Wendy, quite the contrary, Obama's crossover appeal is exactly what makes him such a great candidate. Those republicans he does not win over, find his honesty disarming enough that they would not mobilize against him. I've heard that around 15 percent of Obama's voters in Iowa were republicans.

"...some people will say anything to try to cover the clintons blatent lies. ..."
ki houston (Sent Friday, January 18, 2008 10:47 AM)

Obama saying that he passed "sweeping healthcare reform in Illinois" isn't exactly "truth personafied" either, sweetie.

I want everybody to remember that we are supposed to be a civilized country. If we are than what Barak Obama is running on is a new way to have a political debate.  If Hillary beats him on the merits so be it.  Remember also that Barak did not start any of this mess, Hillarys' husband did. There have been three occasions when people have spoke on behalf of Hillary and three separate retractions of those statements. They were Bob Johnson, Charlie Rangel, and Sheehan.  Do you think they were mistakes or lets see if we can throw enough stuff out there and see what sticks.  I have never seen people put their feet in their mouth so much. Is this Hillarys' responsibility, you better believe it is. As an African American man I am appalled and it shows me that we need a difference maker. Hillary never denounced the comments until the debate. I wonder why!!?

Just thought I would let you know about something going on in a Feb 5th state. Our state has a caucus, similar to Iowa. There are a bunch...ok a few...women who won't or can't bring themselves to vote for any of the Republican candidates. These are voters who have probably never voted for a Democrat in this big, square red state, but they really want to defeat Hillary. They realize that none of the Republicans are likely to defeat Hillary in the general. The solution...they plan to caucus for Obama. That's the only way they can find to keep Hillary out of the White House. Not saying that this is the view of a lot of voters, but thought it was an interesting concept.

I agree with Wendy, PA.  I keep looking at the total number needed and considering the fact that they are only calling this because of polls and a very few primaries, I think calling it a 2 person race in either the Republican's or the Democrat's race is very premature.  I feel that the press is causing a fear that may cause some voters to vote for one of the other candidates only because we're being told Edwards or whomever cannot win.  It's not fair to any of them or the voters.  
I liked when one of the commentators in the Nevada debate asked Edwards how it felt to be a white male in this race.  It often appears that the press thinks that Democrats will not vote for one.

OK, Hillary supporters, it's time to open your eyes now. You'll be dizzy for a second, because you've been spun so much. Here, have a look:

Jan in Nashua: The snarky question is there in order to make sure that First Read isn't just parroting the Clinton campaign. The reason there's no snarky question after Obama's statement is that his doesn't put words in Clinton's mouth. Clinton's campaign on the other hand is asserting that the Obama campaign said something, and First Read, lacking the time to read through what is by now thousands of pages of campaign coverage, is questioning the validity of the statement. (And to answer your question, the Obama campaign has always tried to play down expectations, so I don't see why they would make such a statement.)

In other words, they're questioning something they think might be a LIE. Why doesn't it concern you that your candidate is LYING TO YOU?!

Stopwatchingfoxnews:

Obama made a very generalized comparison of his candidacy to Reagan's in 1980. He did not say he was in any way supporting Reagan's policies.

I suppose your argument is that Hillary gets her words twisted all the time? So tell me, when she blamed the Obama campaign on Meet the Press for the backlash at her own ill-chosen words (MLK & LBJ), how were her words being spun? The backlash came from two people who were and are unaffiliated with Obama's campaign. So I don't understand how you can consider that honest. I don't want a President who will blame others for his or her own mistakes. I find that unacceptable, and that's exactly what Hillary did. As a result of that, I will vote for McCain rather than her if that ends up being the choice. (I'd still vote for her over Mitt, Huck or Rudy, but McCain has a lot more of my respect than does Hillary.)

I don't consider myself a "Hillary hater." Until recently I was 100% ready to vote for her if she won, even though I support Obama in the primaries. But the negative tone I was already perceiving has gotten worse.

I was ready to look past the smears about the 'present' votes, which made up 130 out of 4000 votes, and all of which were conscious decisions to register a protest against a particular bill (that's how a 'present' vote works in Illinois).

