Democrats eyeing record turnout
By Robert Behre
The Post and Courier
Hillary Clinton (left), Barack Obama (center), John Edwards (right).
Candidate stops today
Hillary Clinton
9 a.m.: Town hall meeting, Benedict College, 1600 Harden St., Columbia.
1:30 p.m.: Clinton speech, The Freedom Center, 215 E. Main St., Rock Hill.
9:30 p.m.: Rally with President Bill Clinton and daughter Chelsea, Charleston Area Convention Center, Ballroom A, 5050 International Blvd., North Charleston.
John Edwards
9:30 a.m.: Rally, Country Ham House, 214 Rutherford St., Greenville.
12:30 p.m.: Young voters rally, Lexington Room, Columbia Convention Center, 1101 Lincoln St., Columbia.
3 p.m.: Rally, Antley's BBQ, 1370 Sims St., Orangeburg.
7:30 p.m.: Rally, College of Charleston, Physician's Auditorium, Corner of Glebe and George streets, Charleston.
Barack Obama
9 a.m.: Women's roundtable, Jason's Deli, 975 Savannah Highway, Charleston. Seating limited.
11:55 a.m.: Women's roundtable, Capstone House Ballroom, 900 Barnwell St., Columbia.
4:30 p.m.: Rally, Outdoor Amphitheater, Clemson University.
8:15 p.m.: Rally, Florence City-County Civic Center Exhibit Hall, 3300 W. Radio Drive, Florence.
10:45 p.m.: Rally, Koger Center for the Arts, University of South Carolina, 1051 Greene St., Columbia.
South Carolina Democrats have long felt confident that more than 300,000 voters will go to the polls Saturday, breaking their record turnout of 290,431 set four years ago.
And based on absentee voting to date, the Democrats could obliterate that record and even rival last week's GOP turnout of 444,090.
As of Thursday the state had issued 53,936 absentee ballots — 32,164 for Democrats and 21,772 for the GOP primary Jan. 19 — according to figures from the State Election Commission.
That means the Democratic absentee turnout is on track to approach 50 percent higher than the Republican absentee turnout. Absentee voting will continue through 5 p.m. today in the Democratic primary.
Charleston County Democratic Party Chairman Waring Howe called the absentee numbers "tremendous" and said they bode well for an eyebrow-raising turnout on Saturday.
well for an eyebrow-raising turnout on Saturday.
"We're looking forward to a record turnout that will equal or exceed the Republicans on Jan. 19," he said.
Chris Whitmire of the State Election Commission said the absentee numbers are contrary to the turnout trends in the state's previous primaries. "In recent history we've seen more South Carolina voters participate in the Republican state primaries than the Democratic state primaries," he said.
Howe said he has sensed the possibility of a big turnout because all three leading candidates have stirred excitement among voters. "I believe there are a lot of people who maybe normally vote Republican who bypassed the Republican primary to vote in ours," he said.
Charleston County's absentee voting mirrors the state's. On Saturday, 2,001 absentee votes were cast in the GOP primary.
But the county has received more than 6,400 requests for absentee ballots, indicating that this Republican-leaning county might see twice as many Democratic absentee votes than Republican ones in these presidential races, according to the county Board of Voter Registration.
Its staunchly Republican neighbors had similar tales. Wanda Farley, director of the Berkeley County Elections and Voter Registration Office, said the office had about 1,600 requests for people wanting to vote absentee, although everyone who asks for an application doesn't turn one in.
On Saturday the county recorded about 360 absentee votes in the GOP primary.
"I would guess we're going to have a lot more than that for the Democrats," Farley said, because about 400 people have come in so far to vote absentee for Saturday's primary, and completed applications are still coming in by mail. "It looked like it was pretty evenly balanced until this week," she added. "This week we have been slammed with voters."
In Dorchester County, the Board of Elections and Voter Registration issued 420 absentee applications for the Republican primary, and 329 ballots were cast. "That's about average," said assistant director Meredith Murray.
Murray said she won't know how many will vote absentee in the Democratic primary until this morning, but she predicted the absentee tally would be about average also.
Other early states have broken their records this year. Iowa's caucuses drew about 239,000 Democrats and 112,000 Republicans, the highest totals ever for each party. The Democratic total shattered the old record of 124,000 from 2000.
State Democratic Party Chairwoman Carol Fowler, who wasn't aware of the absentee tallies, said Thursday that she was confident of a record turnout but said she doubted that the party's vote total will approach the GOP mark.
"Maybe that's possible in some counties, but you have to remember there are many, many more Republicans than Democrats in South Carolina," she said. "I don't anticipate that we will outvote the Republicans, although their turnout was significantly down from what it had been in the past."
The Jan. 19 turnout was down 22 percent from the record 573,101 votes cast in the 2000 Republican primary battle that pitted George W. Bush against John McCain.
Several factors played into that drop: There was no Democratic race that year to tempt independent or swing voters, and Bush and McCain campaigned heavily in this state for almost three weeks after the New Hampshire primary, a lot longer than the stretch run for Republicans this month.
Also, rain and snow fell over the state all day last Saturday.
This Saturday's forecast calls for better conditions — a few clouds and chilly air.
A record-shattering turnout would give new energy to a party that got pounded last November, losing all but one statewide race.
Howe said it would make it easier to recruit state and local candidates to run as Democrats and might even tempt the eventual Democratic nominee to campaign in the state, especially since the campaigns will have left behind a long list of experienced operatives and volunteers.
"It would be huge," he said, "because we could make a credible case that finally South Carolina has become a competitive state in the general election for the presidential race, that we're no longer bright red."
Reach Robert Behre at rbehre@postandcourier.com or 937-5771.
E-mail this story
Printer-friendly versionComments
nancytrent (anonymous) says...
Go Hillary. You have the experience and will be ready on day one. When Obama hit you with the uppercut punch he was not ready for you to pound him with a right hook -POW POW POW -TKO. Just shows how really inexperienced he is.
January 25, 2008 at 1:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JEdgmon (anonymous) says...
I certainly wish Obama the best if he does end up getting the Democratic nomination, because he's going to need it. He's clearly not very seasoned if attacks from the Clinton's are truly bothering him. My goodness, Hillary took 5 shots from the GOP just tonight, including a pretty mean comment about Bill's past personal mistakes. I think Obama took a couple of shots at the Clinton's today, and both MSNBC and CNN took a few shots today. You see, that's what happens when you become a real threat, and if Obama is whining about a few little softball pitches in a DNC contest, how would he ever be able to handle the blows coming from many different directions when it gets serious? We have all seen what nice Democrats can do, everyone loves nice Democrats, Pelosi and Reid are wonderful people, but they have very low poll numbers for one reason. The people want them to take on Bush on many issues, and they haven't done it. Nice Democrats are wonderful, but you have to know how to get out a club now and then also, because you know what, a lot of Republicans are simply not nice people, and mean people, do mean things. You can be the nicest person in the world, but if you're dealing with someone mean, they will always be mean, no matter how nice you're to them. You can't nice someone who disagrees with your entire existence to death, because guess what, they will smile at you, tell you they like you and respect you, and when you turn around and walk away, they will shoot you in the back every time. Hopefully people will look at what the nice Democrats poll numbers are in the Senate and Congress, and realize on Saturday, that this country doesn't need another nice one, they need a nice one that carries a big stick and a pit bull when necessary.
