http://www.myspace.com/tomhanks

"Hillary Clinton enthusiastically picked a filly named Eight Belles to win the Kentucky Derby and compared herself to the horse. Eight Belles finished second. The winner was the favorite, Big Brown. Eight Belles collapsed immediately after crossing the finish line, and was euthanized shortly thereafter."

Source: Halpern, The Page

Alice Walker,. who is supporting Obama, will be the guest on  "In Depth" on Sunday on C-Span2 from 12 noon -3pm EST.

So again, Obama appears on Meet the Press, on NBC from 10:30Am- 11:30 AM, EST

Then
And Alice Walker on C-Span 2 from 12 noon - 3pm

Meet the Press Airs on NBC, from 10:30-11:30 EST.

Watch via the internet

Watch on TV, or on C-Span's website.

Watch on television, or on C-span's website

Let's begin by the fact that Hillary said, "screw em"  when the white working class (WWC) didn't vote for her husband, Bill. So her allegiance could be described  as  fickle at best.

Hillary pushed for NAFTA, which cost primarily the WWC 3 million manufacturing jobs. And many in Clinton's camp now support the Columbia Trade Deal, which would do more of  the same.

Hillary wants to push through 2.3 Billion dollars in earmarks for New York in 2009. This would further undermine the economy.
     http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/clinton-2.3b-in-earmarks-2008-04-28.html

Hillary wants short-term gimmicks like a "Holiday Gas tax", which long term, would amount for mere pennies in savings to the consumer, but no real change that would yeild anything more substantial. The Gas Tax is an election ploy.
     http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/01/bloomberg-slams-clintons_n_99698.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN3038243520080430

Hillary is beholdened to lobbyists and special interests. She takes more money from them than any other candidate. And so they, not the WWC will end up being her top priority once in office.

Hillary authorized the current war which is costing the American economy BILLIONS (potentially Trillions)  of dollars. That is money right out of your pocket. .

Hillary's overzealous posturing ("Obliterate them") and polarizing ways would spell an automatic crises with Iran upon her election as president. And another war would hit your pocket books ten times worse!

Hillary's record on health care is abysmal. She failed once largely due to manifestations of her own ego. Because of her decisions back in the 1990s, 20 million Americans who could have been covered, remained uncovered by health insurance. .

 http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/04/16/2008-04-16_hillary_clinton_learned_hard_lesson_on_h-3.html

Finally whatever Hillary is promising you, it is important to remember Bosnia. The tragedy of the Bosnia scenario, was it told the entire world that Hillary will lie repeatedly to get elected. So keep her "promises" to you contextualized by her brazen willingness to repeatedly lie.

Obama on the other hand, was against NAFTA, against the Columbia Trade Deal, against the war,  gets the majority of his money from the American people, so he is not beholdened to lobbyists in the same manner as Clinton.

Yes Obama did use the word "bitter" to describe small town, WWC, but he meant it to be sympathetic. He just bungled his wording. He meant "understandably angry". However, he was NOT trying to dismiss you, like Hillary's "Screw Em" phrase clearly implies.

Plus, Obama  is not a "hot headed" politician making idle threats to nuke other countries like Iran. So he will not start  his tenure with that level of  lunacy to live down.

Finally, unfortunately Hillary has done a lot to stigmatize Obama along the lines of race. She's brought up Farrakhan, and Wright, etc, etc. Just remember, Obama's Mother is just as white as yours is. He was raised by his Grandparents and Mom -- mainly by whites. (Not that that should even matter.)

If you want to speak strictly of "Former Pastor" issues, Hillary has her own set of issues with HER former pastor. He was just convicted on sex abuse charges against a minor.

http://www.uticaod.com/homepage/x1637676857

You cannot ascribe the views or actions of someone's former pastor to that person's current view.

Obama is clearly not a racist.

Hillary Clinton may look like you -- as George Bush does -- but at the end of the day, she is not going to serve your interests, white working class brothers and sisters.

She will serve the interests of the corporate class.

*If the links to any articles are not available:, just cut and paste.

watch via the internet.

Let's begin by the fact that Hillary said, "screw em"  when the white working class (WWC) didn't vote for her husband, Bill. So her allegiance could be described  as  fickle at best.

