policy at all. Does anyone believe this?

Posted by: H. Aslan Aslani-Far | April 18, 2008, 6:11 pm 6:11 pm

Obama has all of you bambozzled!!! I fear what this country will be like in 4 Years, but you know what if this is what the new generation wants, then they can have him!!! They are the ones who are going to have to pay when he makes this country worse than what George Bush made it!!! Beware of double speak from Obama, It is happening, they media and his followers, just don’t want to listen.

Posted by: Lisa | April 18, 2008, 6:11 pm 6:11 pm

Lisa: Based on your previous posts you’re a die-hard Republican…so, I can understand why you are so afraid of Sen. Obama getting the nomination… Obama vs. McCain will be a quick bout and the poor old guy will be back in the Senate…

Posted by: H. Aslan Aslani-Far | April 18, 2008, 6:13 pm 6:13 pm

AMERICANS NEED T WAKE UP
we need to take care of our nation 1st before we start all this trade business
with other countries.
GROWING PRESSURE NEEDS TO BE PUT ON OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS TO PUT THEIR FEET DOWN
ON THE NECKS OF THESE AMERICANS WHO WERE BIRTH HERE (The greatest Free nation)
but want to take their business elsewhere
NOT FAIR. NAFTA SUCKS

Posted by: WhiteboyDay | April 18, 2008, 6:13 pm 6:13 pm

If I were a Hillary Clinton donater, I’d simply demand my money to be returned.

Posted by: Harriet | April 18, 2008, 6:14 pm 6:14 pm

OMG-I just can take this anymore I just can sit and take this abuse from this women. Bill an d Hillary represents whats wrong with America. How can any decent American go out and support this women who is supporting NAFTA. If you care about this or about others and the future of this great nation do not vote for the Clintons. Nafta will ruin this nation. Please I urge you not to fall for this trap. Vote No on Nafta

Posted by: Elizabeth Coleman | April 18, 2008, 6:15 pm 6:15 pm

Sen. Clinton hope you’re watching the news? Drip,drip,drip the SUPER DELEGATES ARE MAKING THEIR MOVE TO OBAMA and you’ll be out of steam and $ soon.

Posted by: Owen Hill | April 18, 2008, 6:17 pm 6:17 pm

Don’t worry if Hillary doesn’t get the nom, she will be back in 2012, because Obama will be defeated in November! If he isn’t this country will be bombed for sure. Even Hamas wants to see him as President. They have already spouted validation by USA because of Carter’s visit. Remember Obama is the one who wants to talk to all of these terroist leaders without preconditions. God Help Us “Bible Thumping, Gun Toting Small Town Bitter Folk” for caring about this country!!!

Posted by: Lisa | April 18, 2008, 6:17 pm 6:17 pm

I knew the canadians would get around to telling the truth about this story sooner or later.
See how easy it was for the clintons to capitalize off of this lie.
Only the Lord knows just how sick and tired we are…

Posted by: LA in Indiana | April 18, 2008, 6:19 pm 6:19 pm

Folks,
prepare for Hillary’s hysterical cackle if a reporter dares to question her on this.
Couldn’t Chelsea simply say: mom, I really get the feeling America simply doesn’t want you. No, they don’t like you, mom. Come on now, let’s go home.
And after that I hope we will fight on the ISSUES. Things will become a lot clearer, I look forward to that. Democrats versus Republicans.

Posted by: marian | April 18, 2008, 6:20 pm 6:20 pm

Speaking of politics, for my money this is the best political communication of the week. Excerpt taken from a letter by Karl Rove to Dan Abrams
“Did you ever consider that the Governor’s security detail might have taken note of an ample-sized, redheaded woman who kept showing up at his events with a camera? Did you talk with the Alabama Department of Public Safety?”

Posted by: spammer | April 18, 2008, 6:21 pm 6:21 pm

No surprise. Does any body really believe HRC would touch NAFTA? Once again, if she were elected the most she would do is appoint a commission of has beens to “study” the issue.

Posted by: DMR | April 18, 2008, 6:21 pm 6:21 pm

It’s silly season. People going crazy over this supposed “finger” bit. He just was scratching his face. He was thinking hard at the time.
It’s nuts, and ranks right up there with Ayers, and bitter, and all the rest of the crap. It’s desperation. Do you people bringing this stuff up understand how totally desperate you look? The finger story truly puts it all in the same bold perspective.
NAFTA? Now there’s a story and an issue. The continuing issue of credibility and where Clinton does actually stand. An issue that was never surfaced in the debate, by the way, that was supposed to reveal her electability.

Posted by: Cheryl In WA | April 18, 2008, 6:23 pm 6:23 pm

H. Aslan Aslani Far-Actually I am a Democrat, have been voting for 25+ years, and have never voted republican. I will vote republican this year!
I do not believe in Obama’s policies, especially those pertaining to terrorist nations. I can see right through Obama. He is a politician just like all the rest. I think he has fooled many people into believing there will be change. We’ll see in 4 years.

Posted by: Lisa | April 18, 2008, 6:23 pm 6:23 pm

This is pathetic. Hillary and Bill get away with screwing the American People. They are in court next week for fraud. Is it anything these people won’t do to further their own agenda? Why isn’t ABC reporting on that?

Posted by: Alicia | April 18, 2008, 6:25 pm 6:25 pm

This is what is wrong with Obama’s supporters and why alot, alot of democrats in New Jersey are voting for Mccain. Hillary Clinton spent her entire life fighting for the democratic party, it’s principles. Because of her stance for the party she has been attacked by the opposition for 30 years! It is one thing to back Obama who has done NOTHING for democrats or independents or for that matter Republicans! But the lack of respect, out of “new voters” who dont realize Obama is a bag full of hot air that we seen in this country over and over again! A “politician” who was gladly used so the liberal wing of the party can beat the moderate wing of the party and regain power! Whats new about Obama look at the people who have endorsed him, they will be the people controlling Obama – for this moderate democrat – NO THANK YOU! what was great about the Clinton’s and why so many of these clowns hate her is that she was controlled by no one! Moderate democrats for Mccain! Send the Obama back to Wright, Ayers and Rezko – maybe they can toughen him up!

Posted by: John in Cape May | April 18, 2008, 6:26 pm 6:26 pm

If ABC has any kind of decency, they will make sure the news runs this for DAYS. The last time (in Ohio) the networks sat on a story that the people should have known about. Please show mercy this time.

Posted by: Flander Annapolis | April 18, 2008, 6:26 pm 6:26 pm

Lisa: If that is the case, then I would hope you will also support him when he gets the nomination…I can understand your being skeptical…especially after 7+ years of lies and deceit…but I do, truly believe that he will do what is best for the country, and that, at the very least, as a constitutional law professor, that he will restore the rights absconded by this Administration. He alone won’t fix the economy or the crisis in Iraq — just as no president will, but all the help is needed to try and bring about a colossal change…I hope you are willing to do that much…if you think it is a leap of faith…then so be it, but it’s worth that leap, because we already know what the alternative — a 3rd Bush presidency will bring.

Posted by: H. Aslan Aslani-Far | April 18, 2008, 6:28 pm 6:28 pm

Who said NAFTA is bad to US?
NAFTA is only bad to someones who lost job…
NAFTA has been served as the best US national interest more than 15 years…

Posted by: True Truth | April 18, 2008, 6:28 pm 6:28 pm

If Obama wants to fix American politics, he should fix his home town – Chicago first, the biggest politcal scandal just found right now….
For more than 17 years, he did nothing to fix it but dreaming of running US president…

Posted by: True Truth | April 18, 2008, 6:31 pm 6:31 pm

H. Aslan Aslani Far- I do not buy the 3-Bush scenario. McCain is far better suited to run this country than Obama and has a proven record of breaking with his party to cross-over and get legislation good for all passed. I will take that chance. I will be voting for McCain if Obama gets the Democratic Nomination.

Posted by: Lisa | April 18, 2008, 6:32 pm 6:32 pm

Everyone,
I was at Obama’s town hall forum in Raleigh. I had a very good seat and could tell exactly what he was doing. We (the crowd) were cheering because he was talking about Hillary’s manipulation. No one was cheering because he put up his middle finger. HE WAS SCRATCHING HIS FACE!! Do you really think that someone running for the presidency of the United States would be crass enough to, first of all, put up his middle finger and second of all, do it with at least 100 cameras in his face??? Really?? At this point it seems as if people who are anti-Obama have stooped to the level of actually making up bull in order to support their distorted view of him. At least Hillary has done enough stuff to support our antipathy towards her. We don’t have to resort to creating stories.

Posted by: Sha-vone | April 18, 2008, 6:33 pm 6:33 pm

So she attacks Obama’s advisor for doing something that her campaign is also doing? How hypocritical! I hope this gets out to PA voters.

Posted by: Laura | April 18, 2008, 6:36 pm 6:36 pm

Vanessa, just so you can learn something…Reich has been bashing Hillary for the past 6 months and sucking up to Obama. You think he wants a job? Bill CLinton replaced him during his second administration. Also, Hillary will win PA by at least 12 points. Trust me, I have worked on plenty of democratic primaries in PA. Obama will carry Philly but not by the wide margin Rendell did to win the Governorship (Northeast and South Philly support Clinton). The suburbs currently are about even. Other than those 5 counties Hillary beats him everywhere else the other 68 counties in the State! Obama’s numbers are not going above 42/44% – 56 – 44, Obama can right off Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida = Good Luck!