January 25, 2008 at 1:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ndolan622 (anonymous) says...
My vote goes to 'Honor & Integrity' all the way!
January 25, 2008 at 1:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
moonpie (anonymous) says...
Why do democrats think the Bush tax cuts should not be made permenant but worked to issue a stimilus pkg to jump start our economy in which they actually gave money back to the people?
January 25, 2008 at 6:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bgilbert (anonymous) says...
I think the last week has been eye opening as far as the campaigns are concerned. The one candidate who has focused on the needs of the people and NOT his own needs for the campaign is John Edwards. He is for the poor and middle class. He is the only one who wants to raise the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour and then build in raises, he's the only one who plans to help students get a free education in return for service to our neediest areas, a win-win, and the only one with a detailed healthcare plan that allows free choice but healthcare for everyone. Vote for the real changes, not the campaign rhetoric that is sinking the Democratic party. He rightfully predicts John McCain as the Republican candidate, a man he can probably debate into the ground.
January 25, 2008 at 7:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ImplantedYankee (anonymous) says...
Everyone keeps referring to Hillary's "experience". Her own ads tout the figure "35 years". Experience doing what, exactly? She has never led so much as a girl scout troop. Her radio ads this morning were decrying the onset of a global economic catastrophe, and claiming that she has the answers to fix it. I can tell you from experience that, while most of the rest of the country enjoyed growth and prosperity the last 6 years preceding the credit crisis, despite (and recovering from) 9/11, New York has hemorrhaged jobs and talent. I lost my job in New York (why I'm here). My father lost his as well. The town where I lived is boarded up and being overrun by gangs. She promised hundreds of thousands of new jobs in New York when she ran for the senate. The reality is that she failed to stop hundreds of thousands from being lost. She used and abused New York for her own personal gain, and now wants to do the same with the entire country.
January 25, 2008 at 7:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ImplantedYankee (anonymous) says...
JohnQ -- since, in light of the credit crisis (which I think our economy will ultimately weather just fine), with everyone talking about "fixing" the economy, it makes sense to consider one of the only viable solutions available: tax cuts. They are proven to increase consumer confidence, increase investing, increase consumer spending, and, most importantly, increase tax revenues in the end.
As for the tax cuts being only for the rich: it's hard to cut the taxes of people who don't pay any. I'm sure you've seen it already, but I'll post it here again for you and everyone else:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/sho...
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. They decided to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, so they divided the bill like this:
The first four men - the poorest - would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1, the sixth $3, the seventh $7, the eighth $12, the ninth $18, and the tenth man - the richest - would pay $59.
One day, the owner threw them a curve (in tax language, a tax cut).
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.00.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.
So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six - the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share"?
The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount.
And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59. Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.
But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man, then, pointing to the tenth. "But he got $7!". "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man, "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!"
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man, "Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him.
But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what was very important. They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of paying the bill!
January 25, 2008 at 7:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lillycollette (anonymous) says...
I am voting for John Edwards.
January 25, 2008 at 7:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JEdgmon (anonymous) says...
If I were the Clinton's I'd get an ad and run all of the true racists that have been race baiting from day one, while claiming the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard, that "the Clinton's were playing the race card." Out of all of the b/s I heard over the 9+ yrs of Clinton running for office and being in the WH, I have to say, that's the most ridiculous assertion yet. What possible benefit would it do for the Clinton's to do that? All it would do would hurt them, and no one would do that to themselves. The ad would start out the last week before Iowa where that sexist bigot Chris Matthews states and I quote, next is New Hampshire, which is unpredictable, and then South Carolina, where most Democratic voters are black, and if Obama wins in Iowa, they're not going to take it from a black candidate." Can you believe that lying sack of $--- had the audacity to actually claim other people were race baiting, well he's right, CNN has done it also, and so has Obama, where he just changes his dialect from audience to audience. I guess we will all see how smart or stupid SC is tomorrow, my guess is Obama will win it as predicted, but I don't think it will be the blow out. Black voters aren't as stupid as Chris Matthews and Obama apparently think. While some obviously are, and who can blame them with being that way with this nation's history, but still black people know who will be better for the black community, because like historians say, "history is the best way to predict the future."
January 25, 2008 at 8:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
madd_dog2020 (anonymous) says...
All Republicans need too stay on the sidelines, this topic is not for you guys. Besides, Democrates will never listern too the advice of all you corrupt individual's.
January 25, 2008 at 8:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jamie29456 (anonymous) says...
PalmettoMan - I agree with you. I have always had the feeling that Obama was not who he portrayed himself to be. He will take our country down. I plan on voting for Edwards and if he doesn't make it, I will vote Republican.
January 25, 2008 at 9:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
transparentgov (anonymous) says...
Whose Stimulus Makes the Grade?
One of the benefits of an extended presidential campaign is that it presents real-world tests for candidates. Some take the form of pop quizzes assessing contenders' instincts in a crisis. Others are more like take-home exams -- the latest, and perhaps most revealing, being competing plans for an economic stimulus.
George W. Bush: B-minus.
Barack Obama: A-minus.
John Edwards: B-minus.
Hillary Clinton: C-plus.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...
January 25, 2008 at 9:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SCdeacinNYC (anonymous) says...
Ok, it is time for a good ole fashioned call-out on this board. This one is for all of you who say you are voting for Edwards and if he doesn't win, you are voting republican. (PalmettoMan, Jamie, Archdude)
That argument makes no sense.
The actual policy differences between, Clinton, Edwards and Obama are minute. So your choice of Edwards obviously is based on something else, maybe its personality or maybe its just your obvious and blatant dislike of the other two candidates for superficial reasons. FINE. But to say you will vote Republican if he doesn't win implies that you don't care at all about the issues and policy matters which essentially makes it into a popularity contest in your mind. That's just silly. The policy differences between Edwards and all the Republican candidates are tremendous.
Bottomline, people who make broad statements like that are voting American Idol style. You like one person, or dislike another so you foresake the whole race because "your guy" didn't win. All candidates are, when it comes down to it, are mouthpieces for their policies. The Democrats are pretty similar as our the Republicans. Vote for which policy or ideology you lean closest to, don't vote based on propaganda-based dislike.
January 25, 2008 at 9:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Test2007 (anonymous) says...
I've said it before and I will say it again. If the candidate you want doesn't win then you'll cry like little girls and switch sides. I don't care if you switch sides because of the issues that are important to you, but seriously, if it is because "your" candidate doesn't win the nomination then that is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. That is the problem with democrats. Do you think you'll hear a republican say that?
With people like you voting, no wonder this country is in trouble.