Hillary pushed for NAFTA, which cost primarily the WWC 3 million manufacturing jobs. And many in Clinton's camp now support the Columbia Trade Deal, which would do more of  the same.

Hillary wants to push through 2.3 Billion dollars in earmarks for New York in 2009. This would further undermine the economy.
     http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/clinton-2.3b-in-earmarks-2008-04-28.html

Hillary wants short-term gimmicks like a "Holiday Gas tax", which long term, would amount for mere pennies in savings to the consumer, but no real change that would yeild anything more substantial. The Gas Tax is an election ploy.
     http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/01/bloomberg-slams-clintons_n_99698.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN3038243520080430

Hillary is beholdened to lobbyists and special interests. She takes more money from them than any other candidate. And so they, not the WWC will end up being her top priority once in office.

Hillary authorized the current war which is costing the American economy BILLIONS (potentially Trillions)  of dollars. That is money right out of your pocket. .

Hillary's overzealous posturing ("Obliterate them") and polarizing ways would spell an automatic crises with Iran upon her election as president. And another war would hit your pocket books ten times worse!

Hillary's record on health care is abysmal. She failed once largely due to manifestations of her own ego. Because of her decisions back in the 1990s, 20 million Americans who could have been covered, remained uncovered by health insurance. .

 http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/04/16/2008-04-16_hillary_clinton_learned_hard_lesson_on_h-3.html

Finally whatever Hillary is promising you, it is important to remember Bosnia. The tragedy of the Bosnia scenario, was it told the entire world that Hillary will lie repeatedly to get elected. So keep her "promises" to you contextualized by her brazen willingness to repeatedly lie.

Obama on the other hand, was against NAFTA, against the Columbia Trade Deal, against the war,  gets the majority of his money from the American people, so he is not beholdened to lobbyists in the same manner as Clinton.

Yes Obama did use the word "bitter" to describe small town, WWC, but he meant it to be sympathetic. He just bungled his wording. He meant "understandably angry". However, he was NOT trying to dismiss you, like Hillary's "Screw Em" phrase clearly implies.

Plus, Obama  is not a "hot headed" politician making idle threats to nuke other countries like Iran. So he will not start  his tenure with that level of  lunacy to live down.

Finally, unfortunately Hillary has done a lot to stigmatize Obama along the lines of race. She's brought up Farrakhan, and Wright, etc, etc. Just remember, Obama's Mother is just as white as yours is. He was raised by his Grandparents and Mom -- mainly by whites. (Not that that should even matter.)

If you want to speak strictly of "Former Pastor" issues, Hillary has her own set of issues with HER former pastor. He was just convicted on sex abuse charges against a minor.

http://www.uticaod.com/homepage/x1637676857

You cannot ascribe the views or actions of someone's former pastor to that person's current view.

Obama is clearly not a racist.

Hillary Clinton may look like you -- as George Bush does -- but at the end of the day, she is not going to serve your interests, white working class brothers and sisters.

She will serve the interests of the corporate class.

*If the links to any articles are not available:, just cut and paste.

It was the Rev. Dr. Barbara Reynolds, a former editorial board member of USA Today who teaches at the Howard University School of Divinity. An ordained minister, as New York Daily News writer Errol Louis points out in today's column, she was introduced at the press club event as the person "who organized" it.

But guess what? She's also an ardent longtime booster of Obama's sole remaining competitor for the Democratic nomination, none other than Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York. It won't take very much at all for Obama supporters to see in Wright's carefully arranged Washington event that was so damaging to Obama the strategic, nefarious manipulation of the Clintons.

Their supporter, Reynolds, helps arrange a speech by the outspoken and egocentric Wright which receives blanket national coverage to the disadvantage of Clinton's opponent. As Louis writes: "The Rev. Jeremiah Wright couldn't have done more damage to Barack Obama's campaign if he had tried. And you have to wonder if that's just what one friend of Wright wanted."

Reynolds has not returned e-mails or phone calls seeking comment, but Louis notes the obvious conflict between her political allegiance and her press club arrangements. He quotes a February blog entry of Reynolds saying, "My vote for Hillary in the Maryland primary was my way of saying thank you" to Clinton and her husband for his administration's successes.

