The battle for South Carolina

Enrique, Chicago, IL — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 15:19:48 GMT

Bill and Hillary would never admit to spinning Barack's expected victory in SC as a racial divide amongst Democratic voters, but that's exactly what they're doing.

Since I'm Latino, I'm supposed to be supporting Hillary. At least that's what the media is telling me. That's certainly not the case. Not only will I NOT vote for Hillary on Feb. 5, but I will likely NOT vote for her in the general election, should she be the nominee.

The battle for South Carolina

Nashville_fan — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 15:19:59 GMT

"The ad defends Obama against distortions on his record made by the Clinton campaign, and pushes back on the Reagan issue saying that Clinton also praised him. "
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Hmmmmm, "distortions", huh? Is that "chattering class" speak for lies?

The battle for South Carolina

Chaunda,Indianapolis — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 15:25:06 GMT

Bill did not inject color into this campaign, Barack did when he announced his candidacy. Just as Hillary injected gender when she announced. Do we blamed the media for giving statistics that point out race and gender support dynamics between the candidates when referring to their polls? Race,cultural and ethnic difference will always be part of politics in a country as diverse as ours. Now if we can just accept that and move the discussion to critical issues like education, economy and our standing globally. These are things we can fix.

The battle for South Carolina

Sierra, SF — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 15:26:36 GMT

From the Politico.com:

'...Obama pulls punches vs. Clintons

By: John F. Harris and Jim VandeHei
Jan 23, 2008 10:36 PM EST

Obama has refrained from making a bare-knuckled assault on Bill Clinton's controversial record.

All the talk about how rough the Democratic presidential race is becoming is absurd. Considering that Hillary Rodham Clinton is running to restore the personalities and policies of the 1990s to the White House, it is astonishing how gentle the debate has been.

Imagine if at the next presidential debate Barack Obama — who is agitated about what he calls Bill Clinton’s misleading criticisms — cocked his head, smiled ruefully and, in Reaganesque “there you go again” tones, said something like this to Hillary Clinton: “You know, I admired some aspects of Bill Clinton’s presidency. But let’s recall that it was precisely these sort of too-cute-by-half statements that caused him to be reprimanded by a federal judge and stripped of his law license. Senator, you may want to go back to those days and that style of politics, but I think most Americans are ready to move on.”

Had you forgotten that Bill Clinton voluntarily agreed in the closing hours of his presidency to be disbarred and pay a sizable fine in the fallout from the Monica Lewinsky scandal?....'

Bill Clinton was DISBARRED FOR PERJURY
NO THER PRESIDENT HAS BEEN DISBARRED
Do we want 4 years of THAT kind of morality ?
Do we want 4 more years of LAWBREAKING ?

'...No doubt most Democrats have forgotten — which is testament to both Clintons’ indefatigable talent for framing political debates on their terms, rather than those of their opponents.

Obama’s strategists would probably say that engaging a popular former president in such a direct manner might backfire. But recent days would suggest that Obama’s alternative is also backfiring.

He has wandered into a tactical battle — over who is behind what radio ads or robocalls, or over the correct interpretation of stray quotes — with the best tactical politicians in the business. The Clintons have assembled a team that has thought through plausible defenses to virtually every vulnerability. They turned the practice of fast and forceful response into an art form.

Meanwhile, Obama has confronted the strategic question — do the Clintons represent the Democrats’ best chance of returning to power and successfully governing? — in a glancing, tentative fashion.

His vague, spacious rhetoric hardly indicates he has a coherent critique of the Clinton administration or clear ideas about his own alternative. Here is an area where his appeals to a new style of politics could stand more substance....'

'...But it’s also true that Bill Clinton has done more to hurt Democrats than any other politician.

His missteps, with the full assistance of Hillary Clinton, propelled Republicans into power in Congress for 12 years.....'

Clinton's bungling and corruption helped ensure a REPUBLICAN MAJORITY for 12 YEARS
Want to see the Republicans retake the Congress ?

'....And his personal scandals and wearying style of politics propelled George W. Bush into power in an election Al Gore should have won. (Bill Clinton does not believe this, but — more convincingly — most Bush strategists do.).....'

Bill Clinton's LEGACY LOST the 2000 election
Want more of the scandolous Clintons ?
MAYBE NOT

'....Obama was on to something in his now-controversial quote to the Reno Gazette-Journal that Ronald Reagan transformed politics in a way that the Clintons (so far) have not. Reagan stood for a handful of large ideas and managed to command large majorities behind his leadership......'

Why did Reagan command majorities and Clinton spark controversies ?
Was ANY OTHER President ever accused of RAPE ?

Just say no to Monica Lewisnki's ex-boyfriend's wife

The battle for South Carolina

Dillon — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 15:26:46 GMT

I've watched and listened to the media the last few days and weeks and there seems to be a disturbing theme- that if Obama wins S.C., it doesn;t really matter because of the black population there and that this will somehow rally whites to vote for Hillary. As a black man I think it is offensive and insulting and any self-repecting white person with their own opinions should find this offesive as well. I heard no one in the media state that the Hillary win in New Hamphire shouldn't count because older women rushed to the polls at the last minute to vote for her. That's her base and they turned out. But if Obama's base turns out for him it's suppose to ignite some culture war or something? White people have their own brains and will vote for who they like period and any white Obama supporter that votes the other way because of results in S.C., probably weren't going to vote for him anyway. Shame on the media for doing the Clintons job ofcreating this narrative to divide Americans instead of uniting them.

The battle for South Carolina

Eorse, St. Louis — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 15:44:10 GMT

It will be worse now. I predict Obama (if he wins) will win by a very small margin (2-3%) in SC. The reason is the two Clintons' campaign (race, gender, and ethnicity baiting). Even Dick Morris is onto this. Of course, I predicted from the start that no one can beat the two Clintons. No one has. No one will. Ever. Forever.

The prediction again: The power of the Clintons' attack machine is that you will vote for it, even though you do not want to. The bait (race, gender, and ethnicity) is now in your DNA, especially if you are low-income (or low-education) white woman.

Please see --

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/01/24/reuterszogby_poll_obamas_lead_slips_in_south_carolina.html

I used to be feel sorry that Obama will not win. Now I will sorry for Obama himself. I mean what a way to be destroyed.

The battle for South Carolina

Tom W. — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 15:46:14 GMT

"Has Bill Clinton successfully played the race card?"

This is a disgraceful statement by someone who claims to be a journalist. Where and when did President Clinton play the race card, how did he inject race into this campaign? Did you bother to include President Clinton's direct response that that false Obama surrogate charge?

Your bias is showing, and it's sad. Too much time with Chris Matthews, I guess.

The battle for South Carolina

Sierra, SF — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 15:47:01 GMT

From First Read:

'...Has Bill Clinton successfully played the race card? AP's Fournier notes: "One of the best political strategists of his generation, Clinton may be hoping to lower expectations for Saturday's primary. He may have his sights on Feb. 5, when voters in 22 states take part in a national primary. It would likely work to Hillary Clinton's advantage to have the electorate polarized by race,....'

IT MAY WORK TO HILLARY CLINTON'S ADVANTAGE
TO HAVE THE ELECTORATE POLARIZED BY RACE

The first viable Black Presidential candidate
AND THE CLINTON'S RACE BAITED HIM !

REPEAT THAT, AGAIN
THE CLINTON'S RACE BAITED OBAMA

'...given that most Feb. 5 voters will be white and Hispanic; she won the Hispanic vote overwhelmingly in last week's Nevada caucus.

