"Ahh, Pennsyltucky with your poor, old, white, uneducated electorate (it's not racist, it's just demographics). You're all Mrs. Clinton has left to count on. Of course she is up-her racial division strategy is perfectly suited to Rendell democrats."

no shame no gain, Clintontown, PA (Sent Wednesday, March 12, 2008 6:09 PM)

You mean those who put up with all of his shady dealings.  (DeNaples, PHEAA, The whole Gambling debacle)

Also, REMEMBER THE PAY RAISE!!!   (Sorry for those outside of PA who don't understand, but Rendell really dodged a bullet on this one, unlike at least three of the top legislators)

Northern Irelands' Minister and Deputy Minister meet with Senator Clinton on December 7, 2007, to discuss Northern Irelands' ongoing Peace Process and to thank Senator Clinton for her decade of involvement and committment to continue US supporting Northern Irelands' Peace Process and economic development. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZhStkZgveI

Asst. Sec. of State and Chief Spokesman for State Dept. Jamie Ruben on MSNBC Tucker Carlson's Show confirming Senator Clinton's Foreign Relations experience and her involvement in Northern Irelands' Peace Process for over a decade and Senator Clinton's impact on worldwide human rights policies due to her speaking out on China's treatment of women and children stating "women's rights are human rights". After Senator Clinton's courageous stand in China critcizing the Communist government, other foreign governments changed their human rights policies to improve womens' lives and in turn childrens' lives.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCjgBAjZBaQ&feature=related

Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright; "I know Hillary will be a true leader because she already is, and she has been for as long as I have known her. When she went to China and stood up and said, "women's rights are human rights"- she was acting as a leader. When she went to Northern Ireland and met with the mothers of children killed by both sides, and brought them together in support of the peace process - she was acting as a leader. In the Senate, on the Armed Services Committee and on trips to Iraq and Afghanistan - she has acted as a leader."

Hillary met with Macedonian President and Prime Minister offering Economic Development Package.
(Chicago Tribune 5/16/99)
"First Lady Brings Publicity, Aid to Macedonia. Hillary Clinton met with Prime Minister and Parliamentary President". (Washington Post, 5/15/99)

Northern Ireland Secretary Mo Mowlami, "Hillary is one of the essential reasons Ireland had peace. Without her we would have no economic boom."
(Talk Magazine, August 1999)

Just a few of the documented statements confirming that Senator Clinton does have Foreign Relations experience and is respected by diplomats and world leaders in international political arena.

Either Obama populates this message board with shills for his campaign, or Obama-bots have nothing better to do than troll websites with their ignorance.

NO OBAMA.  

to: Dirk, Brunswick, Georgia:

If you reverse your logic, Clinton got 8% of the black vote. Obama got 92%. Clinton got 73% of white vote, Obama got 26%. Now who does better?

The Pennsylvania Working Man:

Out of almost 2000 bills authored or sponsored by Obama, only 3 became law?  

Hillary authored AND passed 20, five of which you describe as substantive? No mention of bills authored and/or sponsored that did not pass?

Obama really did author or sponsor an average of two bills each and every calendar day since taking office in January of 2005?  Even while campaigning for president the better part of two of those years?

Did you actually read this before you cut and pasted it?

DON'T BE DUPED!!!

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

But first, all of you have to make certain that Hillary Clinton takes the democratic nomination and then the Whitehouse. NOW! is the time. THIS! is the moment you have all been working, and waiting for. You can do this America. “Carpe diem” (harvest the day).

I think Hillary Clinton see’s a beautiful world of  plenty, and comfort for all. She is a woman, and a mother. And it’s time America. Do this for your-self, and your children’s future. You will have to work together on this and be aggressive, relentless, and creative. Americans face an even worse catastrophe ahead than the one you are living through now.

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

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

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

Hillary Clinton has been out manned, out gunned, and out spent 2 and 3 to 1. Yet Obama  has only been able to manage a very tenuous, and questionable tie with Hillary Clinton.

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

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

I think Barack Obama has a once in a life time chance to make the ultimate historic gesture for unity, and change in America by accepting Hillary Clinton’s offer as running mate. Such an act now would for ever seal Barack Obama’s place at the top of the list of Americas all time great leaders, and unifiers for all of history. But the time to act is soon.

The democratic party, and the super-delegates have a decision to make. Are the democrats, and the democratic party going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee to fight for the American people. Or are the republicans going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee through vote fraud, and gaming the DEMOCRATIC party primaries, and caucuses.

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

“This is not a game” (Hillary Clinton)

Sincerely

jacksmith...

I find it amusing that Obama supporters run to their candidates message of unity, inclusiveness, and acceptance, and then attack Hillary Clinton and her supporters.  The messages posted from Clinton's supporters seem much less angry.  I wonder how a message of hope will play in the general election, as it has elicited so much hate and anger in the primaries.

Yes we can. We hillbilly whites in the middle of PA can overcome the welfare cases in Philly and Pittsburgh.