January 25, 2008 at 10:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SCdeacinNYC (anonymous) says...
On another note, it just really makes me think about the state of American politics where people think of elections so singularly. I didn't want John Kerry as the Democratic candidate in '04 ...but I certainly wasn't going to vote for GWB.
P.S. My apologies for the grammatical mistakes in the previous post :)
January 25, 2008 at 10:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SCdeacinNYC (anonymous) says...
ARchdude, while I agree that I too am squeamish at Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton (I made a comment about this yesterday) and I also like Edwards...(though I hate to say it, he isn't going to win). I do think they are all capable of leading the country in a DIFFERENT direction.
McCain lost some independent credibility with me, when he started pandering to GWB's interests over a year ago when he knew he was going to run for President again. I like him better when he was a maverick, but he lost that when he tried to reach out to the right-wing Christian fundamentalist base in the US. Stand by your principles is all I ask. Other than that, I take personal issues with lots of foreign policy ideas as I find them too similar to the status quo. Personally though, I still like him. Especially over some of the more frightening Republican choices such as Romney or Huckabee or ehhh Giuliani (who by the way got his butt handed to him by the NYT today and might not even win it here in New York).
I suppose to each its own, but I do think there are too many polar differences between the Democrats and the Republicans policy-wise, even this early for me to jump ship if my preferred candidate doesn't win. I refuse to think of politics as a zero sum game.
Having said that, I know what I DONT want, and it is another four years of what we've had for the past eight. I am also an independent, but NOT a moderate. I am very liberal on most issues(and darn proud of it), as everyone on this board very knows, so liberal to the point that I refuse to identify myself with Democratic label (American Democrats in general are more moderates than anything else in the traditionally held political framework of conservative/liberal) In general, I would just be happy if the best man or woman when it comes down to the final two, the one more aligned with my ideologies and ideas on directions of change win.
That is all.
January 25, 2008 at 10:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Test2007 (anonymous) says...
Archdude - You shouldn't vote along party lines BUT a lot of people do. You know they do.
I am sorry but I can not see the large difference between the democratic candidates or the republican candidates for that matter. Methinks you are looking a little bit too into it.
Campaign promises are just things that they say to get someone to vote for them. If you think that they (all candidates) will hold to them then you are mistaken. The one thing they don't tell you about when you become president (IMO) is that it always involves some kind of compromise. The president works with congress. Sometimes he has to compromise on issues that he swore he would never compromise on. I think you all read too much into politicians and what they "say" they're going to do.
January 25, 2008 at 10:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
LifetimeLearner (anonymous) says...
My only comment to everyone here is if you don't vote, then you should never come on this website complaining or commenting about how this country needs to change. That's all I am saying. I am personally voting for Edwards, he is the change we need I think. He is not getting as caught up in the crap that usually goes on around election time. I am really just tired of people complaining when they do nothing proactive to help. I ask people when they bitch about government one question: Do you vote?. Guess what the answer is??
Proud voter EVERY election year since the age of 18...
January 25, 2008 at 10:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
LifetimeLearner (anonymous) says...
I am also in the boat of voting for McCain if Edwards doesn't win. I was a member of the College Democrats, but as I got older, my views changed. I am completely in the middle when it comes to my beliefs/thoughts on issues. Although McCain and Edwards differ on some points, McCain is pretty liberal on some points. Most of all, I am voting for the person who will best take the country in a new direction, and one who has answers to questions we have, without spewing too much useless rhetoric.
January 25, 2008 at 10:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Test2007 (anonymous) says...
Archdude - I agree with you somewhat but still find the whole the idea of switching b/c your guy doesn't win (b/c he isn't) a little immature.
I do agree with SC on McCain. I used to be a fan but didn't like his pandering to Bush last time. Seriously, they called him "unpatriotic". Frickin unpatriotic. Absolutely nuts. Regardless of that, he is OLD as hell and past the time of being president.
January 25, 2008 at 10:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mkhaynes (anonymous) says...
I was speaking to a friend of mine who lives in Charleston (I live in Virginia, am from SC), and she said the same thing, that she likes Edwards but doesn't think he'll win. My response to her, and to the people who've said the same thing here, is that the only way he will win is if you vote for him. The media wants to make your decision about race or gender, don't let them. If you want to vote for Clinton, do it. If you want to vote for Obama, do it. And if you want to vote for Edwards, regardless of whether you think he'll win, do it. And we wonder what's wrong with elections in this country. Why can't we just make up our minds and vote the way we want to? Why do we have to try to make this about voting for the winner?
January 25, 2008 at 11:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SCdeacinNYC (anonymous) says...
Ok ageism is sort of wrong....HOWEVER, as compared to age and gender, someone's age can affect how they govern. Someone being a women or from a certain ethnic or racial group has no factor on whether or not they can govern a country.
I'm in general not a big fan of keeping anyone in office a long time, because I think it just adds to the staleness of the political process. Senators and Congressmen and women being in office for multiple terms is just bad. McCain is 71...in four years he will be 75. Four years after that, 79. That is old. Your body and mind may fail you the older you get. That is just a fact of life.
People have all sorts of problems with older people driving cars, why don't we have a problem with the running the country.
On your Edwards point archdude, I wouldn't count him out in SC, but on the national scale he is trailing far behind a two-person show. He doesn't have the national appeal or pull to make a stand or showing. He is far behind in many of the Super Tuesday showdowns. I wouldn't count ANYONE out, but I expect to concede very soon (AND endorse Obama)
On another note, since while I do disagree with you, at least you have well-thought out responses....What are your thoughts on who you would vote for if neither Edwards NOR McCain get the nomination (Could it be Hilary or Obama vs. Huckabee or Romney)?
January 25, 2008 at 11:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SCdeacinNYC (anonymous) says...
Oh I meant "ageism is sort of wrong....HOWEVER, as compared to RACE and GENDER, someone's age can affect how they govern"
Sorry its still early in the morning for me.
January 25, 2008 at 11:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jjfnikki (anonymous) says...
OBAMA KEEPS TALKING ABOUT BRINGING US TOGETHER,BUT IT SEEMS THAT HE IS ONLY DIVIDING US.HE WILL NOT ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.WE ONLY KNOW THAT OBAMA IS PLAYING CHICAGO STYLE POLITICS,AND THAT HIS NAME HAS SURFACED IN A FEDERAL CORRUPTION CASE.
January 25, 2008 at 11:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
darkness_2lite (anonymous) says...
Posted by PalmettoMan (anonymous) on January 25, 2008 at 8:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Obama's is tied to evil. His Church and his mentor honored Louis Farrakhan. Farrakhan stated that Adolph Hitler was a great man ... that all "whites are evil" ... that blacks are the supreme beings and were on the earth first.
Farrakhan was censured by every member of the US Senate for his "hate speeches" .... And Obama's church honored this man just several weeks ago.
Obama is a snake in a suit. He will say anything to get elected.