Strategists working for the New York senator deny any intentional effort by Bill Clinton, his wife or even surrogates like Bob Johnson, who referred to Obama's admitted drug use, to stir the racial debate. But they say they believe the fallout has had the effect of branding Obama as ‘the black candidate,’ something he has worked to avoid." ...'

Soulless Bill Clinton's
America's first BLACK PRESIDENT ?
He RACE BAITED Obama

Do we want 4 years of THAT ?
DO ANYTHING TO WIN ?
RACE BAIT TO WIN ?

The battle for South Carolina

SF, CA — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 15:51:35 GMT

Once upon a time in a land far away, the Clintons were about hope ("I still believe in a place called Hope") and moving forward ("building a bridge to the 21st century"). In short, they were about RAISING our expectations and raising the country.

To anyone watching even tangentially in the past month, it's clear that change has truly happened. What the Clintons are about now is tearing other people down to the level to which they've gone. Seems as if 99% of their rhetoric now is not about where they'd like to take the country but rather it's about shredding anybody that might get in their way.

The battle for South Carolina

Bubba — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 15:53:15 GMT

Can you really trust a guy who used "cocaine" ? Not I

The battle for South Carolina

David Missouri — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 15:53:24 GMT

Bill Clinton always knows the exact words he is using - he has set this up and the media went with it to become about race. If Bill had not steped in Hillary would be loosing more states. It only tells us that when it gets tough in the White House Bill will step in to fix it for her there also.

The battle for South Carolina

s.b. California — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 15:57:09 GMT

I'm sorry. Obama's camp is 100% responsible for the "race card" being played as you call it. The day after NH, his campaign went on national television and accused NH voters of being rascist. Then a few days later they accused Bill Clinton of being rascist for saying his voting record on Iraq was a fairy tale. There is absolutely nothing racial in that comment. Obama's campaign played the race card, made him into the angry black man, and has sealed his fate as a candidate. The Clintons didnot do this but they are benefiting from it. Dont forget Axelrod orcehstrated a loss for Edwards last time too. He's very good at managing campaigns for the loser.

The battle for South Carolina

jdr — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:04:36 GMT

The mail piece and email in the eleventh hour in New Hampshire was a bald face lie. It may have done more to persuade women to vote for Hillary than when she cried. Please watch this post by the former president of NOW in Chicago. This is a direct testimony from a women that left Hillary behind after what she saw in New Hampshire and now supports Obama.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVuMYKs8iJs&feature=user

The battle for South Carolina

Wisdom Calls, Pal Park, NJ — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:14:12 GMT

Sometimes it easier said than done.

The battle for South Carolina

Eorse, St. Louis — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:15:11 GMT

The battle for South Carolina

dan — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:18:15 GMT

Roseanne has again taken to her personal blog to eviscerate Oprah and Barack Obama, The whole entry, caps and all, is here:

winfrey has refused to do a show with the FIRST WOMAN candidate for President who has EVER won a primary election, in the history of the United States of America. I saw Hilary on the ridiculous tyra banks' show, and fumed. Hilary deserves to have been able to address the huge female demographic that Oprah's billions came from. How very disgusting, and how very very telling!! Maybe if Hilary was discussing her fat thighs Oprah would have had her on. Oprah doesn't really seem to respect the intelligence of her audience at all. Obama slaps the faces of his supporters with his traitorous praise of ronald reagan, the man who singlehandedly destroyed the working people, the economy, and the mental health safety net in this country, and told inner city kids that ketchup was a vegetable. I pray for the speedy failure of his divisive anti-feminist campaign. Oprah COULD HAVE delivered her viewers an audience with the most powerful and successful woman in American politics since Eleanor Roosevelt, and the only democratic candidate who has a prayer of winning this election at the most crucial time there has ever been in this country. I believe its she and David Geffen's plan to elect fellow billionaire Romney. This country's not going to elect a democrat who speaks well of republicans and reagan, like Barack Hussein Obama does. Wake Up! Diss-ing women's century-old fight for political representation of their voice makes me SICK!!!

The battle for South Carolina

Jane, Cary, NC — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:26:17 GMT

The Clintons are trying to put Obama in a "BOX" as the "BLACK CANDIDATE" if he wins in SC. Just remember ONE WORD - IOWA!!! Obama won in 98% WHITE IOWA by TEN POINTS over Hillary! Just three weeks ago today! This proved that Obama can win ALL voters - WHITE, like me, as well as African-American. This is the Clintons trying to play the race card. It is disgusting! The question should be WHY are the Clintons losing so many in the Black community? Wasn't Bill the 1st Black president? Maybe many African-Americans are like James Clyburn and repulsed by this overt attempt by the Clinton machine to try and make this a race about race. Well, it won't work. Obama is not a Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton type candidate. He cannot be put in that "box" by Mark Penn & Co. This is one "Clintonian lie" that just won't fly!! REMEMBER IOWA!!! A 98% mid-western state which had a year to size up these candidates. They chose Obama by TEN points - 39% to 29% - the LARGEST MARGIN of VICTORY to date! And Obama did very well in both NH and Nevada which are mostly white. So let's just let SC play itself out. Dismiss this latest Clintonian tactic of trying to make Obama the "Black candidate" by saying one word - IOWA!!!

The battle for South Carolina

Lynette, NYC — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:30:14 GMT

One of these two better step up and start talking issues and what they will do about them and stop this schoolyard bullying. Whoever ignores the other and does this will be victorious. ( of course if Hillary Clinton Steps up and does this, she will be accused of something as she always is.) No one has noticed that Obama has been quite nasty himself the last two days and its goes by the wayside. We only hear about bill clinton when he gets annoyed. So so so biased....

The battle for South Carolina

lhummer — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:32:53 GMT

It would be to the Clintons' credit to denounce the utterly false statements concerning Barack Obama's religion and his patriotism. Since they have not, it only reinforces my belief that they have no sense of decency or fair play. I'll vote for anyone but Hillary (and Bill since he seems to be running again).

The battle for South Carolina

Sylvia Garnette, Lake Mary, Florida — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:36:57 GMT

Tell the candidates to stop the fighting Obama stared it whenever he debated he always attacked Hillary, he never attacked the others as much as he was always on her case. After all she must respond. I'd rather him be a Vice -President and learn to be a President.

The battle for South Carolina

kmnecole, st louis, mo — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:44:52 GMT

Dick Morris statements in an effort to set the record straight on Hillary's history:

For those of you who don't know Dick Morris was the political advisor to Bill Clinton during his White House years. He was about as close to the Clintons as anyone during that time. I am reposting his comments concerning Hillary.