Don't forget.

tune in via the internet.

Watch via the internet.

Here's the link:


       http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvywQTKpI-M&feature=user

Watch via the internet.

Watch via internet.

How Obama Can Get Beyong Wright
By Roland Martin, CNN

"Make the case that he might be a good guy, but he's more concerned about the tax bracket of his wife --she's worth in excess of $100 million - than the middle class voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania.

They say you've got a white problem? Tell those white rural voters that voting against their economic interests is political suicide.

Make it clear to women, especially white women, that Roe v. Wade will be extinct if McCain wins. The next president is going to choose three Supreme Court justices.

There is no way -- no way -- that the religious right will let a President McCain appoint anyone with a moderate bone in his or her body. Remember Harriet Miers? Bush even said he knew her heart, and they told him to go to hell.

What Obama has to tell those women, who are supporting Sen. Hillary Clinton in huge numbers, and will be disappointed if she's not the nominee, that sitting at home on Election Day, or crossing the aisle and voting for McCain, virtually assures that a woman's right to choose what to do with her body will be taken from her.

I would run an add slapping a large "C" for conservative on the faces of Justices John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Antonio Scalia, and make it clear that three other justices will likely step down."

       http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/30/roland.martin/index.html

"How Obama Can Get Beyond Wright" (Exerpted)
By Roland Martin: CNN

"Now that he has taken the necessary steps to separate himself from Wright, Obama must go on his most vigorous offensive to date and make it clear that he is running for president, and not Wright."

"Sen. Hillary Clinton is doing all she can to make the case to undeclared Democratic superdelegates that Obama is a wounded duck because of Wright; that she has a better shot at winning white working-class voters; and he's not tough enough to take on Sen. John McCain."

"With that said, Obama is leading among pledged delegates, the popular vote, and has significantly closed the gap between himself and Clinton in superdelegates. Bottom line: He's winning."

"But now it's time for him to ratchet up his message and to take back the stage from Clinton, McCain, and of course, Wright, and one way to do that is to be far more forceful in advocating his position and direction for the country. Here are a few suggestions:"

"Let voters know that you will be calling the shots, not Wright. I've seen the e-mails of voters who say they will not vote for Obama because of Wright. For the junior senator of Illinois, challenge them directly."

"Tell them flat out that Wright will not keep their homes from foreclosure. Tell them that Wright has absolutely nothing to do with gas prices doubling under the presidency of George W. Bush."

"Make it plain that your name is on the ballot and not his, and you're the guy who has the right plan to transform the country."

"Tell blue-collar voters that the hedge fund owners that are snapping up companies and slashing their jobs don't care about them, and will be happy to fund the campaign of McCain."

"Make the case that he might be a good guy, but he's more concerned about the tax bracket of his wife --she's worth in excess of $100 million - than the middle class voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania."

"They say you've got a white problem? Tell those white rural voters that voting against their economic interests is political suicide."

"Make it clear to women, especially white women, that Roe v. Wade will be extinct if McCain wins. The next president is going to choose three Supreme Court justices."

"There is no way -- no way -- that the religious right will let a President McCain appoint anyone with a moderate bone in his or her body. Remember Harriet Miers? Bush even said he knew her heart, and they told him to go to hell."

"What Obama has to tell those women, who are supporting Sen. Hillary Clinton in huge numbers, and will be disappointed if she's not the nominee, that sitting at home on Election Day, or crossing the aisle and voting for McCain, virtually assures that a woman's right to choose what to do with her body will be taken from her."

"I would run an add slapping a large "C" for conservative on the faces of Justices John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Antonio Scalia, and make it clear that three other justices will likely step down."

"The war still matters. I'm watching Lanny Davis, a big- time Clinton surrogate on "Larry King Live," challenge Obama's judgment on attending Wright's Chicago church for 20 years. Obama must re-engage the electorate and say that the judgment of Clinton and McCain has led to a war that has cost us 4,000 lives and billions of dollars."

"A lot of folks are assuming the doom-and-gloom scenario for Obama. Everyone is saying he's toast, and this race is over. But we forget that conservatives really don't love McCain, and the evangelicals aren't hot in love with him."