I was ready to look past the 'experience' argument, even though Obama has more time in legislative office than Hillary and has been working for change for ordinary people his whole life. (He worked as a community organizer for $13,000/year after college, then went to law school and became a civil rights attorney in Chicago. He also taught constitutional law at the U of C and initiated voter registration drives that registered tens of thousands of new voters, which was credited with helping Bill Clinton win in 1992.)

I was even willing to accept the Clinton camp's attacks on Sen. Obama's Iraq record, even though he spoke with passion and prescience about his opposition to Iraq months before the war started. Even though I found it distasteful that the Clinton campaign would attack Sen. Obama for voting to support the troops once they were already in there JUST LIKE SHE DID, I was willing to let go of that and still vote for Hillary if the time came.

But to suggest that the backlash from those comments is the doing of the Obama campaign is just SO dishonest (and downright childish) that I am no longer willing to vote for Hillary. She has shown her true colors: her ambition knows no bounds, and she's willing to smear Obama just so that she can win. I find that unacceptable. If Obama were playing the same game it'd be different, but he has and continues to take the high road and run a positive campaign.

What about the 4-page memo, you ask? Well, that was an internal campaign memo, and it was composed of quotes from Hillary herself. Obama has had trouble in the past making sure his staff follows his vision of a positive, high-road campaign, because they understandably pereceive a need to hit back. We Obama supporters know that what he talks about is truly possible, IF HE WINS. We therefore take issue with Clinton playing dirty to try and make sure he doesn't win, because we see it as doing what's best for herself rather than what's best for the country, or even the party. The game she is playing is splitting our party. That much is very clear on all of these blogs. So, the question becomes this:

This is the moment in history where we all have a chance to stand up and say, "I'm sick of this liberal-vs-conservative infighting. I want to band together, figure out solutions we can agree on and get them done. No more bickering; let's fix this country."

OR

We can say, "There's no way that liberals and conservatives will agree on anything. Those (insert other side here) are crazy and we HAVE to BEAT THEM. Then we can do what WE WANT instead of having to let them do what THEY WANT. Don't be naive, hope doesn't get you anywhere."

Which side will you take?

Ultimately this election will decide whether America deserves a President like Obama.

Edwards turned me off in the Nevada debate.  He voted for the Iraqi resolution and now he regrets it.  He voted for the Bankruptcy bill (which screws the people he claims he wants to fight for) twice and now he regrets it.  He voted for Yuca mountain and now he regrets it.  His judgement either is impaired or he doesn't study an issue before he votes for it only to regret it later.  Either way not something I want in a President. He can't even figure out what he wants to do much less try to convince "big business" to follow his lead.

Hillary will win Nevada, and Obama SC, but then Hillary will go on to win the rest.The Edwards people will split between Clinton and Obama and Hillary will win the presidency with a large portion of female and hispanic voters.The repubs will end up with McCain, who is 71 and looks, sounds and acts like 81. He won't cut it.Plus the economy will be completely in the tank by then.

Mitt Romney losing his temper??  I was decieved by MSNBC thinking I'd see Romney foaming at the mouth, shouting, etc. They got it wrong; it was the stupid AP reporter who was out of line and ugly, arguing over semantics.  These reporters think they can create the news and anoint their candidate of choice instead of just reporting the facts.  Romney held his cool --- he's showing he has Presidential mettle.  

Plus Edwards is the only candidate who will get republican crossover votes in the general election. Republicans will not crossover and vote for Clinton or Obama just like they didn't crossover and vote for John Kerry.

-- Wendy, PA

How about "just like they didn't crossover and vote for John Kerry / John Edwards". Remember, Edwards was already on a ticket and LOST in the GE. He lost his own birth state and the state he represented in the Senate. How is he all of a sudden MORE electable?

Jerry wrote-

"The Clinton's have done everything short of getting an Obama lookalike to do something nasty for the camera in their dealings to try and derail him."

Good one, Billary is probably holding auditions now!


_____________


Looks like the job is going to Jimmy JJ "Dynoooo-mite" Walker.