Posted by: John in Cape May | April 18, 2008, 6:38 pm 6:38 pm

For those of you saying that obama can’t win the general election, don’t worry, when he gets to that bridge, he will cross over it.
Many of you were saying the same thing even before the primary started and had already prepared a crown for Hillary, but, look where he is right now! I can’t wait for you to silenced for ever after november. Mark my word!!

Posted by: Chyke | April 18, 2008, 6:39 pm 6:39 pm

Good luck crossing that bridge without alot of older Democrats!

Posted by: John in Cape May | April 18, 2008, 6:43 pm 6:43 pm

John in Cape May: Clinton will win PA by 1-3 points and a deluge of superdelegates will endorse Obama the following day.
Game over.

Posted by: H. Aslan Aslani-Far | April 18, 2008, 6:46 pm 6:46 pm

FACT: SINCE SUPER TUESDAY — THE SUPERDELEGATE TALLY IS:
CLINTON: -2
OBAMA: +77

Posted by: H. Aslan Aslani-Far | April 18, 2008, 6:49 pm 6:49 pm

wow,, why is this not all over the tv news.. Hillary must own the news media..

Posted by: IF SHE ONLY KNEW | April 18, 2008, 6:49 pm 6:49 pm

I guess we should change Clinton’s Campaign Bus from SOLUTIONS EXPRESS to DOUBLE SPEAK EXPRESS. The Clinton’s sold the rights of workers & the Unions in America for $800,000 in 2005 to Columbia. Bush sells America to the Chinese for $12b each month to fight Cheyenne’s /Halliburton’s war in Iraq and Mark Penn tried to continue Clinton’s plan in Colombia for 2009 until they got exposed. Double speak is all I can say. America is not for sale. No Vote for Bill/Hillary in 2008/2009. Enough is enough.

Posted by: Owen | April 18, 2008, 6:52 pm 6:52 pm

When people care about which party will present his/her best interest, they will vote for whoever the party nominee is….
When people care about which candidate he/she likes, they will vote for individual….
If the hatred has been rooted deeply towards either Dems candidate inside supporters from each side, it means Dems party is divided and there will be more Dems either stay home or vote for the counter-party in G.E….
It should be all thanks to DNC to make its primary undecisive and unconvincing……
Without a united party, Dems will be defeated for sure….

Posted by: True Truth | April 18, 2008, 6:53 pm 6:53 pm

Lisa, get yourself some learnin’ girl. Obama has unequivocally said many times that he will not talk to Hamas and he said Carter’s visit was not a good idea. Sorry if that’s not good enough for you. Perhaps he should wear two American flag lapel pins – because using your tortured logic, he’d be twice as patriotic as the rest of us…and with George W. Bush as an “example,” we all need a president that’s super-duper patriot dude.

Posted by: MarkieBee | April 18, 2008, 6:54 pm 6:54 pm

Obama takes big national lead over Clinton in Newsweek poll
Apr 18 05:08 PM US/Eastern
By The Associated Press 6 Comments
THE RACE: The presidential race for Democrats nationally
___
THE NUMBERS
Barack Obama, 54 percent
Hillary Rodham Clinton, 35 percent

Posted by: H. Aslan Aslani-Far | April 18, 2008, 6:54 pm 6:54 pm

Aslani -Far – I know he is outspending her 3 to 1. Thats the only one or three you will see! Unless it’s a 13 point loss! After that debate performance? Good Luck!

Posted by: John in Cape May | April 18, 2008, 6:55 pm 6:55 pm

And here in Indiana, we are doing our best to get this race ovah!
President Obama, g’on brush ya shoulders off…
We gotchoo!!

Posted by: LA in Indiana | April 18, 2008, 6:56 pm 6:56 pm

What to expect (the inconvenient truth?):
Sure, people from different walks of life may have different agendas, prefer different approaches and identify with different personal styles. Ideally, our democratically elected leader should reflect all these differences in his/her balanced judgments. In reality, however, we cannot expect our leader to be God Almighty. Anyone who claims to be capable of solving all the problems at a blink of the eye (a decision on day one or at 3:00 am without consultation with the Congress) must be joking, to say the least.
Sadly, this kind of claims seems to win “moment-by-moment” arguments under varying political climates. However, there is a serious flip side of this PLEASING-ALL kind of claims. What will happen after the election, when we ordinary citizens no longer hold the voting power to exert any significant “political threat”? I bet that we will no longer be the primary source of urgency in the mind of this kind of president. Instead, there would be plenty of powerful groups, both domestically and internationally, that are savvy to put pressure on our president for their special interests.
I would love to support a female president. However, Hillary’s behaviors and the behaviors of Bill Clinton, throughout 2008 campaign strike me with a scary vision. Hillary’s demonstrated “capability” to deal with so many issues in such moment-by-moment, yet authoritarian, manner truly scares me. I simply cannot predict whom she will try to please at one moment and whom she wants to trash the next moment in the Oval Office.
Hillary’s problem is not simply a tactic issue. Rather it is a detrimental character flaw. Her character is better defined under the pressure of this presidential election, but has been in the brewing for a long time. Her “political” survival instincts have been cultivated and fueled by her sense of entitlement and establishment. She has become a natural when calculating and working the crowds. In fact, she has been in it for so long, she truly does not know what truth is anymore. Sadly, in this process, she also lost her humility and dignity. It is sad to see how the CLINTON legacy is diminished by this campaign.
At the end of the day, a president may not solve every single issue on the table. That is a realistic expectation. However, this is a much less scary scenario than having a president such as Hillary who calculates us simply as a political risk factor. Hillary’s tactics are not only elitist and shrewd, but also “old”. She and her bunch of advisers are so out of touch of today’s world, they even did not seem to know that video cameras can immortalize history so that her attempts to re-write history or campaign rhetoric would backfire. That is not funny. American people are much more intelligent than that and deserve much better.
For a nation that is known to be God-fearing and forward-looking, Obama’s courage to restrain from making ludicrous moment-by-moment promises is refreshing. His unique gift to put things into perspectives will guard our nation from rushing into traps or missing golden opportunities. His reliance on ordinary citizens throughout his campaign represents NEW Politics that offers a chance to change the COURSE of America towards a better future.

Posted by: star elitist | April 18, 2008, 6:57 pm 6:57 pm

Austan Goolsbe is Obama economic adviser
and Blanchard is a Michigan state co-chair of Sen. Hillary Clinton’s, he may doesn’t know about economy.
Certainly the liar for NAFTA is in Obama side.

Posted by: Bohong | April 18, 2008, 7:00 pm 7:00 pm

Newsweek poll is based on 588 people and Gallup poll is based on >1000, those two polls were conducted in the same period time (4/17), so which one did you believe??
The answer is: of course, the one you like to believe…..

Posted by: True Truth | April 18, 2008, 7:00 pm 7:00 pm

She will lie and take this country to more of the same. Lobbyist are ruling the country. Mark Penn, Wolfson are lobbyist. They will benefit even more if she becomes president. Her husband collected 800,000 dollars to help Columbia get NAFTA passed. And she’s against it? Why don’t she give back the money? She has fooled a lot of people to vote for her. Thank God there are smarter ones out there.

Posted by: Jerome Zaccaro | April 18, 2008, 7:01 pm 7:01 pm

Newsweek – the pro Obama (msnbc) magazine is in direct contrast with Gallup and Rasmussen who showed a tightening of the Race over the same days polled – with gallup showing Clinton AHEAD in yesterdays polling alone. I would trust the pollsters who do it everyday over the monthly poll by newsweek shopped out to college kids! But what do I know? I guess your well versed in newsweeks methodology! Dont you Obama people understand politics? Newsweek has 10 polls done and they pick the poll that meets their agenda – Adults under 32 dont watch cable news, dont read magazines Obama makes these people more money by increasing audience size! Its all about MONEY! -

Posted by: John in Cape May | April 18, 2008, 7:02 pm 7:02 pm

I don’t believe poll… especially Newsweek. Their subcribers mostly The Weather underground,,, it may 75% of those poll are those people they have been called,

Posted by: Bohong | April 18, 2008, 7:05 pm 7:05 pm

Jerome Zaccaro,
Sorry to remind you: Obama has similar lobbyists backing him and fundraising for him….

Posted by: True Truth | April 18, 2008, 7:07 pm 7:07 pm

Clinton Picked up three supers today also but we didn’t get to here about hers two former GOV. from NJ.she picked up 3 last week . and she is still 5 point ahead of Obama in Pa.

Posted by: Bishop | April 18, 2008, 7:10 pm 7:10 pm

The same can be said about Chris Matthews, that goober that follows and occasionally is on NFL games etc – Their ratings where in the tubes with the rest of these Obama suck ups! They need the under 35 TV Ratings and Obama was the way for them to get it. The funny part is maybe ABC realizes give them the kids, there is enough adults who want a true fair and balanced! Na- they want Oprah broadcasting from the guest quarters!