"If you happen to see the Bill Clinton five minute TV ad for Hillary in which he introduces the commercial by saying that he wants to share some things we may not know about Hillary's background . . .
beware .
As I was there for most of their presidency and know them better than just about anyone, I offer a few corrections;
Bill says: "Hillary spent a year after graduation working on a children's rights project for poor kids."
The facts are : Hillary interned with Bob Truehaft, the head of the California Communist Party. She met Bob when he represented the Panthers and traveled all the way to San Francisco to take an internship with him.
Bill says: "Hillary could have written her own job ticket, but she turned down all the lucrative job offers."
The facts are: She flunked the DC bar exam, yes, flunked, it is a matter of record, and only passed the Arkansas bar. She had no job offers in Arkansas, none, and only got hired by the University of Arkansas Law School at Fayetteville because Bill was already teaching there. She did not join the prestigious Rose Law Firm until Bill became Arkansas Attorney General and was made a partner only after he was elected Arkansas Governor.
Bill says: "President Carter appointed Hillary to the Legal Services Board of Directors and she became its chairman."
The facts are: The appointment was in exchange for Bill's support for Carter in his 1980 primary against Ted Kennedy. Hillary then became chairman in a coup in which she won a majority away from Carter's choice to be chairman.
Bill says: "She served on the board of the Arkansas Children's Hospital."
The facts are: Yes she did. But her main board activity, not mentioned by Bill, was to sit on the Wal-mart board of directors, for a substantial fee. She was silent about their labor and health care practices.
Bill says: "Hillary didn't succeed at getting health care for all Americans in 1994 but she kept working at it and helped to
create the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) that provides five million children with health insurance."
The facts are: Hillary had nothing to do with creating CHIP. It
was included in the budget deal between Clinton and Republican Majority Leader Senator Trent Lott. I know; I helped to negotiate the deal. The money came half from the budget deal and half from the Attorney Generals' tobacco settlement. Hillary had nothing to do with either source of funds.
Bill says: "Hillary was the face of America all over the world."
The facts are: Her visits were part of a program to get her out of town so that Bill would not appear weak by feeding stories that Hillary was running the White House. Her visits abroad were entirely touristic and symbolic and there was no substantive diplomacy on any of them.
Bill says: "Hillary was an excellent Senator who kept fighting for children's and women's issues."
The facts are: Other than totally meaningless legislation like changing the names on courthouses and post offices. Presently she is trying to have the US memorialize the Woodstock fiasco of 40 years ago.
Here is what bothers me more than anything else about Hillary Clinton. She has done everything possible to weaken the President and our country (that's you and me!) when it comes to the war on terror.
1. She wants to close GITMO and move the combatants to the USA where they would have access to our legal system.
2. She wants to eliminate the monitoring of suspected Al Qaeda phone calls to/from the USA.
3. She wants to grant constitutional rights to enemy combatants captured on the battlefield.
4. She wants to eliminate the monitoring of money transfers between suspected Al Qaeda cells and supporters in the USA.

One cannot think of a single bill Hillary has introduced or a single comment she has made that would tend to strengthen our country in the War on Terror.
But, one can think of a lot of comments she has made that weaken our country and makes it a more dangerous situation for all of us.
by Dick Morris, former political advisor to President Bill Clinton

This country needs a honest leader . Fool me once shame on you HRC, fool me twice shame on me. Re- whitewater, travelgate, filegate, vince foster, ron brown, monica, right wing conspiracy, Iran vote, exagerated claims of gravitas. anybody but HRC

The battle for South Carolina

HL — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:46:50 GMT

As much as Sen. Obama has said that the Clinton's have been telling untruths about his record, I still haven't seen or heard him tell us what those lies are. He complains, but he hasn't refuted. As much as he likes to represent himself as above the fray, he is no different than any other candidate. I'll go with experience instead.

The battle for South Carolina

cali d — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:47:14 GMT

Latinos vote your interest. OBAMA IS YOUR BEST CHOICE. The evidence: With democraphics showing Clinton supporters aligning in the WHITE LOWER INCOME bracket, less educated, and in need of govt. ast. In surveys on illegal immigration Clintons core voting block is not in favor on amnesty or drivers licences for illegals, the favor a more LOU DOBBS aproach. So Latinos run the risk of alienating their staunches suppoters. Upper Middle, liberal whites and the younger generation, who are more in line with Kennedy, MCCAIN bill and who heavily favor OBAMA. If latinos vote heavily for Clinton in Cali, Arizona, New Mexico and are dubbed the deciding factor. There will be a backlash of support among that group. Repubs will have an opening to pick up african americans as the media will fuel latino bais against the black canidate and some anti hillary democrats, while some will go independent. With Hillarys hyper partisan rhetoric, and policy stances it seems impossible for her to have shot reforming immigration because she wont be able to break the 60 vote filibuster rule. Latinos will contiue to be scapegoated for the countrys health care and school woes, as well as being alienated by pro Obama supports who would feel the latinos abanonden them. The media will hype the black brown divide and make the case tthat latinos are racist. That is already the number 1 theory in most pundits minds (even if not correct) that latinos are voting against Obama because hes african american.
A vote for Hillary is a vote against latino progress. We saw evidence of this in the philly debate when Clinton changed her answer of driver's licences for illegals. 5 different answers eventually led to NO. When the chips were down she caved to her constinuantcy she needs more than latinos. LOWER INCOME WHITE VOTERS. OBAMA supports the legistation in new york giving illegals drivers and is becoming a plausable theory of why LOWER INCOME WHITES are votig for Hillary.

The battle for South Carolina

Mark Thieme — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:50:06 GMT

"Hillary Clinton. She'll say anything and change nothing. It's time to turn the page."

Time to turn the page, indeed.

As a long time, committed, admirer of Bill Clinton and one who has called Bill Clinton one of our greatest presidents in print, it pains me deeply to see what is happening in this campaign.

Hillary is running on the past and calling it "change."

She and Bill are taking their political cues from the Karl Rove "Mein Kampf."

She sounds like George W Bush and Bill acts like Lee Atwater.

I would have voted for them, with great enthusiasm, if they had won with the class and style of their younger, less reactionary efforts, even though I am working on another campaign.

The good news for me is that every day I work for Obama makes me that much more proud of my country and, yes, it gives me hope. Hope.

I made the right choice, almost by accident. It is no accident that the harsh light of truth has shown the Clintons to have aged poorly.

No, they have not aged like fine wine, they have aged like an old mine, left in the field of some long-past battle.

The more we know, the more we will discover, these are Clinton clones... and yes, they broke the mold. The real Bill and Hillary are lost in time.

America elects the Clintons again at its own peril and the peril of the world.

Time to turn the page...

The battle for South Carolina

Mark C. Eades, Oakland, California — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:51:54 GMT

While Bill Clinton's antics on the campaign trail are making him look increasingly like more of a liability than an asset, it seems legitimate to seriously consider Hillary Clinton's obvious dependence on him as an indicator of her own ability to independently fill the role she seeks. We seem increasingly to be getting a "package deal" with this campaign: not a candidate with her spouse in a supporting role, but co-candidates who seem likely to function as co-presidents if elected (one wonders how her vice-president would feel in a No. 3 role utterly in the shadow of the president's spouse). There are reasons why we have term limits in this country. Rather than a clearly-delineated picture of the candidate's individual record of achievement, we are getting an increasingly blurred story about their shared achievements. How many of us for a job interview would take our spouses along and attempt to gain favor on the basis of combined achievements? Democrats should seriously consider the effect that a Clinton co-candidacy might have on their hopes for November.

The battle for South Carolina

Mike, Dallas, TX — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:53:59 GMT

A Clear Choice / In Their Own Words

For people who have difficulty making choices between Senators Obama and Clinton because of all the confusing stuff floating in the media I have an advice on how to make a decision which is straight forward and honest. No spin (Even though I support Obama).

He says(paraphrased)

The politics in the last 15 years that divided the country in to sharp ideological camps is not the best way to face the challenges ahead. I want to forge a coalition of citizens democrats, republicans and independents giving me a working majority so that we are not stuck in the usual bickering and fail to pass major reforms such as health care or ending the war in Iraq.

She says(paraphrased)

I have proven to be a tough fighter against the Republican politics and after 15 years of fighting I am still standing. If I get elected I will continue those fights and promise to get new results.

Which choice do you like?

1. Trying a new way to achieve new results?
2. To continue the 15 plus years way of fighting and hope get new results?

The battle for South Carolina

HMT-MI — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:56:05 GMT

lets see---I predict Obama will win the black vote.Guess Todd has competition.