"Go back to who you are: Mr. Change. Drive the issues home in a more forceful manner. The election is little more than six months away, and a whole lot can happen between now and November 5."

  http://www.rolandsmartin.com/

As far as the question of  who will be our Democratic nominee, we have two choices.

On one hand, we have a known liar.  Not only a liar, but  a cold, calculating, bought and paid for, polarizing,  political beast.

On the other hand, we have an ostensibly  trustworthy person who's made a few blunders and errors in personal judgment, but has been spot-on in terms of the major policy questions of the day. And who shows deep concern, affection and circumspection about the issues which face our nation today.

For me, that choice is still  really simple.

Obama '08

As far as the question of Democratic nominee is concerned, we have two choices.

One one hand, we have a known liar.  Not only a liar, but  a cold, calculating, bought and paid for, polarizing,  political beast.

One the other hand, we have an ostensibly  trustworthy person who's made a few blunders and errors in personal judgment, but has been spot-on in terms of the major policy questions of the day. And who shows deep concern, affection and circumspection about the issues which face our nation today.

For me, that choice is still  really simple.

Obama '08

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) has requested nearly $2.3 billion in federal earmarks for 2009, almost three times the largest amount received by a single senator this year.

The Democratic presidential candidate’s staggering request comes at a time when Congress remains engaged in a heated debate over spending federal dollars on parochial projects.

<SCRIPT language='JavaScript1.1' SRC="http://ad.doubleclick.net/adj/N3941.thehill/B2762378.2;abr=!ie;sz=300x250;ord=[timestamp]?"> </SCRIPT> <NOSCRIPT> <A HREF="http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/N3941.thehill/B2762378.2;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;sz=300x250;ord=[timestamp]?"> <IMG SRC="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/N3941.thehill/B2762378.2;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;sz=300x250;ord=[timestamp]?" BORDER=0 WIDTH=300 HEIGHT=250 ALT="Click Here"></A> </NOSCRIPT> It also has gained traction on the campaign trail. Presumptive GOP nominee Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), a longtime foe of earmarks, has called for eliminating what he dubs “wasteful Washington spending.” Democratic front-runner Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) has spurned earmarks, seeking no funds for pet projects in the upcoming fiscal year.

Yet Clinton is continuing to request billions for earmarks, most of which will go to her home state.

The money is needed for homeland security, emergency response and health projects throughout New York, according to documents provided by her office.

The total amount Clinton requested greatly surpasses the $837 million secured last year by Sen. Thad Cochran of Mississippi, the ranking Republican on the Appropriations Committee who took home the largest dollar amount of earmarks in the current fiscal year’s spending bills. In those bills, Clinton secured $342 million in earmarks.  

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) has requested nearly $2.3 billion in federal earmarks for 2009, almost three times the largest amount received by a single senator this year.

The Democratic presidential candidate’s staggering request comes at a time when Congress remains engaged in a heated debate over spending federal dollars on parochial projects.

<SCRIPT language='JavaScript1.1' SRC="http://ad.doubleclick.net/adj/N3941.thehill/B2762378.2;abr=!ie;sz=300x250;ord=[timestamp]?"> </SCRIPT> <NOSCRIPT> <A HREF="http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/N3941.thehill/B2762378.2;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;sz=300x250;ord=[timestamp]?"> <IMG SRC="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/N3941.thehill/B2762378.2;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;sz=300x250;ord=[timestamp]?" BORDER=0 WIDTH=300 HEIGHT=250 ALT="Click Here"></A> </NOSCRIPT> It also has gained traction on the campaign trail. Presumptive GOP nominee Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), a longtime foe of earmarks, has called for eliminating what he dubs “wasteful Washington spending.” Democratic front-runner Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) has spurned earmarks, seeking no funds for pet projects in the upcoming fiscal year.

Yet Clinton is continuing to request billions for earmarks, most of which will go to her home state.

The money is needed for homeland security, emergency response and health projects throughout New York, according to documents provided by her office.

The total amount Clinton requested greatly surpasses the $837 million secured last year by Sen. Thad Cochran of Mississippi, the ranking Republican on the Appropriations Committee who took home the largest dollar amount of earmarks in the current fiscal year’s spending bills. In those bills, Clinton secured $342 million in earmarks.  