Posted by: John in Cape May | April 18, 2008, 7:11 pm 7:11 pm

Explain to me how this contradicts Hillary’s stance of renegotiating NAFTA since everyone knows that the Canadians are not a problem from an environemtal or labor perspective. Of course, Canada would not be adversely affected by Hillary pushing for tougher enforcement of labor and environmental standards. It’s clear her stance is directed at Mexico and not Canada. Are you that incredibly stupid to believe that this does anything to contradict her current position?

Posted by: NewMexicanDem | April 18, 2008, 7:15 pm 7:15 pm

Historically, if Hillary leaded or tied poll before state primary, she always won…
Why? Because a lot of her supporters are low or middle income people which didn’t have chance to be picked as polling sample…
More is that Hillary alway won over late deciders since they have doubt about obama and didn’t fall in love with him at first glance…

Posted by: True Truth | April 18, 2008, 7:18 pm 7:18 pm

Regarding renegotiating NAFTA, be careful what you wish for. The current NAFTA agreement guarantees that the U.S. gets 35% of the oil Canada produces. Tear up NAFTA and maybe this oil can be sold to someone else like China for more money…..

Posted by: Guy in Canada | April 18, 2008, 7:24 pm 7:24 pm

But the more troublesome question I have is one the Clinton campaign has repeatedly refused to answer ever since we talked to two attendees of that 1993 meeting in which then-First Lady Clinton was telling businesswomen NAFTA would be good for the country and the economy.
If “Hillary Clinton was personally opposed to NAFTA” at the time, as her campaign now claims, why was she telling the American people that it was good for the economy?
Flip Flop Queen .Like I said she has
800,000 reasons to change her mind like i always did not like NAFTA.
hey hill your pants are on fire!!!

Posted by: Lauren | April 18, 2008, 7:31 pm 7:31 pm

John McCain’s campaign is seizing on a Hamas adviser’s recent “endorsement” of Barack Obama, trying to suggest that the Democratic front-runner brought the unsavory praise on himself.
In a fund-raising letter sent out Friday, the McCain campaign excerpted the words of Hamas political adviser Ahmed Yousef, who in an interview Sunday with WABC radio and WorldNetDaily said the terrorist group supports Obama’s foreign policy vision.
“Barack Obama’s foreign policy plans have even won him praise from Hamas leaders,” the McCain letter says. “We need change in America, but not the kind of change that wins kind words from Hamas, surrenders in Iraq and will hold unconditional talks with Iranian President Ahmadinejad.”
Yousef said in the interview: “We don’t mind — actually we like Mr. Obama. We hope he will [win] the election and I do believe he is like John Kennedy, great man with great principle, and he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community but not with domination and arrogance.”
The McCain fund-raising letter also said Obama has “refused to condemn” former President Jimmy Carter for holding talks with Hamas leaders.
Obama, while not condemning Carter, has criticized the ex-president’s decision to meet with Hamas. On Wednesday night he told a group of Jewish leaders that “Hamas is not a state; Hamas is a terrorist organization.”
“We must not negotiate with a terrorist group intent on Israel’s destruction,” Obama said. “We should only sit down with Hamas if they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel’s right to exist and abide by past agreements.”

Posted by: JACK | April 18, 2008, 7:36 pm 7:36 pm

Hillary Adds Three Superdelegates Today
Former New Jersey Governors Jim Florio and Brendan Byrne pledged their support to Hillary Clinton today, after being chosen Thursday as add-on superdelegates. Their show of support comes the same day US Rep. Betty Sutton announced she too would support Clinton as a superdelegate.
“I am grateful for the support of both former New Jersey governors Byrne and Florio, as well as Rep. Sutton,” Clinton said. “Together, with their support and millions of others, we will deliver health care to every American, jumpstart the economy, and turn our great country around. Our campaign is experiencing great momentum.”
Brendan Byrne served as the 47th Governor of New Jersey from 1974 to 1982 and co-writes a weekly column with his successor Thomas Kean on state and national public affairs. James Florio was the first Italian American governor of New Jersey, serving from 1990 to 1994.
Rep. Sutton served eight years in the Ohio State House prior to being elected to represent Ohio’s 13th Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives in 2006. Before being elected to Congress, she worked as a labor attorney fighting for the rights of Ohio’s workers

Posted by: JACK | April 18, 2008, 7:38 pm 7:38 pm

I am poor and was called on for polling.
I told them in certain terms I would never vote for her!!
You have to have respect for a candidate
and I have none for her. She lied to New Yorkers with her false Promises,
She is a dirty Politician win at any and all costs.
Those who live in glass houses should never throw stones

Posted by: Lauren | April 18, 2008, 7:39 pm 7:39 pm

Her husband took 800,000 dollars from Columbia. I don’t see her sending it back. What does that tell you? Smarter people know where their vote should go.
Others who support her are blind.

Posted by: Jerome Zaccaro | April 18, 2008, 7:51 pm 7:51 pm

don’t believe poll… especially Newsweek. Their subcribers mostly The Weather underground,,, it may 75% of those poll are those people they have been called,
Posted by: Bohong
___________________________
isn’t that the group that Bill pardoned two members of? Yes. Yes it is.

Posted by: Maddie | April 18, 2008, 7:53 pm 7:53 pm

Bishop said:
“Clinton Picked up three supers today also but we didn’t get to here about hers two former GOV. from NJ.she picked up 3 last week . and she is still 5 point ahead of Obama in Pa.”
So, that’s Obama: 65 to Clinton’s 5 since Super Tuesday!!
And she needs double digits, at least mid- to high-teens for PA to make any positive impact for her. So, 5 points might as well be nothing!
Hillabeans is TOAST!!!
Obama 2008 — Yes, WE CAN!!!

Posted by: Jackt51 -- Vietnam Vet and Proud Liberal | April 18, 2008, 8:12 pm 8:12 pm

Thanks Jake!

Posted by: kj* | April 18, 2008, 8:20 pm 8:20 pm

Everybody knows that Hillary is for NAFTA in ODD numbered years and Hillary is against NAFTA in EVEN numbered years.

Posted by: The Commander Guy | April 18, 2008, 8:26 pm 8:26 pm

Lauren and other NAFTA-phobics:
“Regarding renegotiating NAFTA, be careful what you wish for. The current NAFTA agreement guarantees that the U.S. gets 35% of the oil Canada produces. Tear up NAFTA and maybe this oil can be sold to someone else like China for more money…..”
Posted by: Guy in Canada | Apr 18, 2008 7:24:27 PM
______________________________________
Nafta needs to be re-worked; that’s what Hillary has said…… But it should Not be discarded………..

Posted by: eyes open | April 18, 2008, 8:28 pm 8:28 pm

Like it’s a big surprise that Clinton has been lying about NAFTA? ANYONE with a brain has known this all along.
The saying use to be that there were 2 things in life you could count on. Death and Taxes….and now there has been another one added. A Clinton will lie.

Posted by: Brian | April 18, 2008, 8:31 pm 8:31 pm

Once again Hillary supporters are angry because the truth came out. Hillary should stop lying and those people in PA that have lost their jobs due to NAFTA. I feel for those people became many people lost their jobs here in Indiana. It was okay for her to have been for NAFTA back in the 90′s but why lie about it? I can not understand that!

Posted by: Emilianna | April 18, 2008, 9:05 pm 9:05 pm

Dog and eyes b closed.
People get tired of ol’ Hills for many reasons. This one o them. See Hills
shamelessly bashes her opponent for holding the same views that she holds.
Its Romneyesque. Hillary is both for and against NAFTA but at the same time can call out:
SHAME ON YOU.
So people are tired of this.

Posted by: The Commander Guy | April 18, 2008, 9:15 pm 9:15 pm

Dog and person with eyes closed
Here is a blast from the past featuring HRC.
Hillary in 2007: NAFTA we HAFTA … we HAFTA have NAFTA.
Hillary in 2008: Shame. Shame on you NAFTA. Shame on you. Meet me in OH-IO NAFTA and we’ll have a debate about you and the bad things you do, NAFTA. Bad NAFTA Bad. Shame!
Hillary in 2009: NAFTA we HAFTA … we HAFTA have NAFTA.
And things go on. And people get tired of it.

Posted by: The Commander Guy | April 18, 2008, 9:23 pm 9:23 pm

NAFTA will be changed regardless of who the Democratic nominee or the next Republican president is. So, as Barack Obama is currently whining about issues, let’s get on to an issue that Obama doesn’t say much about.
The truth is that Barack Obama is the most liberal of all liberal senators in the United States Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders rolled into one.
George McGovern was also a liberal, one that promised to get us out of war and weaken our miliary–like Obama.
Walter Mondale was also a liberal, one that promised to raise taxes–like Obama.
Michael Dukakis was also a liberal, one that promised a host of liberal domestic programs–like Obama.
And, Barack Obama, like the three Democratics who wriggled into the nomination and lost general elections that Democrats should have won, would lose in November.
The only reason that Barack Obama has made it this far without being totally destroyed is that the Republicans and the press have given him a relatively smooth ride so far.
In fact, the press deals with Barack Obama as if he were the liberal pope. All that is required of Obama is that he roll buzz words and phrases off like “getting past partisan politics,” or “getting down to issues,” or “believe in me,” and “change.”
The kid gloves that Obama has been handled with will come off as the Democratic convention and general election get closer. Hillary Clinton will not bow out until the last delegate and super delegate have cast their votes.
Damage control efforts to the typical angry and bitter Democrats will be in vain. Desperate calls for party unity will be too late and wasted effort. The sputter and stutter that we all saw in the Pennsylvania debate will become an Obama trademark. And the Democratic party will have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory once again.