The battle for South Carolina

Rob in NV — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:00:04 GMT

Obama can win South Carolina by whatever margin and it will make no difference. Clinton is way ahead in major states with huge delegate blocks on Feb 2, including CA, NY, NJ, and she's also way ahead in FL. Obama's national campaign is toast.

The battle for South Carolina

Craig B. — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:05:44 GMT

I went from somewhat aligned to Hillary, to 100%-Obama, and more than willing to vote for ANY Republican rather than her. She is SO divisive, misleads the public, power hungry, has nothing positive to say about any Republican, and has used the African Amarican community for votes much more than helped them. The Clintons are the last thing we need in the White House. And she would lose the Independent voters required to win. We need someone with SOME integrity.....and not a spouse that has already lied under oath.

The battle for South Carolina

j fl — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:09:45 GMT

wow why don't we put Clinton and Obama together and we will have the perfect ticket.Mr Leahy also needs to be quiet and mind his own business.

The battle for South Carolina

William — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:12:52 GMT

Would it not be wonderful if SC delivered us Edwards and turned this back into a true race and choice as we have had on the Rep. side of the fence, allowing this country to speak more at large in the Feb voting.

The battle for South Carolina

Ann, Hohenwald, TN — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:13:56 GMT

I just talked to a republican, who voted for Obama. He admitted that republicans are voting for obama because they think he will be the easiest to beat in November. I hope you democrats wake up and see what is happening.

GO HILLARY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The battle for South Carolina

Eric, NY, NY — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:19:09 GMT

And look who is back in South Carolina today with events after some (like Edwards) said she abandoned the state and would not be back...Hillary Rodham Clinton. A 10% lead for Obama might not be so safe after all and besides even if he does win is the over/under so high now that a single digit win will be seen as a loss? Remember this is one of the states that Jesse Jackson won in 1988.

The battle for South Carolina

Robert Duval, Baltimore, Maryland — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:21:42 GMT

Why Hilary the Goldwater girl had her law school memoir sealed?

PEOPLE, NO MATTER WHERE YOU FROM OR WHICH ALLEGIANCE YOU HAVE, WE SHOULD ASK FOR HER LAW SCHOOL MEMOIR TO BE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC SO WE CAN BETTER TRACK HER PAST. BECAUSE, BACK THEN, SHE WAS A FIERCE OPPONENT OF THE CIVIL RIGHT MOVEMENT AND A STRONG SEGREGATIONNIST.
HILARY! IT'S ALL AGAINST CHANGE

The battle for South Carolina

Craig Cooper, Idaho Falls — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:28:24 GMT

Why is it that Barak Obama can begin the "mud-slinging" by essentially calling Hillary and Bill examples of Washington corruption and that he is better than that; but Bill and Hillary are "evil scheming politicians" when they respond in kind by highlighting Obama's own inconsistencies and questionable statements?

I'm also embarrassed to hear progressives and liberals vow to vote against a progressive/liberal candidate solely due to labels attached by the right-wing conservatives -- labels that have effectively been "poached" by a candidate who claims to be morally superior.

The battle for South Carolina

Ron, California — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:30:07 GMT

It is sad, but it is all about race:

Charleston, S.C. — In the wake of Nevada’s caucuses — a contest that revealed a split among Democrats along race and gender lines — the terms of the upcoming South Carolina contest could hardly be more starkly set.

At least half the voters in the Jan. 26 primary are expected to be African-American. Barack Obama is surging among blacks.

Hillary Clinton is winning whites. In South Carolina, the Democratic race may come down to race.

The state has become the stage for a “fierce battle for the African American vote,” as Bruce Ransom put it, a political scientist at South Carolina’s Clemson University who specializes in African-American politics.

Obama dominated the black vote last Saturday according to Nevada entrance polls, winning 83 percent to Clinton’s 14 percent.

Sunday morning churchgoers at Charleston’s Mt. Moriah Missionary Baptist Church, one of the largest black churches in the city, offered a glimpse at why Obama ran so strong with African-American voters in Nevada.

As parishioners attended service, four Obama volunteers waited in the parking lot with stacks of campaign fliers noting — in large capital letters -— that Obama was a “Committed Christian.”

Another read that Obama’s candidacy could allow voters to “make our mark on history.”

In random interviews with a dozen black churchgoers that morning, the historical precedent escaped none. Only one person said that she was not supporting Obama.

“I want to see a woman and I like Hillary. I think she gets a bad rap. I think she is stern and has a lot of experience,” said Candace Cohen, as she took her three children into church.

Cohen added that her identity as a woman was stronger than as an African American.

A recent Mason-Dixon poll found that black men lean toward Obama about 10 points more than black women.

“At work we have interesting discussions,” she continued. “I don’t get involved because if you are not voting for Barack you are a social pariah.”

Others like Vanessa Shosan expressed concern for Obama’s safety.

Eric Singleton, who works in the moving and storage business, said Obama’s candidacy “means everything to us.”

He added that after Obama won the white electorate in Iowa, “it made me feel better but that also lets me know that people are looking for the right choice not necessarily the white choice.”

Clinton owed her victories in New Hampshire and Nevada to no group more than white women.

But Nevada revealed that black voters are beginning to lean even more strongly toward the first viable black candidate.

And Nevada may only be the opening act.

“It ought not be any surprise when the majority of the women in New Hampshire cast their votes for Hillary Clinton anymore than it should surprise anybody when a majority African Americans cast their votes for Barack Obama,” said House Majority Whip James Clyburn, the senior African American in Congress.

The Mason-Dixon poll has Obama winning 56 percent of black voters to Clinton’s 25 percent.

Polling prior to Nevada found Obama winning also about six in ten blacks, only for his support to surge about 20 points in the last days.

As that surge now materializes in South Carolina, Obama's campaign is now concerned that the Illinois senator will be pigeonholed as “the black candidate.”

“People talk about how South Carolina’s electorate could be 50 percent African American, yeah, but the other 50 percent happens to be white,” said Obama’s strategist Cornell Belcher, himself the first African American pollster of a major party.

“It’s really about the candidate who can bring people together and build sort of a bi-racial coalition,” Belcher added.

That message, however, does not ease Obama’s dilemma. The same Mason-Dixon poll had Clinton winning whites by a 2-to-1 ratio over Obama.

“These divisions have come to the surface and quite frankly, except for the African American vote and young people it seems that Hillary Clinton is fairing much better than he is,” said Clemson’s Ransom.

“The concern here may not only be a division within the Democratic Party as it goes forward but also Obama’s campaign must be a biracial one.”

Unlike Clinton, Obama cannot win the nomination without that biracial coalition.

Nearly six in ten Democratic primary voters have been women -– at least two-thirds of which are white.

While South Carolina offers a large black electorate, by February 5 white women will again far outweigh the strength of black voters.

To overcome this reality, Obama has attempted to succeed where past black candidates have failed.

Jesse Jackson, who as the first black candidate to mount a serious effort at the presidency fell victim to divisive cultural politics, has expressed to both Obama and Clinton his hope that they “can keep focus on issues and not get sidetracked on what I called wedge issues.”

But Jackson’s warning also betrays the success of wedge issues. He said blacks are rallying to Obama because he has become “a source of pride.”

But that pride translated to votes only after two weeks of sparring over alleged racially-tinged comments by both Clintons and some of their surrogates.

The influential Clyburn said soon after the remarks that he was reconsidering his neutrality in the Democratic race.

His endorsement is important enough that Bill Clinton reached out and spoke to Clyburn twice. Hillary Clinton also took time to speak to him.