The bottom line is, Hillary has won very few States so she talks alot about the size of the States she has won. She doesn't talk about the narrow margins in some of the States she won either. She is a great spin master but not fit for our highest office.

Umm, Strategic Vision is a right wing slanted polling organization, I wouldn't believe any number they are pulling out of their posterior.

To: Interested Parties
From: Greg Craig, former director, Policy Planning Office, U.S. State Department
RE: Senator Clinton’s claim to be experienced in foreign policy:  Just words?
DA: March 11, 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is most disturbing about this is that both candidates are now doing worse against McCain than they were a few days ago.  The most likely explanation is Hillary Clinton has managed to bring the campaign down to the lowest common denominator.  Voters might begin to think that you can't trust these candidates not to act like children in a playground fight, and anyway McCain is qualified for the job.  Way to go the Democrats are snatching defeat from the very jaws of victory, yet again.  Someone needs to rein this in, pointing out that the next person to foul is out of the game.  Time for the super superdelegates like Gore, Edwards, and Richardson to weigh in.  Not necessarily on who should be the candidate, but how a viable candidate to represent the Democratic Party should act.

to marlon at 6:52, right on the money my friend!  i hope this would open the closed eyes of her minions!

I JUST HOPE THAT OBAMA GIVES HILLARY AND RUN FOR HER MONEY IN PENNSYLVANIA A WIN FOR HILLARY BY 10% OR LESS IS A WIN FOR OBAMA. THIS IS NOT ABOUT GENDER OR COLOR, ITS ABOUT THE BEST PERSON FOR THE JOB. OBAMA SHOULD NOT OVER LOOK THIS PRIMARY. STAND UP AND FIGHT.  

Oh right Obama will meet everyone is PA and puff like magic his numbers will go up? It was just a couple weeks ago polls had him within 4 points. His politic games are starting to catch up to him. He is nothing special, a good speaker and thats it. I haven't heard one forward thinking idea come out of his mouth. I don't care if he's good looking, black, yellow, or orange I want the best qualified candidate to be the President and that is without a doubt Hillary Clinton. REAL CHANGE is not the politics he's been playing. Trying to pitt former VP Candidate Ferraro against her is some of the most dirty politics I've seen. What was her answer supposed to be? It couldn't be because he's experienced. People need to look at the facts, and they are clearly that Clinton has proven time and time again to reach across party lines to get things done for the America people. Thats the type of person I want in office.

Clinton's "what the definition of delegate is" stance should disqualify her as a change agent and as a presidential nominee.

After 7 years of Bush breaking rules, creating rules and ignoring rules for political purpose, we do not need four more years of the same.

Don't know which polls you are reading. The tracking polls wich do floating averages rather than snapshots have Obama ahead of McCain by about 6% and Clinton leading McCain by 1%. I hope you don't pick stocks on just today's data.  

Sad Day, although I support Obama, I thank you for your clarity and wisdom.  You are the type of voter that knows what's at stake here, without giving into the rhetoric.

I agree, every state counts, and to belittle or diminish their impact is foolish.  Sometimes, the family just won't do.  I myself need to see what I'm buying before I buy it.  Also, calling either sides supporters names is so high school it's not funny.  This is our lives, people!  No matter who you support, think about what you want for your children and yourselves.  I'm not really happy with the Clinton campaign right now, but if I have to, I will vote for her if she becomes the nominee.  She may not be my first choice, but she's better than the Republican alternative.

Gee Obama is half white...why doesn't he run as white man.  Is it because  the blacks wouldn't vote for him.  Its all about race.  And blacks are more racist than whites.  But the news media stays mute. You would think  Obamas deck of race cards would of been depleted by now

I love how the wealthy and educated vote obama while broke morons vote clinton, could it be that the morons can't figure out that mccain beats hillary, but Obama edges out mccain, in a general election? the stakes are too high in this election, so all you morons get your head out of your rear and join the winning team.....Which is obama

The Clinton’s have not released a scheduled tax return since 2002. There is no reason they couldn’t release,03,04,05,06 tomorrow and show where their millions are coming from. They have said that around April 15 they will release their returns. Come the 15th, they will have some excuse to postpone it past the 24th Penn. primary. Yes thats right, after millions of people have cast their ballots without this information.

All of the other Democratic candidates have made public their returns long ago. What’s the story Hillary?

Do we need a President that at 3am gets a call about a major problem in the middle east, and derives millions of dollars of her income from that area?
Sounds like a conflict of interest to me. Not only that its a major security problem. Will she be bought?

Hillary needs to come clean with the American people.

Tax Returns-- White House Records-- Clinton Library Archives

WHAT IS SHE HIDING?
WHAT IS SHE HIDING?
WHAT IS SHE HIDING?
WHAT IS SHE HIDING?
WHAT IS SHE HIDING?
WHAT IS SHE HIDING?

Don’t let her hide!!!!!