Obama is a junior senator. Like he really knows how to run a nation of 310 million people .. hahahahahaha!!! He's bad news. But vote for him if you wish. If he wins, kiss you country goodbye. The Chicago Mafia will have an open door to the Whitehouse and so will Farrakhan supporters.
Back in the days of Slavery and Jim Crow, Blacks were called all sorts of names, and made too feel like they were lower than animals. Did you stand up for anything in those time? Hyprocrates
January 25, 2008 at 11:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
upstatetraderny (anonymous) says...
Hillary Clinton has demostrated time and time she is a sensationalist and spreads false gossip to win votes....I live in New York and she has given me no reason to trust her....everything she says is patently false....while she was sitting on the board of walmart, guaranteeing all Americans a dead-end way of life. She has no right to promote health care...she accused Obama of knowing somebody in Chicago whom she and Bill took several photos with, so how can she believed about anything????
If she wins the nom, I am voting for McCain...
I live in NY State and I am white....I caucus for Obama, and I have signs for Obama....honesty should be above everything else....her "experience" is a liability for all of us "regular" folks......
I know what all the politicians stand for, and how outrageous her claims and statements are, yet she is never forced to defend anything...American apathy is very high when it comes to actually finding out what people believe, no matter voter turnout....and there is a dearth of knowledge on the issues in the US....
Voters such as in NH would apparently rather regurgitate rhetoric than use their brains.....it is sad.......and this country will fall further and further behind....as Hillary is beholden to special interests....her mudslinging brings us all down to her pathetic level...while other candidates try to rise above....
January 25, 2008 at 12:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
darkness_2lite (anonymous) says...
During Bible History, publicans were "freelance" tax collectors who operated in their own towns and districts, among their own people, for the occupying Roman government (see Ancient Empires - Rome). There were two classes of publicans, the "chief of the publicans" such as Zacchaeus (Luke 19:2), and the subordinate publicans who worked for them (Luke 5:27, 15:1, 18:10). As well as often being viewed as traitors, some of them were very corrupt, being little more than extortionists, and as such they were generally hated by the public. Not all were that bad, or remained that bad, however; Matthew, also known as Levi, one of The Twelve Apostles, was a publican when Jesus called him (Mark 2:14).
PUBLICANS=REPUBLICANS; History has a way of repeating itself.
January 25, 2008 at 12:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
upstatetraderny (anonymous) says...
Americans are much worse off than pre Bush...Clinton did have a surplus at one point....I do not think Hillary deserves the benefit of a doubt from her celebrity spouse...he was impeached!!!! and lied under oath...."what is the definition of "is"????
Hillary voted for the Iraq war and labeled Iran's revolutionary guard to give bush a pretext for attacking them...she speaks all half-truths, she is a chameleon, this is not what will bring us together, it will only drive us further apart...be careful of what you wish for, you just might get it....she gets off topic and race baits because she knows she is vulnerable...look how GOP attacked her nonstop last night, they have a lot of reasons since her flip flopping is constant....if she wins nom, dems will lose.....
"those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it"
January 25, 2008 at 12:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
upstatetraderny (anonymous) says...
let's see for new voters: since they were born, it has been bush clinton clinton bush bush and now more clinton???? no wonder young people are apathetic....what a "change"
January 25, 2008 at 12:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
upstatetraderny (anonymous) says...
"Nobody has experience being the President of the United States, and that sitting in the Senate for another 6 years, or another 1,000 votes does not make you a better President. The President of the United States must have certain qualities and morals and must be able to make sound decisions, and Barack Obama has the life experiences, leadership and communication skills to get the job done, bring this country together, and put it back on the right path. A path that focuses on foreign policy ending and solving conflicts not starting them. A path that for the first time addresses the reality and threats of climate change. A path that aims to make health care and insurance more affordable."
The average voter wants to be informed, and wants to know what candidates are about, and criticism and bitterness from other campaigns just causes (perhaps purposely) anger, and disconnect them from the message of Obama's positive campaign.
January 25, 2008 at 12:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
darkness_2lite (anonymous) says...
Posted by archdude (anonymous) on January 25, 2008 at 11:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
darkness
Do you work at the NP? Anyway, the word is hypocrite if you are going to use it--not Hyprocrates--besides, what they hell kind of question is that to ask PM if he stood up for something in Jim Crow times? How would you know if he was even around then? He definitely was not around during slavery. Your post makes ZERO sense.
Whatever, attack my spelling if you may, but the facts are correct. I served my country for many years, Conus and Oconus and have seen, heard, and even been called all sorts of names. I am not defending what Farrakhan said, by no means am I. During the times I used as my reference points, those quotes were reverse, this is the message I was trying too convey.
January 25, 2008 at 12:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
newto843 (anonymous) says...
With so many here mentioning Edwards as their choice it gives me hope these polls are going to be way off. I don't know that he can take first but even knocking off Hillary here should boost him nationally. Go Edwards!
January 25, 2008 at 12:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
newto843 (anonymous) says...
For those undecided who may have some free time this evening.
Senator Edwards holds a GOTV rally with daughter Cate Edwards, his parents Bobbie and Wallace Edwards and Rev. James Blassingame
7:30 PM
College of Charleston
Physician's Promenade
Corner of Glebe Street and George Street
Charleston, SC
January 25, 2008 at 1:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
newto843 (anonymous) says...
As a fairly new transplant from the Seattle area I am going to have to find that out as well.
January 25, 2008 at 1:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
outrage (anonymous) says...
I will never vote republican. They have allowed Bush to destroy our moral standing in the world and destroyed our economy with their illegal war and policies. - JohnQ
Do you really believe Bush ruined our moral standing? With what countries - Syria, Iraq, Iran, Lybia etc.
Please advise.
January 25, 2008 at 1:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
darkness_2lite (anonymous) says...
Because everthing else is for Caucasion Americans. How many Blacks have worn the Miss America crown? Shouldn't take too long too answer. The NAACP was est., to protect the rights of minorities; enabling them too receive fair and equal treatment in America; no, I am not a member of this organization.
January 25, 2008 at 2:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
darkness_2lite (anonymous) says...
Posted by scnative4ever (anonymous) on January 25, 2008 at 1:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
so where do you think the war on terrorism would be fought if we weren't fighting it in iraq? on US soil. r u prepared for that? Bush has his faults, but the war in Iraq is keeping us safe on our home soil. Pull all the troops out and see what happens.
It should be fought in Afganistan.
January 25, 2008 at 2:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
newto843 (anonymous) says...
I feel like tossing in my two cents on these last two.
outrage - Europe and most of the world as a whole.
scnative4ever - We are not fighting a war on terrorism in Iraq in my opinion. That fight is in Afghanistan and the Pakistan border region. There may be some Alqada in Iraq but there were not any before we invaded and they are only there because we are.
January 25, 2008 at 2:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
captivated (anonymous) says...
Do not let your mind be muddled by all the critical posting going on around here. Do as most americans do and vote for who you like best, whether it be because they are the same race as you are or you like their hairdo or because they are from your neck of the woods or because your spouse votes for them, or for whatever reason, just so long as you VOTE!! GOBAMAGOBAMAGO!! Have a nice weekend, all.