My comment is aimed towards the remark about the weary journalists. I have never seen a campaign fought this way, via the media. I took several journalism courses in College and the way i understood it, the media's job is to report the news, the cold hard facts. This does not mean half stories fabricated into long tales, journalists weighing in on the air and in print of who THEY would vote for and who we should choose, Folks like Chris MAtthews touting one candidate this minute then kissing the butt of another the next. ( talk about flip flopping). The guerilla warfare tactics demonstrated by the AP reporter shouting at Romney like a heckler, and the grand puba of the genre Bill O'reilly practically tackleing candidates to the ground. Its all disgusting and unfortunately many people do not do research and rely on their information via these ridiculous sound bytes and sensational headlines. We live in a national enquirer society and the mainstream media seems to have bought into this hook, line and sinker and this is how the commander in chief will be chosen...

Splitting the African American vote

Getting caught off base using dirty tactics (again)

Losing the white liberal vote

Adios, Hillary

Wow, Juan & C.K. Steele, both from Fort Lauderdale posted a comment within one minute of each other.  Wonder what the chances of that happening?

Note that Washington State is potentially more relevant than you suggest: Democrats choose their delegates entirely in the caucuses to be held Feb 9 at 1 pm (not in the primary on the 19th).

Janet Napalitano, the female Democratic governor of Arizona, has endorsed Barack Obama. Speaks volumes.

Obama saying that he passed "sweeping healthcare reform in Illinois" isn't exactly "truth personafied" either, sweetie.



J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY (Sent Friday, January 18, 2008 11:01 AM)

Health care is really going good in the Clinton camp isn't it Merle?  LOL

Mitt Romney losing his temper??  I was decieved by MSNBC thinking I'd see Romney foaming at the mouth, shouting, etc. They got it wrong; it was the stupid AP reporter who was out of line and ugly, arguing over semantics.  These reporters think they can create the news and anoint their candidate of choice instead of just reporting the facts.  Romney held his cool --- he's showing he has Presidential mettle.  
Steve, Fairfax, Virginia (Sent Friday, January 18, 2008 11:17 AM)

I agree, MSNBC has reported a number of things about Huckabee, who I don't support, that were taken out of context too.  I think it boils down to the fact many on MSNBC (Mathews, Shuster, Olbermann) support the left and go out of their way to trash Republicans and any Democrat that their not supporting.

Sierra, you are now quoting a republican who got less votes in the Michagan Primary, than the 2% undecided vote.  We get it, you hate Clinton.  I, on the other hand love all of our candidates on the Democratic side and will vote for any of them.  Since you really our a Republican, I realize you can't say the same.  

DID IT EVER OCCUR TO ANYONE THAT THE REAL PROBLEM IS THE MEDIA? I LISTEN TO CANDIDATES STATEMENTS AND THEN READ OR HEAR HOW THEIR STATEMENT IS REPORTED, EITHER INCOMPLETE AND OUT OF CONTEXT. AM I THE ONLY ONE?? WHY DO THE REPORTERS CONTINUALLY TRY TO TRY TO MAKE US LOOK STUPID? TRY COMPARING HOW THE COMMENTS ARE STATED AND THEN REPORTED....SURPRISES

As an Idiot I just want to say what other people say I think they are "TALKING POINTS" not to be confused with the point on your head.Im glad I can get my Opinion from PROPAGANDISTS like JOE scarboro or Matthews or tucker.The best was hearing matthews spit out an apology to hilliary that must of hurt like a kidney stone coming down the pipes keep up the good work anachrists love yall

Janet Napalitano, the female Democratic governor of Arizona, has endorsed Barack Obama. Speaks volumes.
Ron Jeffers, Arizona Independent (Sent Friday, January 18, 2008 11:31 AM)

Yes, says he will support legalizing 12 - 15 million illegals and provide them with a driver license. Why won't the Democrats admit they will trade this country away for votes.

Obama saying that he passed "sweeping healthcare reform in Illinois" isn't exactly "truth personafied" either, sweetie.

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY (Sent Friday, January 18, 2008 11:01 AM)

Health care is really going good in the Clinton camp isn't it Merle?  LOL

jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Friday, January 18, 2008 11:34 AM)

Haha.

Obama is boring and inexperienced and who the heck is he and what does he REALLY stand for? He claims he's gonna change our whole political system to what? And how does he propose doing that? He's just another pie in the sky candidate, with little to no experience.

Wow, the amount that the media protects H.R. Clinton is simply amazing to me.  She and her surrogates outright lie about the facts regarding the Obama campaign repeatedly, but the media does little more than make a note of it.  The Obama campaign does a much, much, much better job at being honest, truthful and straightforward.  The don't call her out in an effort to appear unbiased.  As a result, there is as much ugly fiction surrounding Obama as relevant facts, and it is the Clinton campaign's fault.