Posted by: Jayhawk | April 18, 2008, 9:55 pm 9:55 pm

Your own comment says it all.
”Their concern is job loss or unfairness in dealing with countries that have low wage and labor standards and low environmental standards,” Blanchard said, according to the Canadian Press. ”I have not seen anything that would constitute a threat to trade with Canada.”
Don’t tar Clinton with the brush that was used to appropriately brand Obama as a two faced liar.

Posted by: s. valenti | April 18, 2008, 10:28 pm 10:28 pm

The United States need not forget that it is slowly becoming dependent on other countries for raw materials; Canada is the backbone for American raw materials (i.e. natural resources, water, and oil). Does the Hillary or Obama really want to scrap NAFTA when it may mean more “jobs” for Americans, but it will also mean higher costs of raw materials and resources to produce those automobiles and other products? Who would then be the loser if NAFTA were scratched? Canada can surely take its business elsewhere. If Hillary or Obama decide that’s the way, we’re all in agreement up here in Canada! We’ll manage quite fine–good luck to you guys!

Posted by: Ryan | April 18, 2008, 10:43 pm 10:43 pm

Obama is tested and now he whine.

Posted by: braveland | April 18, 2008, 10:48 pm 10:48 pm

Forget the polls; let’s all wait until next week when the poll stations are all closed and the numbers flow in.
Bottomline is one person will win the nomination; let’s hope that person also wins the GE.
Nobody is entitled to this; you have to earn it and at the end of the day it has to be a fair win or everyone loses.

Posted by: Yola | April 18, 2008, 10:54 pm 10:54 pm

H Aslan Aslani-Far:
You must be smoking weed!
No way that Lightweight Obama has
a chance against John McCain!
This is not the time for
“On the Job Training”!
If it makes you feel any better
Hillary Clinton is also a Lightweight
who won’t beat McCain!
She would also require “On the Job Training” and we’re facing too many
difficult problems both foreign and domestic to risk voting for either one!

Posted by: reaganfan | April 18, 2008, 11:33 pm 11:33 pm

I don’t think Obama is whining -
at least 35,000 people (police estimate) came to see and listen to him tonight in Philadelphia…
this man is on wings and he and millions of fellow Americans are going to change this country for the better

Posted by: ken | April 18, 2008, 11:33 pm 11:33 pm

btw remember how the Goolsbee affair was ALL over the news, for days even? And where is Blanchard?
Hillary supporters can’t complain, except for the fact that she will soon drop out.

Posted by: marian | April 18, 2008, 11:39 pm 11:39 pm

Clinton lying about NAFTA????? Oh the HORROR! Say it ain’t soooo! NO one will believe it!!! Clinton lying about NAFTA??????? ROTFLMAO EVERYONE INCLUDING THOSE IN PA KNOW THIS! It’s only news to the media! LOL
Those mental giants in PA that are still voteing Clinton can’t be helped, educated or given a hand up in life because they have made their minds up to cling to their past and oddly think they have nothing to be bitter about….kinda like that old play where the head master beats the young lad and the young lad says” Thank you Sir may I have another”. That’s a Clinton supporter!

Posted by: Brian | April 18, 2008, 11:53 pm 11:53 pm

Dear Voters of Pennsylvania,
The country needs you to stand up and say “enough”. ‘We the people’ all know America so desperately needs change–an end to the lockout of citizens from their elected officials by corporate special interests. Hillary Clinton is part of the system, if she is nothing else. Her handling of the Colombia free trade matter tells it all. Obama is our real hope for the future, a once in a generation candidate. Please Pennsylvania, you can lead us into a better future for our country!
‘Barack’ means ‘blessed by God’ in Swahili

Posted by: Anne from OK | April 19, 2008, 12:12 am 12:12 am

OBAMA LIES, PEOPLE DIES … google it!
AMERICA BEWARE THE WOLF IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING!

Posted by: Bohong | April 19, 2008, 12:25 am 12:25 am

MANY YEARS AGO I LISTENED TO AN OPERA AT LASCALA ON THE RADIO. THE TENOR STANK. THE AUDIENCE YELLED”FIASCO”.
I WILL NOW REMEMBER THIS EVERY TIME I SEE ANY COVERAGE OF THIS ELECTION BY ABC.YOUR INSULTING SO CALLED DEBATE THE OTHER NITE PROVES THAT THE AMERICAN MEDIA IS INTENT ON DESTROYING THIS COUNTRY. HANG YOUR HEADS IN SHAME. IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY YOU WOULD BE HANGING IN THE GALLOWS. I HAVE HAD IT.

Posted by: GERALD BLAKE | April 19, 2008, 12:27 am 12:27 am

Obama said to Iran during the debate: “that an attack on Israel is an attack on our strongest ally in the region, …one …I would consider an attack that is unacceptable, and the United States would take appropriate action.”
Can we trust him for Israel, when him and , Ayers and had teamed up for three years on the board of the Woods Fund, a Chicago charitable organization. Together, they voted to donate $75,000 of the largesse they controlled to the Arab American Action Network. The AAAN was co-founded by Rashid Khalidi, a longtime supporter of Palestinian “resistance” attacks against Israel, which he openly regards as a racist, apartheid state. Despite considerable evidence to the contrary, Khalidi peremptorily denies having been a PLO operative or having directed its official press agency for six years (from 1976 to 1982). AMERICA BEWARE THE WOLF IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING!

Posted by: Ckarry | April 19, 2008, 12:28 am 12:28 am

OBAMA SAID “I am the only candidate who isn’t taking a dime from Washington lobbyist” – LIAR- The record shows quite the opposite. According to USA Today, Obama’s campaign fundraising team includes 38 members of law firms that were paid $138 million last year to lobby the federal government, records show. Those lawyers, including 10 former federal lobbyists, have pledged to raise at least $3.5 million for the Illinois senator’s presidential race. Employees of their firms have given Obama’s campaign $2.26 million, a USA TODAY analysis of campaign finance data shows.
These 38 fundraisers for Barack Obama’s presidential campaign work for law firms that have lobbying operations in Washington, D.C. The dollar figure reflects the minimum amount each has pledged to raise for the campaign.
BUNDLER
MIN. PLEDGE LOCATION FIRM
Scott Harris $200,000 DC Harris, Wiltshire and Grannis
Allan J. Katz
$200,000 FL Akerman Senterfitt
Michael Lawson $200,000 CA Skadden, Arps
John Levi $200,000 IL Sidley Austin
Karol Mason $200,000 GA Alston & Bird
Thomas J. Perrelli $200,000 VA Jenner & Block
Thomas A. Reed $200,000 VA Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis
Christina Tchen $200,000 IL Skadden, Arps
Tony West $200,000 CA Morrison & Foerster
Mark L. Alderman $100,000 PA Wolf, Block, Schorr and Solis-Cohen
Timothy M. Broas $100,000 MD Winston & Strawn
Peter Bynoe $100,000 IL DLA Piper
Gregory B. Craig $100,000 DC Williams & Connolly
Norman Eisen $100,000 DC Zuckerman Spaeder
Nicole Lamb-Hale $100,000 MI Foley & Lardner
Andrew Schapiro $100,000 NY Mayer Brown
Charles C. Adams Jr. $50,000 Switzerland Hogan & Hartson
David Burd $50,000 DC Arnold & Porter
Tom Cole $50,000 IL Sidley Austin
Michael H. Dardzinski $50,000 China Reed Smith
Howard W. Gutman $50,000 MD Williams & Connolly
Jeff Horwitz $50,000 NY Proskauer Rose
David C. Jacobson $50,000 IL Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal
Hrishi Karthikeyan $50,000 DC Covington & Burling
Ronald Kirk $50,000 TX Vinson & Elkins
William T. Lake $50,000 DC WilmerHale
Edward Lazarus $50,000 CA Akin Gump
Jack Levin $50,000 IL Kirkland & Ellis
Kenneth G. Lore $50,000 DC Bingham McCutchen
Charles B. Ortner $50,000 NY Proskauer Rose
Susan Pravda $50,000 MA Foley & Lardner
Paul N. Roth $50,000 NY Schulte Roth & Zabel
John Schmidt $50,000 IL Mayer Brown
Robert M. Sussman* $50,000 DC Latham & Watkins
Kathryn Thomson $50,000 VA Sidley Austin
Barry B. White $50,000 MA Foley Hoag
Steven M. Zager $50,000 TX Akin Gump
Robert S. Litt n/a MD Arnold & Porter

Posted by: Ckerry | April 19, 2008, 12:33 am 12:33 am

I BET ALL OBAMA’S SUPPORTER THAT criticized ABC ARE the weather underground people, BECAUSE THEY ARE AFRAID TO SHOW OBAMA MASK with bill ayers, as asking in the debate, OR THESE PEOPLE WHO CRITIZISED ABC ARE member of Rev. Wright’s church…. OR FARAKHAN SUPPORTER!
AMERICA BEWARE THE WOLF IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING!