January 25, 2008 at 2:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mosinfan (anonymous) says...
Archdude,
Re: Your questions to the viewers of the board (approx 12:50). Too bad you cant ask your candidate John Edwards those very same questions, it would be interesting to hear his response. Based on his "class warfare" philosphies and campaign strategy I think its obvious how he would respond.
Your other post about his upbringing and background sounds like you did some cutting and pasting there yourself bro (the very thing you berate many other posters for).
January 25, 2008 at 2:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Test2007 (anonymous) says...
Archdude, sorry bud but 71 IS old as hell. The body deteoriates with and a lot of times so does the mind. I am sorry but I do not think that is ageism. If he wanted to apply to some other job fine, but this is for president of the USA. I am not a youngin so don't treat me like one. Yeah, I am glad that you have flowery posts but I am a very plain speaking person. I tell you exactly what I feel and I don't need to riddle it with big words to get my point across. He is too old to be president. Maybe the last time he could have gotten by, but not this time.
You mentioned "black colleges"? No such thing. There are HBCUs - Historically black colleges and universities. This means that at one time (when blacks could not attend other institutions) it was all black. This is NOT the case anymore. Most HBCUs have all races and white students qualify for minority based scholarships from the school, if it is private.
NAACP - Like someone said before. It was created to protect the civil rights of minorities. Why would caucasians need a group to protect their civil rights? As part of the majority it is almost guaranteed that this is not warranted. I am surprised by you. Generally you have intelligent posts but this one is seemingly beneath you. Either way, anyone who thinks there is not a need for this group anymore probably does not read the P&C on a regular basis. Not every black person is a member(I am not) and not every black person agrees with their agenda, but do I think they should be shut down? NO.
Miss Black America- I can't remember the last time I even heard about or saw Miss Black America on TV. This was created b/c the traditional "American" version of beauty did not apply to us, even when it was created so we created our own. Besides, who cares about Miss Black America or Miss America regardless? That seems to be reaching.
You didn't mention BET? Oh well I'll bring it up. First and foremost, who cares about BET most black people I know don't watch it but you can see the same thing on MTV. BET was created b/c there was a limited amount of black people on tv and they wanted to see people that looked like them on tv.
I am not sure if you think we live in some utopian society where people are no longer discriminated against and all racism is gone. A place where all people are treated equally. The problem is people equate racism to the old Jim Crow days. Racism is still alive today and it isn't as blatant or as visible. There are lots of ways of discriminating without calling someone a racist name.
January 25, 2008 at 3:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ReasonedVoice (anonymous) says...
THE WAR ON ERROR
Only Edwards Can Win This WAR
Not more guys from YALE and HARVARD!
Good Grief, we need a normal person to be the President.
Not some Yankee snob-school, secret society, Ivy League Insider college brat!
Ask: What Do I have in common with my candidate?
If nothing, please reconsider your choice!
We need a regular, normal, MORAL, drug-free, happily married, well-adjusted ADVOCATE FOR THE PEOPLE.
PLEASE, this time VOTE WITH YOUR HEAD, NOT YOUR HEART.
This isn't a popularity contest.
This is a War for Our Very Lives.
January 25, 2008 at 4:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Test2007 (anonymous) says...
Archdude, congratulations on graduate school. It is nice to see what a little educational elitism can do for America.
Starting out with the notion of an equal and level field does not and I repeat DOES NOT make everyone equal. If that were the case everyone WOULD be equal. I am sorry but I haven't been to graduate school Poor me. I did graduate with a double major from college but I am sure that doesn't count for much because I can't speak in the "prose" of a graduate student.
It is always nice when touts the "Equal should be equal all the way around" statement now as it means much to people who have never felt equal. It is just like saying nothing at all. Not everyone is equal. Sorry, just the way it is. No wishful thinking or "futuristic" thoughts can change that.
Oh, and academia didn't teach me that. Life taught me that.
January 25, 2008 at 4:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
flinsc (anonymous) says...
Hey Hillary,
C yoU Next Tuesday.
January 25, 2008 at 4:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SCdeacinNYC (anonymous) says...
Archdude, don't blame graduate school for "your prose." I recently finished graduate school myself, and my job now is about 75% writing and reading flowery BS, however I know how to tone it down when necessary.
And I agree with Test, not everyone is equal and saying everyone is born equal is just naive, unrealistic and just a cop-opt way of explaining the inequalities evident in our society.
January 25, 2008 at 4:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dustym (anonymous) says...
ImplantedYankee , you just put my mind on the fast track!!!!!!!
January 25, 2008 at 5:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
forget (anonymous) says...
The way I look at it, we all should vote for a Clinton. All their problems seem to "go away". Whitewater just "went away", the travel office mess just "went away", Bill's women problems just "went away", Hillary's health care reform that she was taking care of while she was first lady just "went away", and we all know that Mr. Foster "went away". So if she's president won't the Iraq, Afganistan, and gas $$$ problems just "go away"? Just a thought...
January 25, 2008 at 5:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jjfnikki (anonymous) says...
OBAMA TALKS ABOUT BRINGING US TOGETHER,BUT IT SEEMS THAT HE IS REALLY DIVIDING US.HE WILL NOT ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.WE ONLY KNOW THAT HE IS PLAYING CHICAGO POLITICS,AND THAT HIS NAME HAS SURFACED IN A FEDERAL CORRUPTION CASE.ALSO,HE VOTES PRESENT MOST OF THE TIME,INSTEAD OF VOTING YES OR NO.
January 25, 2008 at 5:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
marrow (anonymous) says...
Please report on the picture of Hillary and Bill Clinton with "slumlord" Tony Rezco.
Here is the link to the photo.
http://blogobama08.blogspot.com/2008/...
January 25, 2008 at 5:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
outrage (anonymous) says...
JohnQ - Which Corp masters are those - Haliburton or the oil companies? because oil has not gotten cheaper.
WMDs in a country the size of California, good luck. They couldn't even find Steve Fossett and knew the general area in which he disappeared. Chemical WMDs can easily be hidden.
The Geneva Convention is for countries that fight in uniform, or under a flag. The rest of the world does not follow it!
January 25, 2008 at 6:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
outrage (anonymous) says...
JohnQ - That is short and choppy, but I just lost a full length debate with you because my computer refreshed.
Is the violation of the Geneva Convention about waterboarding, or something else? I am enjoying the debate, but I want to understand your points fully before I reply.
January 25, 2008 at 6:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bgilbert (anonymous) says...
Edwards 08. The media refuse to recognize his surge, and continue to promote the race between Clinton and Obama. So Clinton suddenly recognizes that "black" colleges need more money. How about all rural, small colleges. And Obama suddenly finds he's more religious than Huckabee. At least until he leaves the state and goes where religion is not so important for a vote. They are both opportunists.
January 25, 2008 at 6:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bgilbert (anonymous) says...