That is what bothered me about Mr. BET Johnson.  He apologized for saying something legitimate—albeit pointless and stupid—but completely ignored the boldface lies that he told about Obama.  It’s a pattern with the Clinton side of the equation.

The Clinton camp needs to learn facts.


"It sure looks like Clinton and Edwards are splitting the white vote ..."
--I still think the South is way more racist than the "North"--aka rest of the country.  But than again, somebody could probably fairly criticize me as a 'regionalist!'


*** The Bubba factor: is nothing more than the campaign spending political capital.  I wish the media would note that--I'm not saying spending it is a bad thing.


*** Mitt’s fit: Stop being stupid media.  Glen, the AP reporter, was very annoying in the manner he asked his questions.  In W.M. Romney's defense, it was hardly the EXPLOSION of anger the media has made it out to be.  He was rightfully irritated, and if you ask me, more composed than I would have been.  He calmly answered Glen's gotcha question with a straightforward style multiple times.  Stupid media!

Does anyone know where I can get the bumpersticker that says "Monica Lewinsky's ex boyfriend's wife for President"?

How can Chuck Todd say on MSNBC that it will be an UPSET if Hillary wins Nevada?? The UPSET will be if OBAMA wins - which is what I am hoping the outcome will be! Both polls mentioned above by First Read show Hillary with the lead! Yes, Obama got the culinary support, but that counts for only 8% of the total. This is another example of MSNBC's pro-Hillary bias. Chuck Todd, Andrea Mitchell, etc. are trying to set up expectations that Obama has this won already, so that if he doesn't win it will look bad. Hillary is  favored to win in both major polls! So the UPSET will be if Obama wins!

I sincerely hope that the Nevada voters will have been angered and turned off by the Clinton campaign's overt attempt to suppress the vote. Unbelievable that a campaign would stoop that low.

Please, Nevada voters, vote for Barack Obama. He is a Democrat we can be proud of!!

gene did you have a problem with it before obama got the endorsment . who ridiculas

  Tell me Chuck, how come no mention of that sexist remark your colleague Chris Matthews made about Hillary Clinton.  Aired on the "Morning Joe" Show featuring Joe Scarborough, Matthews stated that Senator Clinton owed her election as a Senator and candidacy for President to the fact "her husband messed around".  This occurred on January 9th.  Not a mention in your column though.  If it had been a comment about Senator Obama, you would have been howling from the shores of Maine to the Golden Gate, once again proving your total devotion to Obama.  Why don't you just wear an Obama sticker across your chest and admit you are an Obama supporter.    

Sierra is a republican, and my theory is that he is also Mr Jerry from Corpus christi. So much for anybody that still paying attention to that windbag. Hillary still got a portion of republican woman as Obama got some repubs too. It will be another exciting race, but I believe Hillary will pick up Nevada and Barak has SC.

I think its just down right disgraceful that the Demorcratic Party is so damn liberal that they are letting people vote in gambling joints what the hell is this country coming to .Why can't those workers go to regular caucases like the rest of the state .Hell why don't we let the prisoners vote in prisons why we are at it !!!!

I find it humorous reading these posts that the Clinton supporters become upset whenever the media addresses facts about Bill/Hillary Clinton.  They prefer the good old fashioned Clinton spin machine, I guess.

--I don't think the media does enough fact-checking, on anybody, to actually report the truths.

From First Read:

....historically interesting Wisconsin primary on Feb. 19 (Washington State is that day too...)


WASHINGTON STATE primary will only be staw poll for Democrats.  Dems allocate delegates based ONLY on caucus results on FEB 9th!!!!!  Republicans allocate approx half based on caucus and half based on primary.  It's complicated but please be accurate.

For someone to affect the Dems' delegate count in Washington state they must attend the caucuses. For someone to have maximum affect on the Reps' delegate count they have to show up twice.  