Here are excerpts from an article entitled "Is Hillary Preparing To Run in 2012" by former Clinton adviser, Dick Morris.

---

"Does Hillary want to beat up Obama so that he can’t win the general election in November, assuring McCain of the presidency so that she can have a clear field to run again in 2012? Obviously, if Obama beats McCain, Hillary is out of the picture until 2016, by which time, at 69 years old, she might be too old to run. But if McCain wins, she would have to be considered the presumptive front runner for the nomination, a status which she might parlay into a nomination more successfully than she has been able to do this year."

Every day that she stays in the race and punches Barack Obama, she must realize that she is decreasing his chances of getting elected in November. Each time that she waves the bloody shirt and says that only she is strong enough to fight the war on terror, she obviously raises doubts about Obama’s strength and leadership. Every time she criticizes him for not switching pastors or for saying downscale white voters are bitter, she raises issues that are very destructive to Obama should he win the nomination.

When does fighting for the nomination in 2008 end and seeking to sabotoge Obama’s chances in November to keep her options alive for 2012 begin? Doubts about Hillary’s motivation are going to keep on growing with each inconclusive primary. After she loses North Carolina and fails to carry Indiana by any significant margin (North Carolina has twice as many delegates as Indiana), people will begin to wonder out loud about why she is staying in the race. And if she remains obdurate after the last votes are cast on June 3rd, it will become an increasingly accepted presumption that she is running a campaign of sabotage against Obama.

Here's another quote:

-----

"There is a way to run without waging a scorched earth campaign. Mike Huckabee continued to fight for the Republican nomination until McCain reached the magic number to clench the battle and did not attack McCain. He waged a positive campaign and exercised his right to stay in the contest as long as it was undecided without hurting the party’s chances in November. Obviously, Huckabee could have attacked McCain and drawn more votes for his candidacy, but, in the interests of party victory, he chose not to do so.

Why isn’t Hillary making the same choice?

In 2004, it is pretty obvious that Hillary did nothing to help John Kerry beyond giving a speech at the convention and waging a token campaign on his behalf. Bill did even less. Their goal was obvious: they wanted Kerry to lose to Bush so that Hillary could run in 2008. Is she playing the same game now? Only time will tell.

    
This is the link: worth watching

 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/28/jimmy-carter-speaks-out-w_n_99105.html


  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/28/jimmy-carter-speaks-out-w_n_99105.html

cutandpaste

After watching Wright's speeches both at the NAACP and the National Press Club in their entirety, I see the good in what Wright is TRYING to do. His overall message is an important one for America to hear and speaks at heart to the concepts of racial reconciliation, respecting difference and in the end, healing. However, there is this little pervasive, pernicious entity here in America, called media. And the media, at bottom,  represents the power structure/status quo. And when you have a candidate, like Barack Obama,  who is opposing the status quo in many of his basic policy concepts (i.e. opposing war, opposing the rich,  opposing big Oil), that status quo will employ all of it's forces --  including, and especially media -- to twist anyone or anything connected to said candidate, in an effort to derail his candidacy. This is the real danger in Wright speaking out at this particular moment in time.

It's not really about Jeremiah Wright, and what he actually meant to say in his recent speeches. For the media, its about which of his words can be isolated and packaged in such a way  as to trigger the  manipulation of  the majority of the American people --  who are not going to take the time to sit down and listen to his sermons or analyze an hour-long speech. . Hence, the media is building a case against Obama of "guilt by association."

But it's not really about Jeremiah Wright at all. Country singer Willie Nelson has repeatedly questioned whether 9/11 was an inside job. Yet, Nelson is not being demonized in the media for repeatedly saying this. In fact, quite the contrary, Nelson is being celebrated with a huge new anniversary box set of all of his recordings. So there is quite a double standard at work here.

There real question that confronts us now is, will the American people allow themselves to be manipulated out of the possibility of electing perhaps the most seriously trans formative presidential candidate of the past 1OO years? Or, quite the opposite,  will we allow ourselves to be duped  once again by the corporate media/status quo at a critical time, and have them choose an "insider" candidate who will serve THEIR interests?

My strongest sense is that the result of the latter option, at this point in our history,  would be disastrous.