"Two related San Francisco-based groups headed by an Obama supporter are running ads and mobilizing voters in California and a handful of other Feb. 5 states, aiming to build support for Obama among black voters and young people.
Vote Hope and PowerPac.org, founded by San Francisco lawyer Steven Phillips, have reported spending about $350,000 on Obama's behalf. Of that, $245,000 was devoted to radio ads in South Carolina, which has its primary Saturday, and in the Super Tuesday states of California, Alabama, Georgia and Tennessee."
This was reported today in California. Obama doesn't seem to have a problem with these groups when they support him, but he tried to derail Edwards in Iowa when groups ran ads using Edwards name. Edwards 08
January 25, 2008 at 6:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nurseratchet (anonymous) says...
ALL THE SOUTH CAROLINIAN VOTERS NEED TO REMEMBER IS: "YOU DANCE WITH THE ONE WHO BRUNG YOU" AND THAT WOULD BE HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON! SHE HAS NEVER FORGOTTEN THE AFRICAN AMERICAN COMMUNITY AND SHAME ON THEM IF THEY FORGET HER NOW! A VOTE FOR HILLARY IS "NOT" A VOTE AGAINST BARACK OBAMA! IT IS FOR EXPERIENCE AND FAITHFUL SERVICE. BARACK WILL CERTAINLY HAVE HIS DAY WHEN THE TIME COMES! VOTE HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT!
January 25, 2008 at 6:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
outrage (anonymous) says...
Could you please list Hillary's experience of which you speak. Please, don't yell.
January 25, 2008 at 7:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JEdgmon (anonymous) says...
What's up with this web site? You can barely finish a complete paragraph before it redirects you and delete's your old paragraph. But anyway, I just hope Obama will act like he has done something before, and will realize that these attacks aren't coming from Hillary, just as Hillary's campaign is aware that most of the attacks aren't coming from his campaign. You can really tell when people have no experience at all, they get sucked into a fight everytime.
January 25, 2008 at 8 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ReasonedVoice (anonymous) says...
WHO IS ELECTABLE? WHO CAN BEAT THE GOP?
THE FACTS ON THE GROUND, not the Media Lies
Voters Still Have a Chance to Choose a Candidate Who Can Win!
Once Again, Polls show that John Edwards is the Most Electable Democrat in the Key Match up States of Ohio and Florida.. Check out the Results from January's Public Policy Polling Head to Head Matchups.
Edwards Would Be Strongest Candidate in Florida, Ohio
Poll Summary: PPP's newest survey shows that John Edwards would be the strongest candidate for President in the key general election battleground states of Ohio and Florida.
OHIO HEAD TO HEAD POLL
Edwards 47
McCain 40
Clinton 42
McCain 46
Obama 42
McCain 45
---------------------------------------
Edwards 49
Huckabee 40
Clinton 43
Huckabee 45
Obama 43 TIED
Huckabee 43
---------------------------------------- -
Edwards 53 (Edwards +20)
Romney 33
Clinton 45 (Clinton +5)
Romney 40
Obama 44 (Obama + 6)
Romney 38
FLORIDA HEAD TO HEAD POLL
Edwards 47
Romney 39
Clinton 46
Romney 42
Obama 43 Tied
Romney 43
---------------------------------------- --
Edwards 41
McCain 42 (+1)
Undecided 18
Clinton 42
McCain 46 (+4)
Undecided 12
Obama 40
McCain 46 (+6)
Undecided 14
---------------------------------------- -
Edwards 46
Huckabee 42
Clinton 44
Huckabee 47
Obama 42
Huckabee 45
Edwards Would Be Strongest Candidate
January 25, 2008 at 8:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Hagan (anonymous) says...
Oh my God, I'm so sick of the "Obama's a muslum" thing. It's been denounced as FASLE on CNN, MSNBC, the Nightly News with Brian Williams, and several credible newspapers as well as factcheck.org. Which by the way is a neutral website that acts as a truth meter on what these candidates are saying. Unless you have more than an anonymous email that has been floating around the country, shut up.
January 25, 2008 at 8:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Hagan (anonymous) says...
How can Edwards beat the GOP if he can't even win against Obama and Clinton?
January 25, 2008 at 8:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ReasonedVoice (anonymous) says...
IMPLANTED YANKEE. - Tax Debate - You got that backwards.
The first four men paid the least, but were the richest. Warren Buffett, one of the richest Americans joked one day and said "I pay less tax than my secretary!"
So, good try. BUT WRONG.
This is why any THINKING American is fed up with the GREEDY OPPORTUNIST PARTY - The GOP.
The rich are now filthy rich. Their souls will rot in hell. And we all get to live hell on earth. Poor, hungry, cold, and hopeless.
JOHN EDWARDS is the only candidate from either party that isn't owned by corporations.
Give Real Hope a Chance. Vote for John Edwards. HE IS ELECTABLE:
WHO IS ELECTABLE? WHO CAN BEAT THE GOP?
THE FACTS ON THE GROUND, not the Media Lies
Voters Still Have a Chance to Choose a Candidate Who Can Win!
Once Again, Polls show that John Edwards is the Most Electable Democrat in the Key Match up States of Ohio and Florida.. Check out the Results from January's Public Policy Polling Head to Head Matchups.
Edwards Would Be Strongest Candidate in Florida, Ohio
Poll Summary: PPP's newest survey shows that John Edwards would be the strongest candidate for President in the key general election battleground states of Ohio and Florida.
OHIO HEAD TO HEAD POLL
Edwards 47
McCain 40
Clinton 42
McCain 46
Obama 42
McCain 45
---------------------------------------
Edwards 49
Huckabee 40
Clinton 43
Huckabee 45
Obama 43 TIED
Huckabee 43
---------------------------------------- -
Edwards 53 (Edwards +20)
Romney 33
Clinton 45 (Clinton +5)
Romney 40
Obama 44 (Obama + 6)
Romney 38
FLORIDA HEAD TO HEAD POLL
Edwards 47
Romney 39
Clinton 46
Romney 42
Obama 43 Tied
Romney 43
---------------------------------------- --
Edwards 41
McCain 42 (+1)
Undecided 18
Clinton 42
McCain 46 (+4)
Undecided 12
Obama 40
McCain 46 (+6)
Undecided 14
---------------------------------------- -
Edwards 46
Huckabee 42
Clinton 44
Huckabee 47
Obama 42
Huckabee 45
Edwards Would Be Strongest Candidate
January 25, 2008 at 9 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Hagan (anonymous) says...
I think the tax cuts in a time of war was stupid. You can't spend a billion a day to fund a war and decrease revenue at the same time. We are so in debt right now. We borrow from China to buy oil from the Saudis. And that doesn't include the interest.
January 25, 2008 at 9:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ReasonedVoice (anonymous) says...
PASS THE POLL RESULTS AROUND TO YOUR FRIENDS IN SOUTH CAROLINA ASAP.
The GOP Media Whores are banking on their lies and keeping Edwards out of sight to lead the SHEEPLE into the camps of the "Dems in GOP clothing" - H and O. Hellllooooo. Hillary was a Goldwater Girl in 1963, or so Novak says. A Republican!