Marion,

As an avid Obama supporter who is happy to point out Hillary's faults, I still get tired of the Limbaugh nonsense.  Regarding the real issue about Hillary's wins in the "Big" states.  Why don't Obama's people keep reminding everyone every chance they get that Clinton's big wins occurred in states where she was leading by 20+ points in many cases?  Obama cut those leads substantially before the vote.  Where did Clinton overtake the lead when Obama was originally in the lead?  NOWHERE!  Who can attract new voters, and who has hit her ceiling?

I am comforted as a conservative to read most of the liberal jibberish on this site, much of it so mean spirited.

I wonder why hillary will have to say McCain will b better than Obama if she really wants the best for the democrats, i now see why nancy pelosi made the comments she made," YOU WONT SEE OBAMA-CLINTON TICKECT" Yes she is absolutely right, Hillary i hurting democrats just because.........someone pls help me

What would you saw if I told you a large part of ”the Clintons” wealth came out of the Middle East. Wouldn’t that be a hugh conflict of interest when it came to our national security? Think about if the President had to strike terrorist cells in that area but was getting a big part of her income from these countries. Conflict of interest--prove me wrong release you taxes.

WHAT IS SHE HIDING?

If Obama is so sure of his #1 position, why wont he agree to let Florida and Michigan have their votes?  Maybe because he knows his #1 position will be no more......

I am not saying that Hillary is the supperior candidate, but from hearing both of them speak, she has more meaningful content in her speaches than Obama has in his.

Pennsylvania is a democratic state and definitely a clinton state. When Bill clinton was running for President, he did well in pa. He did win two terms. Another thing that bothers me is does everyone forget that Barack obama has a mother who is caucasian and from arkansas/. So really he is not 100% African american.  You can't be when you are bi-racial. I just wanted to voice my opinion

Less then one month before Texas voted the polls showed a similar result:

Rasmussen  02/14 - 02/14  54 38 Clinton +16.0

With 6 weeks to go, I am sure the polls will tighten. I feel confident that Pennsylvanians will not be fooled by the Clinton lies that were told in Ohio.

http://laststopmidwest.blogspot.com/

Check out this video on Fox news
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337308,00.html

I know the gap will get close between Obama and Clinton, and the reason she is winning big states is because she is well known and he has no time to make himself known to the voters. The more time he has the better his chances.

The assumption that all of us will vote Democratic in PA no matter who the nominee is--is wishful thinking. If Empty Suit Obama wins the nomination, there are plenty of us will will NOT be voting for the Democrat. Then you can all Say Hello to the Old Man. Do you want to know why? Because many of us are sick of being accused of being uneducated when I for one would be more than happy to pit my education, experience and salary up against any of you Obama children living off their parents. Second reason: I am sick of all the off-color remarks about women made by Obama children all over the net. I will not vote for him. Period. I am far from alone and you arrogant Obamabots are the reason.

OBAMA SUPPORTERS ARE THE MOST IMMATURE, OBNOXIOUS PEOPLE I HAVE EVER LISTENED TO.

WHEN YOU ALL GROW UP YOU'LL REALIZE THAT DREAM SPEECHES AND CIVIL RIGHTS SPEECHES DON'T RUN A COUNTRY.

Let me say a couple of things.  Most of these neg. comments about Clinton are nothing short of ignorance. Obama has NO experience and his popularity is pushed by who he is not his experience unfortunatly those who have the guts to say so, get blasted for what many people have no guts to admit. To the young, you may think you are grown but you have a long way to go nor do you have the wisdom to know what your voting for. Get educated, not in a movement that I believe will not succeed. With FL and Michigan not settled, Clinton has more delegates and more of the popular vote than Obama. Be informed not ignorant.

What's the Clinton/Pelliano connection? Why aren't people realizing that Obama won Texas in delegate count? She won pop vote only.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/3534.shtml

http://prorev.com/hillary.htm

http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/newsletter/2003/0203g.shtml

www.padems.com
poll of pa dems

Mississippi?
I can't believe that people seem surprised that only 21% of Whites in Mississippi voted for Barack.  People this is Mississippi we are talking about--most of the White people in Miss. still think there is a Confederacy.  People...........Please!

Dirk from Georgia,

You should not be surprised that there are racist whites in Mississippi who would not in a million years vote for a black or bi-racial person for president, even if he is an eloquent, intelligent,charismatic, inspiring man like Barack Obama.

And yes, since you mention his smile, it is a beautiful smile that can light up a whole auditorium. I guess his having all these qualities is plenty enough to make some white men who are already racist feel threatened. (hmmmm...perhaps I'm touching a nerve here for you?)

My point is, it's not Mr. Obama's beautiful smile and charismatic nature that is polarizing, but it is the long standing hatred racist people have held in their hearts, stagnating like some sort of cesspool.

I know how this is. I grew up in Georgia and the racist feelings there are as deep as the red clay under your feet.

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