Clyburn pledged again Sunday to refrain from endorsing a presidential candidate prior to the state’s primary.

He said he decided to remain publicly neutral, at least in part because of the Clintons’ effort to address his concerns.

“I know today how I plan to cast my vote,” Clyburn said. But he quickly added,"I could change my mind.”

Clyburn is not alone. At least a third of voters have been making up their mind only days before each primary contest.

Obama currently leads in multiple polls here by nearly double digits.

That, however, causes little comfort within his campaign. Obama’s lead in the final days of New Hampshire was even larger.

But perhaps in a sign of Obama’s strength with black voters in the state, Clinton decided Monday to fly out of South Carolina late Monday night and campaign though the week in states with Feb. 5 primaries.

She is not scheduled to return to South Carolina until the eve of the primary.

The battle for South Carolina

Howard, Sidney Center, NY — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:30:45 GMT

The only real question is- is there enough racial and gendre anamosity going on between clinton and obama, that edwards can move into the minds of the South Carolina voters as a very worthwile choice?....edwards is making inroads with his economic package and he is beginning to get 20 and 30 seconds of positive airtime on the nightly shows that's not much but it is something and it is something to build on

The battle for South Carolina

malarson2 - Beaverton, OR — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:32:57 GMT

It’s the electability, stupid. Democrats, please pay attention: Hillary cannot win the general and that is the ONLY point worth putting out at this crucial moment of the primaries. Don't get distracted or side-tracked: put every other piece of info, scrappy fight, comment by surrogates, squabble, newspaper article, blog, story and propaganda-filled speech aside. Its not about race or gender or policies or change or experience. You only need to know ONE piece of information to make your decision: no candidate can win a general election that is not supported by half of her own party. Keep your eye on the 11/08 ball before it’s too late. She is the only thing that will rally the struggling Republican Party. Tell every Democrat and Independent you know: a vote for Hillary is a vote for John McCain, HIS war in Iraq and an economy that will not recover for a very long time. Why does the DNC not recognize this? We are running out of time to put an end to the eight, and I now fear 12, years of negative and never-endingly bad mojo and the moment to do something about it is right now. So stop talking and go out and do something. One simple first step? Email The DNC and tell them how you feel about the way The Clintons are leading our party and running their campaign. http://www.democrats.org/page/s/contactissues . Pass it on.

The battle for South Carolina

calamity jane, Seattle Wa — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:39:15 GMT

Newest Zogby Poll shows a very fluid race in SC, with Edwards at to 27% since Monday's debate - and climbing. Edwards now out polling Hillary and Obama support falling off as well.

The battle for South Carolina

Wendy PA — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:39:44 GMT

I would really like for MSNBC to announce to the public how many minutes of coverage their network has given to-

Clinton, Edwards & Obama

Then we can see whether the coverage has been fair or biased. Edwards is right the media has given Clinton & Obama celebrity status. Time after time when MSNBC shows -"today on the campaign trail" we see what Clinton is doing and what Obama is doing and nothing is mentioned of Edwards.

The battle for South Carolina

Don, Mason, Texas — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:41:48 GMT

Hillary Clinton lies about Barack Obama's statement about the Republican party. Then, she continues the lie in media purchases and has her surrogates sidestep reporter's questions about the continuation of the lie. She's not having them defend the lie. They are simply ignoring the fact that the lie is out there.

We simply cannot have another President who lies to us. Sometimes the end does not justify the means. Its the dishonest means that have defined the United States for the past seven years. That cannot continue.

The battle for South Carolina

commonsensepolitics — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:50:56 GMT

Purposefully orchestrating issues of race and gender to get back into the White House, appealing to the Hispanic votes on an ethnic basis in NV, the Clintons are truly playing out what Dick Morris, intimately familiar with the Clintons' scorched earth politics predicted: that they would inject race, with each story individually spun, so that collectively the divisive race issue would create a media story while the Clintons' complicity in the incitement will avoid detection or blame. I'm so sickened by the Clintons at this point -- I’m having the same reaction to them as I've been having to Bush for a while – immediately switching channels once their faces surface or the newscasters parrot the latest from their mouths. I now understand why Republicans hate them so bitterly, why the country became so polarized, and why the US ultimately put Bush with a stupid but honest image into office after Clinton’s administration. None of this had made sense to me before. As a party loyalist, I had just, well, tuned out and dismissed what my Republican friends said about the Clintons as just being partisan, but seeing their behavior now with open eyes and ears as just a candidate to be evaluated within my own party -- I must say I'm repulsed. I had no idea they were such slime. I remember the prayer group that Hillary had belonged to during Bill's cheating years, and the sympathy of course I felt, but I now wonder, was that an act, too? How can anyone with a shred of conscience behave the way that she and her husband are behaving? God save America.

The battle for South Carolina

Yiannis, Baltimore — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:53:24 GMT

Hillary voted to give the dumbest president in history the power to start a war. Get around that.

The battle for South Carolina

Thaxter, Seattle — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:03:44 GMT

I think Dick Morris has it right. Bill Clinton hopes to associate this SC primary with race so that if Obama wins, and Bill Clinton claims he is winning because of race (which they have), then this will generate a white backlash, i.e., generate general white resentment about black power in the SC race.

The battle for South Carolina

Janice Freeman South Point Ohio — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:13:55 GMT

I believe the color issue has no business in who you chose to vote for neither should it have to do with gender. I am voteing for the one with the most experience and is not afraid to let you know what they stand for, as for who voted for the war and who didn't, I believe the country was mislead and no end in site. We need to take care of our own people and enough lives have been loss and disfigured, the paper in Fl quoted about 6 months ago that 3500 trama patients have gone though the VA hospital in Tampa, the numbers are going higher plus our dead already and for what there is no end to this war. I believe in Hillary when she said she will help to bring them home, she understands our health care and families in need. We should be a country of one language and one flag, you want to come here, come the right way and be a United States citizens like many others have. So we need a President that will work with Congress and get our Country on the right track again. God Bless America and lead Hillery Clinton to do his will.

The battle for South Carolina

Jim, Globe, AZ — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:29:58 GMT

HEAR YE! HEAR YE!

How many Democrats and Independents are willing to sign an on-line pledge NOT to vote for Hillary in a primary OR general election...no matter what?

We need to launch a 'STOP HILLARY NOW' on-line petition for Democrats and Independents to demonstrate to voters and to the Democratic Party hierarchy, the foolhardy result of a potential Hillary nomination.

Time is of the absolute essence! Who among us will take up this torch?

The battle for South Carolina

j fl — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:41:20 GMT

Probably Obamas only state, maybe alabama and illinois, but thats it.

The battle for South Carolina

Fasteddie — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:42:00 GMT

Too late for me, I can not vote for the Clinton's. This election was intrusting and fun, until the
clinton's started went into personal destuction mode. Starting with selling drugs, all the way up to today. All we had to do was stick together and show up. The Clinton's are counting on this country being racist, even in know that that is what they are doing, We shall see. If this turns out to be true, so be it. If not, this will be a good horse race counting delegates.