Posted by: Ckerry | April 19, 2008, 12:39 am 12:39 am

This is so childish. Hillary supporters are running out of ways to excuse her lies and her unethical behavior. To distract from that, and from the real issues they invent this fictional ‘finger’. That is pathetic. There is no reason for Obama to give a finger to anyone; Hillary supporters are imagining things. They need to face the reality that Hillary is losing.
The person who wrote that Obama is unpresidential and unelectable is a bigot. I think his race bothers you more than anything else. YOu don’t think a black man looks like a president, so you are willing to vote for a white man or a white woman.

Posted by: Cactusflower | April 19, 2008, 12:42 am 12:42 am

Obama said: I did NOT play the race card: – LIAR – [03/31/2008] Obama was the first to play the race card. According to Phialdelphia Inquirer, Quietly, the storm over the hateful views expressed by Sen. Barack Obama’s pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, has blown away the most insidious myth of the Democratic primary campaign. Obama and his surrogates have charged that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has deliberately and cleverly played the race card in order to label Obama the “black” candidate.
Googele it as: Obama was the first to play the race card

Posted by: Sue | April 19, 2008, 1:20 am 1:20 am

How about District 11 in Chicago? The south side of Chicago is a hell-hole–in spite of being represented by Obama his entire political life–how’s he gonna fix a country if he can’t fix a city..???

Posted by: Moehammad | April 19, 2008, 1:24 am 1:24 am

An Obama economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, met with Canadian officials and left the impression he was assuring them not to take Obama’s anti-NAFTA rhetoric too seriously.
THIS NEWS IS MORE DAMAGING FOR OBAMA

Posted by: Udin | April 19, 2008, 1:28 am 1:28 am

this article is from the Electronic Intifada written by Ali Ahbumina about obama and his Up front rethorics (lies)
“Over the years since I first saw Obama speak I met him about half a dozen times, often at Palestinian and Arab-American community events in Chicago including a May 1998 community fundraiser at which Edward Said was the keynote speaker. In 2000, when Obama unsuccessfully ran for Congress I heard him speak at a campaign fundraiser hosted by a University of Chicago professor. On that occasion and others Obama was forthright in his criticism of US policy and his call for an even-handed approach to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
The last time I spoke to Obama was in the winter of 2004 at a gathering in Chicago’s Hyde Park neighborhood. He was in the midst of a primary campaign to secure the Democratic nomination for the United States Senate seat he now occupies. But at that time polls showed him trailing.
As he came in from the cold and took off his coat, I went up to greet him. He responded warmly, and volunteered, “Hey, I’m sorry I haven’t said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I’m hoping when things calm down I can be more up front.” He referred to my activism, including columns I was contributing to the The Chicago Tribune critical of Israeli and US policy, “Keep up the good work!”
But Obama’s gradual shift into the AIPAC camp had begun as early as 2002 as he planned his move from small time Illinois politics to the national scene. In 2003″

Posted by: ruthmatters | April 19, 2008, 1:41 am 1:41 am

Ayers, Rezko, Rev,. Wright, Michelle this relationships plus his lack of command on the issues are proof that Obama is unelectable. Pennsylvania voters and DNC should see this, if not Obama may be the nominee but we will lose the White House to McCain.

Posted by: libre | April 19, 2008, 2:17 am 2:17 am

Why did Obama endorse the free trade agreement with Peru?

Posted by: libre | April 19, 2008, 2:20 am 2:20 am

Wow I’ve never seen such craziness!! The Clinton supporter make it seem like Hillary is their family member and shes not! RELAX!! I didnt see any of you making some of the $109 million dollars the Clintons raked in since leaving office. Lets all take a step back before we get Obsessed. I support Obama but will gladly support Clinton if she wins. Both are similar and equally better than McCain. We need to start focusing on McCain and his warmongering instead of Clinton Obama. Let these to sort it out by votes not by our comments. We need our comments to serve as john McCain’s enemy while he receives a free pass at every mistake he commits

Posted by: Phil | April 19, 2008, 2:55 am 2:55 am

This blogger is totally inaccurate. He neglects to report facts. And by facts, I mean something accurate. Yes, there was a conversation with Goolsbee. The AP quoted him, which of course he denies. There have been numerous facts and quotes excluded from this article, so I’ll referr you to factcheck.org instead of this drivel. Let’s face it…Both of these candidates supprt NAFTA. I don’t think it’s a lot, but they want to reform it. They need to stop acting like they hate it. Just own up that you want to reform it, and tell the voters who don’t understand, why it’s important.

Posted by: Ohplease! | April 19, 2008, 3:03 am 3:03 am

I think some of you truly don’t get it. It matters little at this time whether Obama is ahead of her. She is now nine points ahead in PA ( Rasmussen’s new report) She is ahead 55% in IN, 62% in Kentucky, 55% in WV, and etc. Obama is WAAAAAY behind McCain Florida, when Hillary beats McCain in Florida. Say it with me…You are going to a convention. She will over take him in popular vote, not to mention Dean said they will have to seat Florida at the convention. It all comes down to the super delegates. Why do none of you understand that? It isn’t hard to get. She isn’t going to drop out, and people don’t want her to. It’s obvious. I’m glad I’m Independent, because I can’t handle crazy liberal logic anymore.
And to all you Obama supporters on this article, who are actually trashing Hillary about NAFTA…The word hypocrit dances in my head.
As trivial as the flag thing is, and certainly should not be a reason for anyone not to vote for/against someone, I guess the reason the whole thing got started was because Obama did actually tell the media that he wasn’t going to wear them. While I think it’s an absurd issue, at least I know where the heck it got started.
“Obama did a bit of historical rewriting regarding his previous statements on wearing a U.S. flag pin in his lapel.
Obama: I have never said that I don’t wear flag pins or refuse to wear flag pins. This is the kind of manufactured issue that our politics has become obsessed with. …
Actually, last year he told an interviewer for station KCRG-TV in Cedar Rapids, Iowa:
Obama, Oct. 2007: I decided I won’t wear that pin on my chest. Instead, I’m gonna try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism.
And ABC News quoted him as saying that wearing flag pins had become “a substitute for … true patriotism”:”
Sometimes little things become huge for no reason, but don’t act as though the reason is because those people are bigots.

Posted by: Ohplease! | April 19, 2008, 3:21 am 3:21 am

lol.
Yes, let’s talk about MICHIGAN!!!!!!
and bring up FLORIDA TOO!!!!

Posted by: John | April 19, 2008, 3:22 am 3:22 am

“The AP said that the memo “was widely distributed within the Canadian government” and describes an “introductory” meeting with Canada’s consul general in Chicago, Georges Rioux. It was written by Joseph DeMora, a consulate official who also attended. According to The AP, DeMora wrote 1,300 words describing many topics covered, including this about NAFTA:
DeMora memo: “[Goolsbee] was frank in saying that the primary campaign has been necessarily domestically focused, particularly in the Midwest, and that much of the rhetoric that may be perceived to be protectionist is more reflective of political maneuvering than policy. On NAFTA, Goolsbee suggested that Obama is less about fundamentally changing the agreement and more in favour of strengthening/clarifying language on labour mobility and environment and trying to establish these as more `core’ principles of the agreement.
. . . Noting anxiety among many U.S. domestic audiences about the U.S. economic outlook, Goolsbee candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign. . . . [He] cautioned that this messaging should not be taken out of context and should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans.”
Factcheck.org—-Now who has the right to critcize McCain or Clinton on this issue? Certainly not Sen. Obama.

Posted by: Ohplease! | April 19, 2008, 3:30 am 3:30 am

HRC never said that she was entirely against NAFTA. She said that she would renegotiate parts of it that are not working. Wow. What part of negotiate do you all not get?

Posted by: OMG | April 19, 2008, 4:11 am 4:11 am

Quick, let’s have another “debate” so we can ask her about this.

Posted by: Jim B | April 19, 2008, 4:44 am 4:44 am

Gad, the ability of the Clinton people to deny the obvious makes the Obamabots look like steely-eyed pragmatists by contrast. C’mon, she’s not against NAFTA and never was; she’s lying again people. She’s got 800,000 reasons to lie sitting in her joint checking account. And dragging out the since disavowed memo about Goolsee shows the desperation.

Posted by: UrsaM | April 19, 2008, 5:01 am 5:01 am

Another of the lies of Hillary. Let’s talk logic: do you think that while her husband was actively promoting NAFTA, his wife would organize on 10 November 1993 at 11:45 am a drop-by meeting with 150 influential and business oriented women at the same White House to oppose the treaty? Are we stupid or mentally retarded? This shows again that Hillary would say anything to get to the White House!!!!

Posted by: Denis van Dam | April 19, 2008, 5:25 am 5:25 am

Good to see alot more Americans are waking up and seeing thru Hillary’s lies!Hillary and McCain go hand in hand, lets start from the begining;Hillary voted for the War In Iraq, but after she decided to run for Office, now she says, she is against the War..Hillary’s Dad was a Republican so you think that makes her a Democratic, it should be No! Hillary praised McCain on National T.V., if she recieved the Nomination, wouldnt she be running against McCain, then why praise him.Because she dont care if McCain or her Win.Could she be a undercover Republican? She didnt want to release her Tax-Info for months, maybe thats because she didnt want American Voters to see she Richer then Rich! NAFTA, Bill was for it, do you really believe then Hillary is against it? I think not!Hillary just days ago was taking shots of Whisky on the News, what kinda message is she sending our kids? Hillary has lied time and time again during this race for the Democratic Nominee. Hillary doesnt sound like a change to me! Vote Obama lets bring a Real Change to America!