  Tell me Chuck, how come no mention of that sexist remark your colleague Chris Matthews made about Hillary Clinton.  Aired on the "Morning Joe" Show featuring Joe Scarborough, Matthews stated that Senator Clinton owed her election as a Senator and candidacy for President to the fact "her husband messed around".  This occurred on January 9th.  Not a mention in your column though.  If it had been a comment about Senator Obama, you would have been howling from the shores of Maine to the Golden Gate, once again proving your total devotion to Obama.  Why don't you just wear an Obama sticker across your chest and admit you are an Obama supporter.    

The Clintons need to go away.

he did pass kid care in ill. but if he were to lie about somthing , i would not try to cover it up by smearing clinton . Which is obviously your specialty . Honestly i dont see how you live with your self , you have to know you are lending credit to lies ,mr.j

Wow...you guys really have something against Mitt.
First Johnson interrupts Mitt.  Couldn't Johnson have waited and asked, "Mr. Romney, what about Kaufman, he's a lobbyist?"  Totally unprofessional for a journalist to attack a candidate and argue.  If Johnson wanted to get to the facts, there were different ways...but obviously you guys want the blame to fall on Mitt.
Second, semantics? Baloney!  The guy is a volunteer adviser.  He doesn't MAKE decisions.  He offers ADVICE.  That's a big difference.  Mitt explained the truth and the BIG POINT that he's not tied down by lobbyists.
I love reading my news off MSNBC, but I think your take on this is pathetic.
Watch the video folks.

For Democrats, Obama is the Candidate of Confidence, Clinton the Candidate of Fear

As Democrats debate on this campaign and on the future of our party, the tone among Clinton supporters has come to differ sharply from that of Obama supporters. While Obama supporters exude confidence, excitement, and the will to win, Clinton supporters seem increasingly defensive; increasingly gripped by the fear that, in debating as we are now, we are fragmenting the party and playing into the hands of the Republicans. Clinton supporters cast Obama as a dangerous interloper who threatens to rip the Democratic Party apart, as an irresponsible dreamer, as a pied piper who is leading the children away to certain disaster. His supporters are cast as misguided idealists, as starry-eyed adolescents who need to give up their "false hopes" of something better than politics as usual and face dull, mediocre "reality." Surely our unruly behavior is already putting the Democratic campaign at serious risk. Surely even now the Republicans must be watching and grinning as we divide so that they can conquer. "Shhhh...," we are told by Clintonistas, "Be careful what you say.... The Republicans are licking their lips right now."

I say if they're licking their lips now they'll be eating crow come November. For any Republican who might be tempted to put tongue to lip, think again: I and other Obama supporters will vote for Hillary Clinton in November if she wins the Democratic nomination, as I should expect Clinton supporters will do in kind if Obama is the nominee, because we intend to win. The United States and the world can't stand another four-to-eight years of Republican insanity. Hillary Clinton is not my first choice among Democrats, but she beats any Republican by far. In the meantime, let the debate continue: Debate is, after all, the essence of that clever little Greek idea for which our party is named. We have the advantage; we can afford a healthy debate. With a field of candidates such as ours compared to the assortment of flawed specimens running for the Republican nomination, and with our enthusiasm compared to the mood of bitterness and gloom among Republicans, I'd say it is we Democrats who should be licking our lips.

TH in TX your comment is just plain stupidity

It is difficult to understand if any feminist could vote for her after watching our first viable "female" president defended and protected by her husband who reminds that she is not running as a woman, but as a member of Clinton dynasty. Keeping in mind the reality that she was dumped by Bill the republicans will play this card against her (and democratic party) whenever they could if she gets the nomination.

Obama is the answer, enough to Clinton dynasty.

So, I just want to make sure I understand: Hillary Clinton praises LBJ, the president who fought for the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and '65, and-- as a result--has to endure people questioning her commitment to the African American community.  Barack Obama, meanwhile, praises the "optimism" of Ronald Reagan-- who kicked-off his 1980 campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi; who used the stereotype of "welfare queens" to push his extremist agenda; who fought against Affirmative Action; who endorsed Jesse Helms...etc., etc.-- and gets away with it.  Nice consistency, pundits!!