The battle for South Carolina

outraged dem — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:52:13 GMT

Okay democrats, where's the outrage today? Did no one else hear the comments made by O'bama on our votes in the general election? He just moved to the top of the "most devisive" list in my opinion. While both Hillary and John Edwards came out stating clearly that we all would come together and strongly support WHICHEVER candidate won the nomination, O'bama says...he could get the people who voted for Hillary, but "Could she get the people who voted for me?" And this from Mr. Uniter? I don't think I've ever heard a more devisive comment in this race, from anyone. And though I'm a staunch democrat, I would find it very difficult to vote for him if he won the nomination for that statement alone. But I would do so.
I think he is finally showing his true colors. He's just another politician, folks. He just talks prettier than most, but there's no substance and I'm tired of the holier than thou attitude.
Don't let him tear us apart, though, dems...because that is truly the ONLY way we will lose the election. In the numbers we are coming out in, we will overwhelm ANY opposition. We just have to stick together, no matter what Mr. O'bama or any polls say.

The battle for South Carolina

Anthony, Woodbridge, VA — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:03:51 GMT

I must ask, Who is running for Pres., Hillary or Bill? If she can not standed up and fight for her self, no man/male voter will look at her as his President. For her to get my vote, she need to show me that she can takeout Obama in a clean fight. We all know that Bill is a beloved ex-champ. that still have the ability to punch. The question is, does Hillary has a chin and the punch to be the Pres?

The battle for South Carolina

Sharon, Orlando, FL — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:06:37 GMT

I had hoped to see a Clinton-Obama ticket in the fall but obviously that is not to be. I thought that with the truce two weeks ago the two sides would begin to mend fences but that seems unlikely now. It's a shame because the brightest and the best candidates might very well do themselves and the Democrataic party harm by not resisting the urge to have the last word. Come on guys, WAKE UP before it's too late and another Republicain wins the White House!

The battle for South Carolina

SANDRA BIRMINGHAM AL — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:11:23 GMT

I AM VERY DISAPPOINTED IN BILL AND HILLARY CLINTONS ACTIONS ALTHOUGH THEY MAY HAVE GOOD IDEAS AND EXPERIENCE I DON'T WANT FOUR MORE YEARS OF THE CLINTON. WINNING AT ANY COST IS NOT A WINNING TEAM. I AM NOW LOOKING AT EDWARDS AND OBAMA.

The battle for South Carolina

Ken Collins/Wagoner Oklahoma — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:25:50 GMT

I am so glad people are beginning to see the prejudice and favoritism at it's worst on MSNBC
I thought this all along and now that a large percentage see it also , Alright !!!
Between Chuck Todd, Chtis Matthews and Keith Olbermann may God help Sen Obama over come this on-slaught of pure un-adulterated favortism toward Slick Willy and Hillary !!

The battle for South Carolina

Jack, Greenville, SC — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:39:03 GMT

Now Clinton has pulled the attack ad. Guess she felt the damage was done and she could pretend to be above it all again. Disgusting way to run for one of the most respected positions in the world.

The battle for South Carolina

cnewsom,nashville,TN — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:41:36 GMT

The Clintons are only concerned about themselves and winning. They aren't even showing any loyalty to the party.
Could the Clintons be so selfishly desperate that they think if they don't get the nomination, then they'll make sure NO Democrat wins the election?
NAW...surely not......hmmmmm...

The battle for South Carolina

S.B. Stein E.B. NJ — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:41:48 GMT

To have all of these different break-downs is facinating. I don't know how accurate a predicting tool these polls are. Given how many are described as undecided, this is going to be down to the wire.

The battle for South Carolina

Gsirod, Des Moines, Iowa — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:41:57 GMT

I have not seen anything where either Clinton has used race as an issue. Seems the press is trying to do that.

I also think that Obama's campaign wants them to so he can gain more support from the people of his color in South Carolina.

America does not need to be divided by race or color.

The candidates need to stick to the issues and make this a clean campaign.

Clintons have a very favorable background experience of supporting and helping all Americans regardless of color or gender.

Obama stating that Hillary will say anything to get elected. What is this. I do not see Hillary bashing Obama's spouse and if she were a former President, he would utilze her abilites also. That is what families do. They support one another.

The Clintons bringing up the facts is not saying anything to get elected. Seems to me that if anything is brought up that may be negative about Obama, then his campaign gets nervous and starts bashing the Clintons. Why doesn't Obama just accept responsibility for his actions of the past, instead of trying to backlash at someone else that is trying to get the facts out of his past record. If he were President, should he not accept responsibility for his own actions or lack of actions.

The battle for South Carolina

James Alexander — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:44:13 GMT

It is true..the Clinton's will do anything to get in the White House.This is not the forst time thios comment has been made.A news caster made this comment last week on your network.

The battle for South Carolina

Alma, Sebastopol, CA. — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:50:09 GMT

Bill and Hillary will do anything to get elected, even to lie, in order to trash someone else's record or save their own. Bill has already lied during his presidency and Hillary is responsible for sending us to War in Iraq which she acted upon before thinking things through. How do we know that they are not lying again or sending us to another war or making decisions before thinking on the consequences?

The battle for South Carolina

Mark, Columbus, OH — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:50:36 GMT

Look, this is politics. You do not invoke Ronald Reagan or say that the Republican party is the party of ideas for the past 10-15 years DURING A DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY !!! Senator Obama left himself wide open for attack on this - warranted or not, distorted or not. Besides, it was Senator Edwards who jumped on him first - a fact that the Obama-butt kissing media seems to have already forgotten.

Furthermore, you do not say that the Republican party was the party of ideas for the past 10-15 years and not expect some kind of response from the person who was in the White House 10-15 years ago, namely, Bill Clinton.

You also do not attack Hillary Clinton during a televised debate with a Wal-Mart jab and not expect to be counterattacked with the Rezko gut punch.

The Clintons are not new to this - but Senator Obama is showing how new and apparently how naive he is. And if he thinks he is getting attacked now, the Republicans with their "party of ideas" will have more ideas than he will be able to handle come the November election.

The battle for South Carolina

Laura Elwin, Sammamish, WA — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:05:33 GMT

Jan. 24 @ noon .... I just submitted a comment and at this time "no comments yet" appeared about. I never see my comments posted. Is that because they are positive about the Clintons?

Perhaps you can email to tell me why you don't post my comments. I won't waste my time reading your postings if my responses aren't posted. Thank you,
Laura, WA

The battle for South Carolina

laura elwin, Sammamish, WA — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:10:55 GMT

Oh please, give us a break. Even the discussion of the Clintons "intentional effort...branding Obama as the black candidate" is incredibly beyond belief.
He is a black candidate. He wrote about his drug use in his own book. He is using race to his advantage.
In the last debate when asked the question about
Bill Clinton being called the first black president,
his answer was what some would call "sterotyping blacks" if given by a white person: "I would have to see his dancing" and something about before I could call him "brother". Did JOhn Edwards answer like that? NO. Obama seems to have a "don't ask and I won't tell you any lies". HIs answers are evasive and incomplete and misleading. Regarding the Republican/Regan comment: He did not say that he disagreed with the policies during the past 10 - 15 years, (true, he did not say he agreed either),
but then he went on to say that Clinton did not contribute. No matter how you spin it, the implications were given by him that he was saying
he didn't think Clinton contributed to significant changes during his administration. This we know is not the case as during the Clinton administration our
lives were significantly better and America was respected around the world. I think we would all like to see that again and believe Bill Clinton was correct in that he is not causing the media to focus on race. He was trying to tell the media to focus on "the race to the White House which the Democrats
need to being fighting for".