Posted by: Demo Rules | April 19, 2008, 7:29 am 7:29 am

@ Demo Rules
Americans are waking up?
Obama’s lead is closing, he’s ahead only by 3% in legitimate national polls (Gallup).
Yes, you’re right…Americans are waking up.

Posted by: John | April 19, 2008, 8:32 am 8:32 am

It would have been nice if the MSM had got this story right before the Ohio primary.
This isn’t the first time that Clinton’s campaign has assured the Canadians that she is blowing smoke up the American patootie with all her chatter about reforming trade deals.
She did exactly the same thing right before Ohio, and people like Jake Tapper got it exactly backwards and reported that Obama’s campaign did it.
Nice going. Congratulations, ABC, you finally got something right.
-Wexler

Posted by: William W. Wexler | April 19, 2008, 9:04 am 9:04 am

For those who want to know more, or be reminded, of Sen. Clinton’s real experience during her eight years as First Lady, there is an interesting piece written by Diane Rigali that can easily be found by Googling “Diane Rigali, Forgotten.”

Posted by: James Danley | April 19, 2008, 9:25 am 9:25 am

Obama did draw the largest crowd to date in Philly – 35,000 +
and Hillary DID tell a calculated LIE to you and to ALL Americans repeated many times in an effort to clearly decieve you, under the assumption that voters were too lazy & stupid to figure it out. Well guess what? She got caught and gave a remorseless apology 8 days AFTER the lie was known indicating to most that she was only sorry that she got caught. Then, goes on the Tonight Show with Leno and makes a joke about it while our men and women are coming home in body bags – of the 4000+ families suffering a loss – spose they found her joke cute?
Now i am all for women and equality, but I cannot and will not support any candidate that lies to me and doesn’t show enough common sense and tact when making a joke about it. Do we need to discuss the severe deception that no one seems to be putting a finger on? How about Penn and Bill. How about $800,000 in special interest money deposited into a joint account, writing a check for $5,000,000 to her own campaign. Now is there a little bit of a conflict there? Does she support NAFTA only when it’s convenient? or is she against it with a severe special interest conflict? Just how many special interest groups will she owe favors to? Loyalty is everything to her & Bill, that much was made clear – do you seriously think she is speaking FOR you or AT you to get your vote. Bottom line – I don’t trust her, and in light of the facts out there – no one should. Women need to break the glass ceiling – you could find a better person for that role clearly – to put her in charge -
NOTHING WILL CHANGE.
Obama 08

Posted by: Erica Williams | April 19, 2008, 10:18 am 10:18 am

Can’t wait for all the bubble-dwellers in the media to get theirs popped on April 22nd. Newsflash: It’s not all about you.
Thought the debate was bad news for Obama? Wait until Tuesday. Even Axelrove won’t be able to spin it, not even with his usual fallback position of Obama as victim.
Finally, after having to tolerate the self-important, egotistical mediocrity that is the so-called mainstream media for weeks and weeks, at least some of the voters (remember them?) will be allowed to weigh in for the very first time post-Wright, post-SF, post-finger, post-Bosnia.
And we’ll all just have to accept what they have to say as the final word.
Jake & colleagues: It’s not about you.

Posted by: expatriot | April 19, 2008, 10:28 am 10:28 am

MCCAIN

Posted by: MARK | April 19, 2008, 10:51 am 10:51 am

Jake says:
“But Blanchard seemed to pooh-pooh that bold statement, telling attendees that Democrats are more concerned about China and Mexico than they are Canada.”
”Their concern is job loss or unfairness in dealing with countries that have low wage and labor standards and low environmental standards,” Blanchard said, according to the Canadian Press. ”I have not seen anything that would constitute a threat to trade with Canada.”
——————-
Jake: You described what Blanchard said as “pooh poohed”. Get a grip man.
What Blanchard said is what Hillary has said all along. NAFTA should be renogiated to make for an even level playing ground. And this will definitely impact Mexico more than Canada. I’m from Michigan and can attest to the fact that we’ve been decimated by jobs going to Mexico big time. And now I’ve heard Mexico is even losing those jobs to China.

Posted by: WeNeedFairReporting | April 19, 2008, 10:54 am 10:54 am

I THINK IT IS HORRIBLE THAT COMEDIANS ARE MAKING JOKES ABOUT MCCAINS AGE. ISNT THERE SUCH A THING AS AGE DISCRIMINATION? IF WE STAND UP FOR AND DO AWAY WITH GENDER AND RACE DISCRIMINATION-WHAT ABOUT AGE DISCRIMINATION? IF COMEDIANS JOKE ABOUT MCCAINS AGE THEN RACE AND GENDER SHOULD BE FAIR GAME AS WELL!!!!!!!!!!!!! I AM IN MY THIRTIES BUT I FEEL WE SHOULD SHOW MORE RESPECT FOR THE ELDERLY.

Posted by: MARK | April 19, 2008, 10:55 am 10:55 am

Couldn’t have put it better, McCain is elderly. He is a genuine American Hero running for President unfortunatnately for him, at the wrong time. Now if he were in place of Bush 8 years ago. Age Discrimination should be frowned upon, but as a change argument – I don’t think it will.

Posted by: Erica Williams | April 19, 2008, 11:26 am 11:26 am

You people can blah, blah, blah all you want but in the end it really doesn’t matter. You can talk about Rezko, lapel pins, NAFTA, or anything else you choose. but when all is said and done, there is on one important question: Does anyone have any jelly, because Hillary is toast.

Posted by: jbate | April 19, 2008, 12:21 pm 12:21 pm

This country is not about a flag pin; it’s not about a flag; it is about a citizens right to burn that flag in protest. It is the right of a person to get up and put forth an opinion that you totally disagree with and would fight with all your breath against. That is what America is about, that is what we should celebrate. Our military fights for our Constitutional right to burn that flag if we wish. It’s called freedom of speech. The right to express ourselves any way we wish.

Posted by: jbate | April 19, 2008, 1:35 pm 1:35 pm

MARK; how can you invoke AGE DISCRIMINATION on behalf of John Mccain when McCain himself didn’t believe in CIVIL RIGHTS or when Dr. King’s was fighting for CIVIL RIGHTS for ALL Americans of which he paid with his life? McCain even voted against Dr. King’s Birthday. We will give him a dose of his own medicine by rightly using his own old AGE against him in a high level intellectual position in dealing and getting along with the rest of the World. Hoping by so doing this will help him understand how painful it is when someone uses just your sun burn or the color of your skin against you in anything human. To mccain and cindy, even their pet dog have more rights than Blacks and Native Americans. Except they aren’t saying it.
VOTE THE MOST RESPECTED HUMAN BEING ON EARTH “OBAMA”. VOTE 2008 For “OBAMA”

Posted by: Che-3 | April 19, 2008, 2:29 pm 2:29 pm

Why does Hillary Clinton hate America? All this lady does is lie to ordinary citizens, and then she and her husband go around playing the suggestive race card. I’m sorry that she is a closeted lesbian (yes, it is true and widely known in washington, just like everyone knew about Larry Craig and said nothing- not that there is anything wrong with that) and feels that she must be more manly than her husband in terms of toughness. I just can vote for someone who can’t level with the world about her own sexuality.

Posted by: John Farren | April 19, 2008, 3:18 pm 3:18 pm

Hillary supporters:
If you are as sick as I am of the Obama supporters who post in here bull (3 peple with several sock puppets) then vote McCain if our lady doesn’t get the nomination.
Hillary or McCain ’08!!!

Posted by: libby | April 19, 2008, 3:43 pm 3:43 pm

How could the press have been against Hillaryt since the beginning? SHe was the front runner up until Iowa.
What was proven was the voters don’t like and/or trust her.
Once Obama gets the nod he will be the agent of change and will easily beat McCain the general election.
Voters care about their homes, jobs, healthcare, ending the war and having a future…they don’t care about negative attacks or the politics of personal destruction.
And for Dem voters who would vote against Obama if he wins you clearly are missing the point. The election is about a battle of vision over ideologies not personalities.
Whoever the Dem nominee is,support them and change the executive branch of the government.

Posted by: Bill | April 19, 2008, 3:54 pm 3:54 pm

She’s such a liar. What a disgrace to women in politics.

Posted by: carolyn | April 19, 2008, 4:21 pm 4:21 pm

Obama is running commercials non stop here in NC claiming he never has and never will take a penny from Washington Lobbyists. On USA Todays website political page, there is a list of THIRTY EIGHT WAHINGTON LOBBYISTS, names by name. that have pledged to raise between fifty thousand and two hundred thousand dollars each for Obama. When I called their local office number and asked the chick answering the phones about it, she was speechless. Obama has done nothing buyt lie about every thing he is putting out to the public in this campaign. God help us if a bunch of idiots in this country elect him as President.