I know that the good people in South Carolina are smarter than this.
And those who are telling you to vote for H or O are probably getting money somehow from the Greedy Opportunist Party - The GOP.
Wake up. Where are you? How well are you doing? If not well, for Heaven's sake vote for JOHN EDWARDS.
Otherwise, you will get what you deserve. Worse than you have.
January 25, 2008 at 9:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Hagan (anonymous) says...
The only way to stimulate the economy is jobs. Most of our manufacturing jobs have gone overseas. This NAFTA trade agreement that came out of Bill Clinton's administration has devistated our economy. And if we do get tax cuts, what are we going to spend it on . . . Made in China? We're stimulating China's economy not ours. And the businesses we do have here have tried to keep workers wages flat so that they can compete overseas. And why do you think we have a problem with illegal immigration? Because busnesses are bringing them over for cheap labor. They are trying to reduce us to a third world country for mega profits.
January 25, 2008 at 9:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ReasonedVoice (anonymous) says...
JOHN EDWARDS can win if the PEOPLE vote for him and not for those they are told to vote for by bad PEOPLE who hope to make some money from H and O.
EDWARDS isn't beholden to anyone except you and me.
STAND UP, your vote is secret, and vote for your best interest.
January 25, 2008 at 9:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Hagan (anonymous) says...
Obama is corrupt? Well Hillary thinks we're stupid. Two reasons BEST HEALTH PLAN: I heard Obama say in the last debate and eleswhere that if he was starting from scratch he'd support a single-payer plan. BUT but for the sake of expediency, he has opted to work with the current system in place (i.e., employer plans, government plans, medicare) and provide choice for both employers and individuals. I for one don't want mandates on health care until health care is reformed. It's gone up 78% since Bush took office. What incentive is there for insurance companies to lower costs if everyone has a mandate to buy it.
Further, unlike Hillary's plan, college students can stay on their parents plan until they are 25. If have to understand when Hillary talks about 15 million uninsured, she's talking about those college kids who are covered but don't have to buy their own plan at 18. Factcheck.org states that Hillary's plan will leave out 1% and Obama's will leave out 2-3%. What Hillary says, and what she means are not necessary the same thing.
HILLARY SLAMS OBAMA FOR 1 TRILLION TAX ON "HARD-WORKING AMERICANS." Hillary passed out flyer in New Hampshire and Nevada charging Obama with a 1 trillion tax increase on "hard-working Americans" to fund Social Security. Obama was talking about raising the "cap" from $97K to $200K. The truth of the matter is that those who make $97K or less already fund SS 100%. Those who make more than that (about 6% of the American people) fund less than %100 on total income. You have to ask, "If Hillary is so concerned with the burdens on the American people, why would she force people to buy health care and leave the burden of funding SS on the middle class? You have to wave aside the smoke she blows that keeps the focus off of her and on her opponent.
January 25, 2008 at 9:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ReasonedVoice (anonymous) says...
From the WONDERFUL PEOPLE WHO BROUGHT US
NAFTA SHAFTA
The Billary Clinton
Please, wake up and smell the warm water. Who can afford coffee anymore?
JOHN EDWARDS, your native son, WANTS TO HELP YOU. HELLLLLLOOOOOOOO
January 25, 2008 at 9:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Hagan (anonymous) says...
Obama is not corrupt. Don't be stupid. Check your facts. See factcheck.org
Chicago Tribune, Factcheck.Org, Washington Post: Obama Never Represented Tony Rezko
January 23, 2008
FactCheck.org On Clinton's Claim Obama Represented Rezko: "That's Untrue." Factcheck.org reported, "Obama was associated with a law firm that represented the community groups working with Rezko on several deals. There's no evidence that Obama spent much time on them, and he never represented Rezko directly. So it was wrong for Clinton to say he was 'representing ... Rezko.' That's untrue." [FactCheck.org, 1/21/08]
Obama Said That Miner Barnhill Was "Brought In Through [The Non-Profits], Not Through Rezko." The Chicago Tribune reported, "Responding to a Chicago Sun-Times report that Obama's former law firm did legal work for Rezko's low-income housing development business, the Illinois senator said he performed five hours of work on behalf of non-profit housing groups that partnered with Rezko. 'We were
January 25, 2008 at 9:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Hagan (anonymous) says...
Obama not corrupt.
Tribune Examined Miner Barnhill's "260 Civil And Criminal Cases," IHDA And DOH Files, Clients From Obama's "Unusually Frank Ethics Disclosure Reports" And Found Obama Represented The Non-Profit Partner. The Chicago Tribune reported, "At the Tribune's request, Cook County Circuit Court Chief Judge Timothy Evans produced a list of all 260 civil and criminal cases in which the firm filed appearances, and the Tribune separately examined 1990s lawsuits that Rezmar Corp. listed in applications for government grants. The paper also examined files from the Illinois Housing Development Authority and the city housing department, as well as the hundreds of clients Obama listed in the unusually frank ethics disclosure reports he filed as a state senator from December 1995 through April 2004. Those and other records disclosed five instances in which Obama did legal work for ventures that included Rezmar Corp. The case of City of Chicago vs. Central Woodlawn Limited Partnership is one example. In 1992, that community group partnered with Rezmar Corp. to rehab the former slum apartment building at 6107-6115 S. Ellis Ave. As work was ongoing, city officials sued the developers, alleging 16 serious code violations at the property, including a dangerously dilapidated porch. Obama and a co-counsel filed appearances in February 1994, but the court records show they appeared on behalf of Central Woodlawn, Rezko's non-profit partner, not Rezko or his company." [Chicago Tribune, 1/23/08]
Washington Post Fact Check: "Investigations By Chicago Newspapers Have Not Produced Evidence That [Obama] Represented Rezko In A Slum Landlord Business." The Washington Post reported, "William Miceli, Obama's supervisor at the law firm, said the firm represented the Woodlawn Preservation and Investment Corp., a nonprofit group that redeveloped a run-down property on Chicago's South Side with Rezko. He called Clinton's assertion that Obama represented Rezko in a slum landlord business 'categorically untrue. He was a very junior lawyer at the time, who was given responsibility for basic due diligence, document review,' said Miceli, adding that Obama did what he was told by the firm. According to Miceli, that was the only time Obama worked on a Rezko-related project while at the law firm:But investigations by Chicago newspapers have not produced evidence that he represented Rezko in a slum landlord business. What has been demonstrated so far is that he did some due diligence legal work for a joint venture between Rezko and a Chicago nonprofit. Two Pinocchios for Clinton." [Washington Post, 1/22/08]
January 25, 2008 at 9:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ReasonedVoice (anonymous) says...
Why Obama instead of Edwards?
I don't get this. He is a native son!
January 25, 2008 at 9:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JEdgmon (anonymous) says...