The same type of argument for Clinton used four years ago to pick Kerry over Edwards because of his 'experience' and look how that worked out. Furthermore the number one reason I will not vote for Hillary is the fact that she has always calculated her runs for political office. She is from Chicago and yet chose to run for Senator in New York because it was an open seat (no incumbent) so it was easier to win. She didn’t run for President four years ago when Bush was highly vulnerable and she could have placed people on the Supreme court. No, she took the easy route and waited until there was no incumbent for the Presidency and again she decides to run. If she truly wanted to change America she wouldn’t wait until the polling was correct. This run for the President is all about Hillary and the last time we had a President with an agenda for the White House it didn’t work to well; (see George W. Bush. Sorry to tell you the 1990’s are over, if the democrats try to fight in the past they’ll lose.

p.s. she already has a 40% disapproval rating before ever entering this race and Obama has not attacked her on white water, etc ..., all of which will come pouring out as soon as she is the nominee. I’m a male black independent who votes in every presidential election and I will vote for Edwards, Obama, or Huckabee for president. If it’s Hill, I'm not voting. I believe the Republcian’s know Hillary is the easiest to beat. Why else would you think Rove would be writing opeds about Obama and not her?

Heard Chuck Todd say on MSNBC that Obama HAS to win Nevada. But it is OK if Hillary loses. I am so tired of this very, very obvious slant in Hillary's favor by Chuck Todd. If Hillary wins Nevada why is that a catastrophe for Obama, but if she loses, it is OK for her? Hillary has ALWAYS LED in the Nevada polls - not just now, but for many months! She has Senate Majority leader Harry Reid's powerful organization backing her. Why would it be such a surprise if she won?? Sounds like it would be a surprise if she didn't win! That said, why does Chuck Todd ALWAYS take Hillary's side in these things? Is it because of Dan Abrams' support of Hillary and Todd is afraid he will lose his job if he doesn't follow suit? Todd is so transparent in his support of Hillary, it is becoming laughable. My husband has even picked up on it. He hasn't watched MSNBC much until lately, but he just commented this morning when he heard Todd say that statement about Nevada that Todd certainly seemed biased in favor of Hillary. What gives, Mr. Todd??

Isnt it sad you have COKE HEADS AND WEED SMOKERS RUNNING YOUR PRUDE COUNTRY

Obama and his followers are phoneys and frauds. Mr. nice guy isn't so nice. We will see that when the skeletens begin falling out of his closet.He's nothing but a fraud.

I completely agree w/you DS, Dallas!  She is completely trying to ride Bill's coatails.  I would also like to point out to that Wisconsin is not the only state having caucuses on Feb. 19, 2008!  This is the first year that Hawaii will actually have any say or meaningful participation in the caucus process.  Please don't forget us...everyone matters.

You hurt my feelings!  Ha Ha!

You know, this intra party food fight is destroying my image of the democratic Party as more tolerant and civil.  Apparently, democrats can be as petty, intolerant, and small minded as the Republicans.  The character attacks on the Clintons by some Obama "supporters" almost sound like they are coming from republican plants.  Why not try to stick to the issues?  I am concerned that Obama won't rule out nuclear power.  It won't prevent me from voting for him if he is the nominee but it makes me lean more towards Edwards for the primary.

Like the GOOD BOOK says, many will be deceived and blind and deaf to the TRUTH.  FROM ALL OF THESE COMMENTS I see the BOOK WAS RIGHT ON!  With all the idiot remarks that I have read, we had better keep praying.  Or are these posted remarks from the uneducated?

I was actually a Hillary supporter until the Clinton campaign started using such reprehensible dirty tricks. It's simply unconscionable for the Clinton campaign to use these tactics. In stark contrast to the positive and respectful campaign Obama has been trying to run, they disemble and mislead and resort to misinformation and surrogate smears. I knew that the Clinton's could play dirty with and had some sharp elbows, but, I was distressed to see them utilize them against fellow dems. Maybe I'm naive?

I was aghast to see a democratic campaign try to suppress democratic voters through lawsuits that turn union against union. What kind of democrat does this?

I don't believe for a minute that they didn't know what they were doing when they introduced race into the game. I think it was a calculated effort to paint Barack as the "black candidate" in an effort to hurt him with white voters. It boggles the mind that they could enlist prominent black supporters in this strategy.

I've changed my allegiances and now can not bring myself to vote for Clinton no matter what. If she's the eventual nominee then I'm done with the Democratic party and I'm voting independent or green from here on out.

This Obama guy can't fight his way out of a paper bag. He is totally intimidated by his wife and by Hillary. They both have bigger b---- than he does.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):