Posted by: Melanie | April 19, 2008, 5:35 pm 5:35 pm

Melanie….They offered to raise money, He does not want their money! Get your facts straight and stop twisting the truth like your candidate! People like myself donate money and we are more than happy to do so, that is why he has raised more money from his supporters than any candidate in history. Stop Lying!

Posted by: Emilianna | April 19, 2008, 6:00 pm 6:00 pm

Borack Hussein Obama President? very sad for the USA – He’ll never have my vote

Posted by: Yolanda Diaz | April 19, 2008, 8:10 pm 8:10 pm

Tim: I’ll explain why Obama will win the general election:
1. Although the Democratic Party is partially divided now, after the PA primary superdelegates will begin a tidal wave of support for Obama. At least 20 supers will declare on Wednesday or Thursday. The reason: the DNC knows it needs time for the wounds of Hillary’s supporters to heal.
2. Even though 29% of Clinton supporters now say that they will either not vote for Obama in the General Election, or worse, vote for McCain, this is nothing more than a powerplay — and an empty one at that. The truth is, the most likely scenario is that 1/3 of her die hard supporters may take this line, but your blue collar workers and the elderly and women, certainly will not. Can you really see women voting for McCain? A man who once famously called his own wife a Cu*&? Somehow I don’t see “Girl Power” preserved in that appalling phrase.
3. Even if a full 29% of Clinton supporters do sit out/vote for McCain, Obama STILL wins. How? By the numbers. The Democratic primary has generated so many new voters that, on balance they have added millions of Democrats to the process.
4. The War in Iraq. Anyone who believes John McCain is right on Iraq has not seen a family member or close friend sent to fight a war we never should have been fighting. McCain’s stance that he would be satisfied with a 100 year occupation, as we have done in Japan, fails to recognize that in the aftermath of WWII we had obtained an “unconditional surrender” from the Empire of Japan. Trouble is, we aren’t fighting a country. We are fighting a terror organization, and though the battleground has been shaped as “Iraq” it is not the Iraqi’s that will dictate whether or not peace will be had. This is why the argument for staying in Iraq is so specious. Consider this, for nearly 40 years Yasser Arafat was the voice of the PLO. However, for the last 15 years his “authority” was not absolute and any pledge of peace he made was subject to accepance by Hamas. This is why Arafat could not “promise” peace — because he could not ensure that the growing Hamas membership would accept it. And, this is why Hamas has now segued from being just a terror organization, into being a terror organization with a political arm — as witness by their success in Palestinian elections. Think Sein Fenn as the political arm of the IRA and you get the idea. Bottom line: 50 to 100 years in Iraq as McCain proposed, as an occupying force in a country without bloodshed is an impossibility because we will not be able to force a surrender of a terror group on a vast worldwide battleground while concentrating an effort in one country. It spells: DEBACLE. As we have seen.
5. The Economy. McCain himself has admitted several times that it is not his strongest suit. This should give anyone pause, including Republicans, who may not care about middle class Americans, but they certainly care about the bankruptcies of Bear Stearns and other institutional banks — after all, that’s where they get their profits from the massive Bush/McCain tax cuts for the rich.
If the admission itself isn’t enough reason not to vote for McCain, yesterday he revealed his tax records that show he made about $405,000, paid about $84,000 in taxes and gave about $120,000 to charity. It is best to disclose here that McCain and his wealthy wife have an air-tight prenup that protects her formidable trove — a reason why he does not disclose her tax records (although he should). The point here is, by McCain’s earnings being McCain’s own wealth, one must wonder how fiscally responsible it is for a man to donate more than 33 percent of his net income to charity. It may seem like a grand gesture os selflessness, but in these economic times, I don’t think anyone really expects grand gestures of selflessness on this scale. I ask anyone who reads this: are YOU prepared to give 33 percent of your Net Income to charity? If not, do you think it’s wholly irresponsible? And if so, do you think a man this irresponsible should be in charge of reining in a multi-trillion dollar deficit? If, of course, you take the position that he is giving so much to charity because he knows he has his wife’s wealth and the money he makes is just pocket change in relation to her $100 million fortune, doesn’t that make Sen. McCain a kept man? It does, and nobody wants to see a kept man as President of the United States — nobody. It is also one of the reasons why Sen. Clinton has been this successful in her primary campaign — because Americans no longer expect to see kept women. A man? Forget about it.

Posted by: Joe Scanlon | April 19, 2008, 8:24 pm 8:24 pm

All you Obama supporters are out of your minds if you think that Hillary’s supporters will vote for him.
Most of us WILL vote for McCain. And there is no amount of time that will heal the wounds Obama’s supporters have inflicted.
Obama will probably win the Democratic nomination but he will NOT win the General Election.
You all think that because we are registered Democrates we will vote for ANYONE on the Democratic ticket. WRONG. Most of us think for ourselves and will vote for the candidate we think is best.
If not Hillary than McCain!

Posted by: Regina | April 19, 2008, 9:07 pm 9:07 pm

Excellent points, Joe. I’d just like to add two things:
1. The 29 percent of Clinton “holdouts” you mentioned clearly represent her most ardent supporters. As ardent support goes, even President Bush, after 7 years of failure on domestic, economic and foreign policy, enjoys a near 30 percent approval rating. This is, that ardent support, who view him as a man who can do no wrong — no matter the extent of his ineptitude. For the General Election against McCain, the psychology of these ardent Clinton supporters will come into play when she inevitably endorses Sen. Obama for the presidency. Does anyone actually think Sen. Clinton is going to ask her supporters to vote for McCain?
She’s going to try and rally behind the Democratic candidate as she indicated in the PA debate and that means that her staunchest supporters will do the same — after all, if they place their faith in her judgment as their candidate of choice, they will follow suit in her recommendation as to who is best suited to run the country. In the end, the incredible similarities between her platform and Sen. Obama’s — apart from simple party loyalty — means Clinton’s supporters will vote for Obama in the fall.
2. To follow up on your “Girl Power” comment. Right now Clinton supporters are focused, understandably, on Obama. In the General Election they will be focused on McCain. None of the women who supposedly are going to defect to McCain are going to forgive him for his phenomenally insensitive remarks at the GOP convention when he made his infamous joke about Chelsea being ugly because Janet Reno is her mother. All these things will be resurrected, and the Clinton Women, who, like myself, feel protective of Chelsea will make McCain pay the price for those remarks.

Posted by: Misty Rodgers | April 19, 2008, 9:16 pm 9:16 pm

Misty I remember McCain saying that. They are already bringing it up in the MSM. It was so insulting. I remember thinking to myself “Who is this creep.” He insulted Chelsea, who as an 18 year old must have been totally humiliated. McCain insulted Bill Clinton with the suggestion that the indiscretions of his past resulted in that. He insulted Hillary who had suffered enough abuse from that kind of talk. And he insulted the gay and lesbian community because of the insinuation that Janet Reno is a lesbian. I’m not a lesbian, but I can rightfully imagine that outrage. I’m all for Hillary, but Obama has my vote if the party nominates him. I’ll never vote for McCain. At least Sen. Obama has never made those kinds of nasty personal attacks on Hillary. And that says a lot about a man. We’ll show McCain.

Posted by: Betty Cole | April 19, 2008, 9:23 pm 9:23 pm

john mccain is a woman hater. i hope hillay wins too but i’d be crazy to vote for mccain. service to his country and all that aside the man has problems.

Posted by: darla | April 19, 2008, 9:25 pm 9:25 pm

Finally! A smart discussion. Thanks everyone.

Posted by: ben | April 19, 2008, 9:26 pm 9:26 pm

Joe Scanlon, very interesting! So you find it irresponsible that someone chooses to live on $204,000, even though he grossed $405,000?
I think that is humorous! Because should Sen. Obama or Sen. Clinton become president, one can expect that everyone making $400,000 may HAVE to live on far less than $200,000 since they will both try to raise the federal tax rates for anyone making over $100,000 to at least 50%. So when you include state income taxes, that will be quite a bite into their income.

Posted by: James Danley | April 19, 2008, 10:31 pm 10:31 pm

we have so much oil in this country that the Americans need. Most of it we haven’t even touched yet. To me, I don’t really care who got in touch with the Canadian Government first, but this I do know. I would rather our Government deal with Obama than Clinton, so I hope he wins. He’s the only thing you have that we don’t, so if you don’t want him send him to the Great White North.

Posted by: Sharon | April 19, 2008, 11:06 pm 11:06 pm

I just cannot understand why people would vote for a bold liar like Hillary. Go Obama GO!