Edwards of all people should know these polls mean absolutely nothing. First, the only polls that matter are the polls that come in after both parties have completed their conventions. Secondly, of course you're going to have better numbers when you're not considered a real threat, and are not getting a lot of attacks from the media, GOP, and Democratic opponents. Third, Edwards had almost the same exact numbers when it was just him and Kerry 4 yrs ago, and then when they became a threat to get in the WHITE HOUSE, the Republican slime machine got in the way.
January 25, 2008 at 9:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Hagan (anonymous) says...
Because Obama is inspirational. You'd have to hear him speak. That's why there is such a vicious smear campaign against him and not Edwards. Edwards is nice, but he doesn't make you believe that we can achieve the idea of what America is supposed to be. He doesn't make you want to fight to make America great again. Obama inspires pride in my country again. I won't vote for any democrat, just Obama. If Hillary's smear campaign wins, well then I fought the good fight . . . good against evil. I'll lose backing the good guy anytime.
January 25, 2008 at 9:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Hagan (anonymous) says...
Ok mouth of the south, you shouldn't depend on crank emails for your source of information. Do your knuckles drag the ground when you walk? That crap has been debunked as false on CNN, MSNBC, Nightly News with Brian Williams and several reputable newspapers (not blogs) See factcheck.org:
Sliming Obama
January 10, 2008
Dueling chain e-mails claim he's a radical Muslim or a 'racist' Christian. Both can't be right. We find both are false.
Summary
If these two nasty e-mail messages are any indication, the 2008 presidential campaign is becoming a very dirty one.
One claims that Obama is "certainly a racist" by virtue of belonging to Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ, which it says "will accept only black parishoners" and espouses a commitment to Africa. Actually, a white theology professor says he's been "welcomed enthusiastically" at the church, as have other non-blacks.
January 25, 2008 at 11:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Hagan (anonymous) says...
Factcheck.org debunks other smear emails about Obama:
Another e-mail claims that Obama "is a Muslim," attended a "Wahabi" school in Indonesia, took his Senate oath on the Koran, refuses to recite the Pledge of Allegiance and is part of an Islamic plot to take over the U.S. Each of these statements is false.
These false appeals to bigotry and fear remind us of the infamous whispering campaign of eight years ago, when anonymous messages just before the South Carolina primary falsely accused Republican candidate John McCain of fathering an illegitimate child by a black woman.
Analysis
We turn first to the most recent of these Internet whispering campaigns: a widely forwarded e-mail that says Barack Obama's church, the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, is anti-American, will only accept black parishioners and tilts toward Africa at the expense of the United States. The e-mail claims Obama is therefore "certainly a racist" and "desires to rule over America while his loyalty is totally vested in a Black Africa."
We've had scores of queries about the accuracy of this one. It's bunk. For one thing, the church welcomes whites, according to a University of Chicago professor of divinity who says he has attended. And while its controversial pastor is a fiery advocate for blacks and liberal causes and a fierce critic of anti-black discrimination, we've seen no evidence that he preaches hatred of or discrimination against whites.
January 25, 2008 at 11:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Hagan (anonymous) says...
And more debunked emails about Obama from factcheck.org
False E-Mail Sent to FactCheck.org Readers
Received Dec. 31, 2007
Subject: Obama's church
Obama mentioned his church during his appearance with Oprah. It's the Trinity Church of Christ. I found this interesting.
Obama's church:
. . . I cannot believe this has not been all over the TV and newspapers. This is why it is so important to pass this message along to all of our family & friends. To think that Obama has even the slightest chance in the run for the presidency, is really scary.
Click on the link below:
This is the web page for the church Barack Obama belongs to: www.tucc.org/about.htm
The first clue that this e-mail is the product of careless ignorance is that it claims that "Obama's middle name is Mohammed," which is false. His middle name is Hussein.
As for the accusations against his church, this e-mail is not the first place they have come up. Nearly a year ago conservative blogger Erik Rush called the church "cultish" and "separatist" in a Feb. 2007 interview on Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes" and questioned whether its parishioners could consider themselves Americans or Christians.
Here are the facts:
It is true that Trinity describes itself as "a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian" and which "does not apologize for its African roots." The church's Web site specifies a commitment to Africa and to "historical education of African people in diaspora." The congregation is overwhelmingly black; few if any whites can be seen in the photographs and videos of the congregation posted on the church's Web site. But none of that makes the church "racist" or anti-American.
Prof. Martin E. Marty
And in fact, a professor of theology at the University of Chicago Divinity School, Martin E. Marty, wrote this in April 2007, rebutting Rush's claims on Fox News:
Prof. Marty: To those in range of Chicago TV I'd recommend a watching of Trinity's Sunday services, and challenge you to find anything "cultic" or "sectarian" about them. More important, for Trinity, being "unashamedly black" does not mean being "anti-white." My wife and I on occasion attend, and, like all other non-blacks, are enthusiastically welcomed.
Regarding this renewed attack on Trinity, Prof. Marty told FactCheck, "That kind of e-mail is vicious and lying, and makes my blood boil. ... Many civic officials, public school teachers, etc. are members at Trinity; [Rev. Jeremiah] Wright has been on TV with his services for years, and no one found them racist it's smear politics."
Wherever we looked we found ample evidence that Obama's church is pro-black, but we found none to support a claim that it is anti-white. Calling it "racist" is, in our judgment, a falsehood.
January 25, 2008 at 11:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JEdgmon (anonymous) says...
I have no idea why Reps are so worked up over Hillary Clinton, I have a better chance of being president than she does. First, the Republicans have focused their entire slime machine on her, thinking she's guaranteed to be the nominee. Second, blacks for some strange reason are mad at her because she dares to try and actually win a campaign against a black person. Third, both Paul and Bloomberg are probably going to run as 3rd party candidates if she does get the nomination, knowing that the accusations and race baiting will attract a lot of Democrats to their side, and therefore the united Republican slime machine will get the White House again.
Personally, I think that's whacked, because I believe the Clinton's would be best for the country right now, however, that isn't going to happen. But then again, I am also a rare person that lets God judge moral hiearchy, as he is far more qualified than me to do so, and I judge what is best for the country.
January 26, 2008 at 12:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Will_On_The_Potomac (anonymous) says...
Hillary's candidacy is her reward for standing by that man during the Lawinsky sex scandal. The party big wigs, terrified that she might walk out in the midst of the scandal, leaving him without a fig leaf of respectability, offered her an ambassadorship, but she would not be mollified by anything but a shot at a presidency of her.
Then Obama got in the way. That is the well spring of the Clintons' passionate attacks on him despite the fact that the arrangement has given her a virtual lock on the nominating convention's super delegates and a way to win the nomination without a majority.
January 26, 2008 at 12:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Postandcourier.com is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Postandcourier.com does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website.
Users can now build user-to-user connections, follow friends' recent posts, add an avatar that fits their personality, and more. If you have posted here before you'll need to sign up again, or if you've never posted before, start now by signing up!
Full terms and conditions can be read here.
Thank you for your interest in this story. The comment thread for this article has been closed.
- Most Commented
- Most Emailed