Obama seems to be doing a great job being the pit bull as he makes attacks constantly about the Clintons. If he can't handle this part of the campaign, how on earth will he handle the fight against the Republican machine? Our best hope for winning is Hillary Clinton who has been tested and still has the guts to run against the republicans.
Obama can't handle the tough questions and the media is giving him a pass. He should be on Meet the Press and Hardball answering all the tough questions about his dealings with Tony Rezko. How did he afford his $1,650,000 home? He denies there was anything wrong with the transactions involving Rezko,
but then said in retrospect the property deal was a "mistake" because of the appearance it created.
That's really interesting. Voters...we deserve to have answers about the candidates running for our president. The Clinton's have been asked every question in the book and investigated to the bottom of their dresser drawers. The media is doing a number on us again....this happened in 1999/2000 election and look what happened to America. Voters please use your brains this time.

Laura, WA State

The battle for South Carolina

g, NH — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:18:25 GMT

There goes that famous word again, "experience." Walmart has denied getting much support from Hillary. As her claims of succeeding at so much, these claims are becoming very questionable. Is she even telling the truth about her significant involvement with the organizations she mention?

I read an article in a credible news paper that mentioned an organization that was VERY unhappy with HRC's involvement with their organization. he was there to provide support to the organization, however, it was claimed that HRC spent more time just standing by the sidelines while the company had to fend for themselves to resolve their own issues.

Experience: There is only ONE position of the United States President and that is the President. How can Hillary have "experience" at being something she NEVER was before? Her accomplishments as a Senator is as much as ALL of the candidates are informed. Therefore, I don't see an "experience" advantage. Did Hillary serve as the Vice President? Did she serve as any OTHER department head or immediate associate to the President at the time Bill was in the Presidency? Nope! She served (more like existed) as the "first lady."

Take Note: if she didn't serve as the Vice President or any other significant immediate professional associate directly to the President, where did she get so much experience? Unless I have spent my entire life in a total state of oblivion, please America, tell me how does someone sell you work of a senator as Presidential experience? I can understand using the comparison to determine that you have SOME political insight but, this does NOT qualify as Presidential experience.

If a person does NOT have the appropriate managerial knowledge, education and experience that easily knows how to determine the difference, then should this candidate be considered to take a more significant leadership position AT ALL?

Senator and President is primarily two entirely different professions. Having EQUAL experience as a senator does NOT give one any intellectual advantage over another! Nor does race or gender. What is Hillary's deciding factor that makes her believe she is more qualified than the other candidates when her former experience involve 1) First Lady and 2) Senator.

Having potential because of ones absolute accomplishments under these subordinate titles may be able to shine some light on the character but, not much considering the drastic difference in occupation. Thus, Hillary does not validate her claim of "experience" when the level of experience she obtain are from other irrelevant occupations. I don't understand why she is still trying to sell this and why America is buying into it. She can't have much relevant experience without have exercised in the occupation of President. Bill was the former president not Hillary. Just because Bill was the former President does NOT give Hillary automatic "experience" by ASSOCIATION! Her previous working status may shine SOME light on her administrative abilities however, these are more reflective towards the personal character rather than the occupation.

The battle for South Carolina

K. Jackson, Dallas, TX — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:19:05 GMT

Clearly, the Clintons and the media fail to give Americans (whether black, white, Asian, or Latino)any credit. We all know this is not about race and gender. This is about the issues, and who can bring honesty and dignity back to the Whitehouse which has been missing for the past 16 years. I know as an informed citizen I am sick and tired of the scandals, corruptions, and lies of the previous two administrations and don't intend to see a repeat in 2008. So, the media and the Clintons can keep on trying to sell us short and continue to try to race bait if they want, but a change is gonna come in 2008.

The battle for South Carolina

Eric, NY, NY — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:22:34 GMT

Hillary's so-called negative ad has been pulled from South Carolina radio according to CNN. Where is the First Read story about that and about whether Obama pulled his ad yet?

The battle for South Carolina

Susan , Osterville, MA — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:26:22 GMT

I've written a message several times---- but they never seem to get on to the website. Am I doing something wrong?

The battle for South Carolina

jeanie o, saint inigoes, md — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:28:00 GMT

I've quit listening - not sure she would have ever had my vote but she's completely lost it now, I'm SICK to death of her. If she's the candidate I'm either not voting or voting for McCain. I'm getting pretty tired of Bill while I'm at it.

The battle for South Carolina

Jeff Woodmansee, Little Rock, AR — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:31:31 GMT

Let me first say I have always been a big Bill Clinton fan and thought he did a terrific job running this country, mainly because he kept the interest of ordinary Americans in his heart as he governed. Look, I can see why he would behave like this—a Hillary win only strengthens his place in history and his legacy, not to mention making him a prominent decision-maker in the course of our nation over the next four years...but THIS?!? What the Clintons have been doing the last two weeks is sickening, it’s the kind of stuff that I thought only Karl Rove was capable of. Both of them know exactly what they've done with this whole race issue—they’ve marginalized Barack’s wide appeal (crossing racial, gender, age, and socio-economic divides) into him just being the “black candidate,” then have the audacity to say that it’s the Obama campaign or the media that's actually doing it. Give ME a break, Bill! Even if Barack wins South Carolina on Saturday, it really won’t matter now—it'll just be viewed as by the media (which will influence the rest of America) as a predominantly black voting bloc backing the black candidate, working to narrow Barack’s wide appeal. Instead of just focusing on why Hillary is better prepared from the day she takes office, has a better legislative history, or that Obama just isn’t seasoned enough, the Clintons have attempted to use the drug thing (ironic for the guy who said he “didn’t inhale”), hinted around at the Muslim lie garbage, took quotes of context when he praised Ronald Reagan’s cross-party appeal to label him a closet-Republican, lied about his opposition to the Iraq War, but worst of all, played the race card against him by playing on white America’s fears about the “angry black man.” There was hardly a mention of race in the early debates, and for his part Obama tried to stay above the fray, but now that’s all people have been talking about for two weeks. In that short time, Barack went from being able to run as himself (which we should all hope it should be) to running as the black candidate—just another example of campaigns and the media focusing on the politics of division like we have been doing the last 20 years.

The Clintons are more about the Clintons than the future of the Democratic Party, and that’s sad. C’mon, Democrats—if this were the Republicans doing the exact same thing to Obama right now you’d be outraged and calling them every name in the book.
The Clintons are NOT the same two people who came into the national limelight in 1992, they’ve been around the game for far too long. By having to take on the formidable Hillary Clinton and a hugely popular ex-president, Obama has been knocked off his Kennedy-esque message which calls for unity and fundamental change and now looks to many like just another bickering politician when all he’s really trying to do his defend himself against outright mistruths. Obama has ran one of the most positive serious campaigns I have ever seen, taking the high road this whole time, now he’s stuck playing their game, a game he won’t be able to win. John McCain will trounce Hillary in the general election, so these sorts of short-sighted tactics will have hurt the Clintons in the long run, and more importantly, our country. :(

Nothing will ever take away what Bill Clinton did in all his years of public service, but the last two weeks will significantly hurt how a lot of people view him in the future. I’ll always look up to him for what he did and how he got there, but it’s really sad to see him play Rove politics. I guess that’s just how you win these days.

I’m afraid I’ll NEVER see “my” Kennedy.

The battle for South Carolina

letsgetsmart, US — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:41:42 GMT

Lets put this in "lay" terms. What Hillary is saying is similar to the following:

Hypothetically, I work for Bill Gates in Redmond Washington as a clerk. Well, just because I work just down the hall from all of the major minded, technical engineers, I should be as good as, have experience as, or should be considered for a technical engineers position. I may not do ALL of the technical things THEY do but I do deliver their mail...