Posted by: leighg1 | April 20, 2008, 1:14 am 1:14 am

I moved to Michigan in 1990 just in time to see Governor Jim Blanchard get beat by a little known State Senator named John Engler. I remember Blanchard’s brilliant TV ads extolling his prison boot camps featuring white drill sergeants yelling in the faces of black inmates. He also had an expensive looking jet-copper he liked to fly around the state in that Engler made an issue of. Not surprisingly, there was a low voter turnout in Detroit and Engler won a stunning upset victory.
Then came the fiscal scandal in the Michigan House of Representatives. The Democrats had been stealing money for years. That gave the Republicans control of state government for the next ten years. Most of the Democrats that were left didn’t really care. As long as their seats were safe, all was right with the world. Bill Clinton was a much better politician than his friend Jim Blanchard. Bill even remembers he is a Democrat most of the time and he knew to treat black voters like people not inmates in the Democratic column.
There was also a police helicopter that flew around the state capitol neighborhood all night long looking for open-air drug sales. It was the tail end of the bipartisan “war on drugs”. During the Blanchard administration, there was almost a dollar-for-dollar shift of money for higher education to new prisons in the state budget. Recently, the state lowered many of the sentences handed out in the era for drug crimes mostly because the state couldn’t pay for it any longer. Tuition was raised and many students borrowed more student loans.
Now, the Michigan economy is once again at “Rodger and Me” like depths. Maybe if the state had invested and valued its motivated young people, rather than treating them like “revenue sources”, people would want to start or move business to Michigan. And the policies of Jim Blanchard, like his tepid governor friend from Wisconsin Tony Earl, hang in my memory in the Republican frames they originally came in.

Posted by: James Knell, Chicago, IL | April 20, 2008, 1:16 am 1:16 am

HILLARY WILL LIE FROM DAY ONE.

Posted by: jbate | April 20, 2008, 1:52 am 1:52 am

The democrats have added new voters …………….FOR THE PRIMARY.
Many will vote for Mc Cain or not vote.
We go thru this EVERY election cycle.
These Obama lovers think that people ONLY signed up for Obama. If that was true, then Obama would have won easily by now.
Believe me, Obama will never win the general election. All he has is 20 years olds -who never have shown up in great numbers in the general election.
Never have, never will.
If Obama gets the nomination, Mc Cain will win the election .

Posted by: tomdavie | April 20, 2008, 1:59 am 1:59 am

Are you mad as a wet hen yet Ohio? Hillary stood up there for days and said, “If any member of my campaign had gone to a foreign government and said, wink, wink, don’t worry about NAFTA.” Well, guess what, IT WAS HILLARY’S MICHIGAN CO CHAIR WHO DID THAT DIRTY LITTLE DEED. Obama’s staffer never said anything different to the Canadians in Chicago then Obama says in public and the Canadian government confirmed it. Hillary won Ohio based on that lie and she knew it was a lie when she was telling it. She claims she won Texas too, but she didn’t. Obama beat her by five delegates. Bill and Hillary claimed NAFTA as the single greatest achievement of the Clinton administration. People who were present at the time said Mrs. Clinton wanted to do her healthcare plan first, but that she didn’t at the time object to NAFTA itself. When she says she was always against NAFTA, that’s another lie as her White House schedule proves. She gave presentations to sell it and there are people who were there who say she was 100% for it. Even though Bill took almost a million dollars to help push Columbian Free Trade deal through American congress, we’re supposed to believe that Hillary really doesn’t like it. How many lies will people buy? Are you listening PA? Your jobs went foreign thanks to the hard work of the Clintons. Do you still think the Clinton years were great? It just took a while for the effects of their laws to really impact your lives, but they set it all in motion.

Posted by: karela | April 20, 2008, 4:01 am 4:01 am

Boy, Hillary put quite a bit of spin on that word! She’ll do anything to take the heat off of her and Bill. Bill and Hillary both supported NAFTA, it’s obvious from her schedule that was released. Now, Bill and her campaign strategist Penn are working with the Columbian government to push through a trade deal that she supposedly is against. The people of Pennsylvania have every right to be “bitter”, but it’s because of people like the Clintons who have cost them their jobs. The Columbians have paid Bill $800,000 for his work to promote the trade agreement If you expect people to actually believe you don’t support the agreement, why would you be okay taking the $800,000. And if that $800,000 is in your joint account, and you’ve “loaned” your campaign $5 million, how can people be sure that the Columbians aren’t paying for her campaign.
People in upstate New York State were promised that if she were elected to the Senate, she would bring thousands of jobs there. Well, no jobs ever came, and when she was questioned about it at the MSN debate, her lame response was that when she made those promises, she thought Al Gore would be elected President!!!! Take my word for it Pennsylvania Voters, she could care less about you…she’s telling you what you want to hear so that you’ll vote for her, then you can forget any lame promises she has made. Jobs are still leaving Upstate at an alarming rate. She can’t even handle one State, how in the world can she think she can run an entire country. Please Pennsylvania… don’t let her scam you like she did the NY Senate voters and OH and TX primary voters with lies about NAFTA.

Posted by: John | April 20, 2008, 7:35 am 7:35 am

Reverend Wright Trouble for Obama?
Ayers, Ttouble for Obama?
Bitter, trouble for Obama?
Michelle, Trouble for Obama?
Farrakahn, Trouble for Obama?
Peru Free trade agreement, Trouble for Obama?
Rezko, Trouble for Obama?
Sinclair, Trouble for Obama?
Debates,Trouble for Obama?

Posted by: libre | April 20, 2008, 8:17 am 8:17 am

Is Obama really believing what some of his supporters think that he is a deity in a cult? That he can talk in riddles and nobody has the right to question him? Why is he so unable to answer any question? why does he have to retreat and then come back with an explanation or a whine?

Posted by: libre | April 20, 2008, 8:18 am 8:18 am

2008 OBAMA NO CHANCE

Posted by: ERIC | April 20, 2008, 8:37 am 8:37 am

WHO IS SAYING THAT ALL YOUNG VOTER ARE FOR OBAMA IS NOT TRUTH THE MEDIA THINK THAT YOUNG PEOPLE ARE STUPID….. THEY WILL SEE THE DIFFERENT AFTER TUESDAY THERE POLLS HAVING CLINTON UP BY 19 POINTS…….. THE MEDIA LIKE CNN,. MSNBC THINKS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE STUPID…….

Posted by: ERIC | April 20, 2008, 8:45 am 8:45 am

YOU DO NO GAIN ANY GOOD THING BY RISING CAPITAL GAIN……. THE TAXES DO NO MAKE A ECONOMIC GET BETTER CREATE JOBS AND A FRIENDLY WAY FOR INVESTMENT DOES.
CREATE MORE JOBS. NO MORE TAX….

Posted by: ERIC | April 20, 2008, 8:51 am 8:51 am

MC CAIN IS A WAR HERO….. 2008

Posted by: ERIC | April 20, 2008, 8:58 am 8:58 am

The NAFTA issue is only the tip of the iceburg. Hillary Clinton is the founder and chairman of the Senate India Caucus. One of her biggest donors, Sant Singh Chatwal, cited that Clinton’s India Caucus has vowed to raise $5 million dollars for her from companies that outsource American Jobs to India.
Sound familiar, $5 million, India raises $5 million for Hillary, Hillary loans $5 million to her primary campaign. Doe’s that mean the India Caucus provided $5 for Hillary’s primary campaign? If so it was a bad investment.
In the February 2005 issue of The India Review / On a recent trip to India, Senator Clinton laid to rest India’s fears that outsourcing American jobs would end. On that trip Senator Clinton said, “OUTSOURCING of AMERICAN Jobs will continue”, and they have.
The people of Pennsylvania have supported Clinton and she has outsourced their jobs. The people of Pennsylvania vote for her and she rewards India. Somebody is being conned. She diverts our attention with little hissy fits about trivia that doesn’t matter while her husband Bill and manager Penn are carrying bags of money out the back door.

Posted by: John | April 20, 2008, 11:02 am 11:02 am

Eric above says that McCain is a war hero. That doesn’t give him the experience to be president.
And what kind of a war hero would have such disrespect and lack of loyalty to the troops that he is against the new GI bill that was introduced in the Senate?

Posted by: AnnieEddie | April 20, 2008, 1:24 pm 1:24 pm

Pastor Wright Trouble for Obama?
Ayers, Trouble for Obama?
Bitter, trouble for Obama?
Gun-toting trouble for Obama?
Michelle, Trouble for Obama?
Farrakhan, Trouble for Obama?
Peru Free trade agreement, Trouble for Obama?
Rezko, Trouble for Obama?
Sinclair, Trouble for Obama?
The Black Panthers trouble for Obama?
Meeks trouble for Obama?
Malley trouble for Obama?
Auchi trouble for Obama?
Khalidi trouble for Obama?
McPeaks trouble for Obama?
NAFTA trouble for Obama?
Debates, Trouble for Obama?

Posted by: concerned | April 20, 2008, 3:53 pm 3:53 pm

scape goating again

Posted by: gg | April 20, 2008, 4:05 pm 4:05 pm

scape goating again

Posted by: gg | April 20, 2008, 4:06 pm 4:06 pm

If someone doesn’t give a source for their accusations, don’t give it any credence. Anyone can make up anything.

Posted by: jkr | April 20, 2008, 6:33 pm 6:33 pm

Sen Clinton tells the Indian government, that she supports the continuane of outsourcing
jobs to India! I think the voters should be outraged that any politician is for outsourcing premium American jobs.
Remember NAFTA anybody.

Posted by: jld1959 | April 21, 2008, 2:40 am 2:40 am

I see no one is outsources jobs in America it’s the people who out source themselves from the rest of the real world that beleive in one nation under God. So if no one believes in unity there will be no jobs left You make your own bread or you can move somewhere else where there is beleivers

Posted by: gg | April 21, 2008, 11:22 am 11:22 am

Leave a Reply

Do you have more information about this topic? If so, please click here to contact the editors of ABC News.