People, we don't put people into positions on this sort of shallow consideration. Sometimes there IS no way of gaining absolute and sightful "experience" so, we have to consider by means of character not experience because there is no way one can obtain much applicable experience for the presidency from anywhere else in our working industry accept from the presidency itself. Hillary Clinton NEVER resided over this country as the President and ALL of her former experience is no more credible than the common function of any other candidate that is on a senator level. As we ALL should know by now, when it comes to making decisions that involve this country, the President involves who? Lets see, the Vice President and heads of all of his immediate departments. None of these areas are controlled by the "First Lady." So unless she have received information on a "grapevine" basis, I don't understand HOW does one connect their intimate association with the President with a professional assocition with the President??

Did they sign a partnership agreement?
Did Bill and Hillary somehow incorporate the presidency?

Summary: Bills wife was/is his WIFE; she was NOT Bills Vice President or other appointed leader.

As a Senator, Hillary's scorecard is little different than any OTHER candidate that is part of the senate and currently running for President. They ALL pretty much know and have experience doing the same thing. There is NO personal gain here. What's even MORE unusual about this is that other candidates have actually achieved more MEANINGFUL and EFFECTIVE bils than she has demonstrating the ability to deal with more involved issues and the ability to be EFFECTIVE getting these bills passed. If we were to compare the true projections of their senator skills, she is about average! This does NOT give her any "experience" edges over her competitors!

The battle for South Carolina

Donald Weed, Sammamish, WA — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:47:54 GMT

Wasn't it Will Rogers who said that he was not a member of an organized party, since he was a Democrat? Unity has never really been the byword of the Democratic party. Ideally, it's a loose collective of disparate viewpoints that express disagreement with the rich and powerful from many perspectives. The problem is that we're losing the legitimate disagreements in the low-quality bickering into which this primary battle has degenerated.

Unity, shmunity! Give me real debate and differences on the issues, not the slick misdirection tactics of some, and you know who you are!

The battle for South Carolina

Tiffany Portland, Oregon — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 22:08:51 GMT

I wonder who the 22% undecideds will break for this time?

The battle for South Carolina

Joe, Luton, Bedfordshire — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 00:02:36 GMT

Women supporting Barack speak out for THE TRUTH

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVuMYKs8iJs
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IArsOH3LzDk
3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RhL7jTy-cM
4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJK3x66gaww
5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=os-j-zLqYp8
6. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5t99ysXMY_g

HilLIARly!
HilLIARly!
HilLIARly!
HilLIARly!

The battle for South Carolina

kevin, California — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 00:29:09 GMT

This is getting ugly. Let me cite some facts here and tell you why and who I'd vote for.

As you all know, both Bill & Hillary Clinton are number one on the republican enemies list. The failed impeachment and numerous investigations on Clinton are two of many obvious examples.
During the Clintons'years, the two biggest industries tobacco & gun that do more harm than benefit the public also hate Clinton's.
Big health insurance and pharmaceutical companies also fear of Clintons for one more presidency to revive the health care proposal.
Most of big media networks also despise Clintons. In fact, there is no such thing as so-called mistaking in polling, especially with ALL polls predicted Obama to win in New Hampshire. This was an effort to disfranchise Hillary's supporters to come to vote. All big networks like Fox, MSNBC, CNN have continually slamming on Hillary; they desperately want Obama to be nominated so later on to lose to a Republican in the general election.
I TELL YOU WHY they all want another Republican to win. It's very SIMPLE b/c all big bosses who are billionaires, have invested so much money in Iraq, medical care industries ( a 17-trillions dollars pie), oil, gun businesses ..etc... They all have made lots of money during the last 7 years, haven't they?
Top Republicans like G.Bush, Karl Rove, and Newt Gingrich all predicted and praised Hillary to win the election as a first step of creating CONFUSION among democrats & independent voters. Then polls after polls from the giant media organizations have also shown Obama would have more chance than Hillary to beat a Republican nominee just as another similar tactic of creating confusion (note that the tactic of creating fear does no longer work. Their ultimate purpose is to draw away as many voters as possible from Hillary.

The more of big companies and special interest groups which are destroying our country hate the Clintons, the more I see an urgent need to vote for Hillary. It's very simple as that!

Unlike democrats who think they're very smart with ideas, republican voters are calmer, smarter, and tend to stick together as a religious group. They're very loyal to their party which explains why they won the last two elections.

Bill Clinton has continually been admired by many world leaders as well as by people in many countries around the world. Bill did bring down the deficit as factual, and created a huge surplus. Some say that I might have to pay more tax if Hillary was elected, so be it! b/c someone got to clean up the mess Bush has created, anyway. Some say a Republican would be fitter to deal with terrorism. Hillary is smart and tough enough to deal with terrorism as well.

Personally I hate to see the image of an angry woman as I have watched Hillary on many debates. It doesn't look good but it somewhat shows that she a fighter. On the other hand, Obama always looks nice, seems to be honest, a great speakerâ€¦ but I doubt that all these would help to make him a good president.

The problem with Obama is he's unrealistic, and perhaps so ambitious that he himself thought that he could be the first black president after his first win in Iowa. I think Obama is more or less of a day dreamer who's been used by big corporations and republican gangs. Instead of staying within a clean fight so people could later remember him as one of the great black candidates, Obama decided to get into dirty politics, thus, divides the democratic party when stirring up the issues of race and faith. I tell you why he did it.

Since Obama got nervous that black people in SC might vote for Clinton who has been titled as the first black president, his campaign intentionally misinterpreted Bill's ˜fairy tale' quote as racism against black. It was a big mistake, an unnecessary and nervous move from Obama campaign because most of black people in SC will eventually vote for him anyway for 2 main reasons 1) Obama is one of them, 2) Obama won Iowa and the election is considered close.
Now the element of race unfortunately has entered the competitionâ€¦ that Obama did ask for it, he would be regret very much when most of White, Hispanic, and Asian Americans around the country will vote against him.
I PREDICT, after the SC primary win, Obama campaign of course will change and portrait him again as a uniter...but the question is would people be fooled again by this???

The battle for South Carolina

Rox-Somwhere,Ne. — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 02:30:08 GMT

Wake up America-Obama is WHITE..If you say he is Black your wrong. If you say he will be the first Black President you are very wrong. He is Bi-racial. Got it....He is every bit white as he is black. Why is it that all the blacks and whites want to make him black. Oh I know cause he says he's black? Why on earth does he not say he's white? Is it to appeal to the Black vote in America? Just asking. For all of you white people who jump on the Clintons for bringing up the race card think of this-If they wanted to do damage to Obama they would just say he's not black he is Bi-racial.For all the Blacks out there that would want to vote for Obama because he's black think of this- He cannot relate to the problems of the South. How could he. He can not relate to the black suffering. How could he. He maybe able to relate on how hard it is to be Bi-racial in America but not on how Blacks have suffered over the course of thier lifes. Remember he was raised by-You got it- whites.....When he does his little surmon from the mount-Think, where on earth did that come from. Please, he is just as cunning as all of them. How's that working for him? Look at yourselves as I have had to look at myself. I almost jumped right in on the band wagon until I thought-Wait a minute he is the one using the race card or he would not be running as the first BLACK PRESIDENT. Oh your good Obama but were not stupid just a little slow cause the media has set us up right along with you.

The battle for South Carolina

Rox-Somwhere,Ne. — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 02:35:35 GMT

P.S. If the spouse can not get aggressive for the spouse then tell Michelle and the others to go home to cause the last time I looked it was still America. You don't have to like anything any spouse says you can turn the channel. Freedom of Speech anyone? Beat the Clintons up somemore they can handle it far better then Obama or Edwards or any of them. Shock for you I have not selected a canidate to vote for yet but you all are sure helping me. Thanks