Not this time!

Obama 08!   

Generally speaking I like debates and think they have been instructive during the presidential campaign. But after the deplorable Pennsylvania debate, I find it almost laughable that Hillary is clambering to schedule a new debate.

Perhaps if Hillary had recognized the severe bias of the ABC commentators and admonished them to focus on more substantive issues, she might deserve another debate.

Perhaps if she had shown some self-restraint during the first 45 minutes, she might well deserve another debate. 

But no, not only was there no self-restraint, but Hillary was glutinous for more! She relished twisting the knife in Obama's back with each and every non-issue ABC raised, including invoking Farrakhan's name out of the blue, to deliberately smear Obama.

Obama, on the other hand, when asked to respond directly to Hillary's Bosnia LIE, he demurred. In a moment of pure restraint, Obama indicated that all politicians make gaffes. That instead of playing "gotcha" politics, that they should focus instead on the many grave issues that plague America.

Hillary Clinton was ugly as hell in that last debate. And the fall-out from it demonstrates that, even as she received votes from the ignorant racists whom her veiled attacks were designed to appeal to, the cost of such a tactic will cripple her in the end, and mar her "legacy" for millions of people. 

And what of the fact that Hillary's chief surrogate in PA, Gov Rendell had had audience with AND praised Louis Farrakhan in 1997? Why is there no comment from the Clinton campaign after the fact, since she was so eager to raise his name to inflict harm?  This  is the height of hypocrisy.

So for all that and a hell of a lot more, no debate for Hillary.

"Much Ado .."

By Stanley Fish
New York Times

In
1952, when McCarthyism was at its height, Supreme Court Justice William
O. Douglas labeled the investigative techniques of the junior senator
from Wisconsin "guilt by association" (Adler v. Board of Education).
Douglas added that McCarthyite tactics were "repugnant to our society"
because, despite the absence of any overt wrongdoing, the pasts of
those attacked were "combed for signs of disloyalty" and for utterances
that might be read as "clues to dangerous thoughts."

More than a half century later, "McCarthyism" was joined in the
lexicon by "Swiftboating," the art of the smear campaign mounted with
the intention not of documenting a wrong, but of covering the victim
with slime enough to cast doubt on his or her integrity. Now, in 2008,
after a primary season increasingly marked by dirty pool and low blows,
"McCarthyism" and "Swiftboating" have come together in a particularly
lethal and despicable form. I refer to the startling revelation --
proclaimed from the housetops by both the Clinton and McCain campaigns
-- that Barack Obama ate dinner at William Ayers's house, served with
him on a board and was the honored guest at a reception he organized.

Cut by Management
TO READ THE REST OF THIS POST, CLICK HERE

First, let me start by stating categorically that Barack Obama won Texas. He exited that primary with the most delegates, therefore he won.

With that said,  there's a lot of emphasis being paid by the punditry as to why Barack Obama didn't get the white working class votes in both Ohio and PA. This is an absurd question, because it reflects how short a memory most "political experts" have.

Remember, during the latter days leading up to the Ohio primary, Obama was within a 4 points margin in most polls and closing. Originally he had been down some 20 odd points, so the margin had narrowed rapidly. Combine this with the fact that Obama was leading the polls in Texas. So it is safe to say he was in the process of  winning over many folks who were not considered part of his "core constituency" (as the media would call it). Then what happened? The spurious NAFTA story. That curious "scandal" deliberately flamed by the Clinton campaign (and Obama's shakey response to it) suddenly cut the momentum that he had built. Had that NAFTA issue not surfaced -- and it is important to note that the foundation of that story has proven dubious at best -- Obama might have actually won Ohio! He certainly was on track to do so.

Secondly, the issue of Pennsylvania has to be framed primary by one cardinal fact: Hillary Clinton's daddy was born in Scranton, PA. This practically makes it a home state for her. So PA was going to be a hard trek for Obama no matter what. It's less about the white working class voting or not voting for Obama, than it is an allegiance to one of their own..

When you factor that reality with the deplorable ABC debate in which Barack Obama was practically ambushed by the two Hannity-tutored journalists and Hillary Clinton herself, is it any wonder that Obama lost the state? The fact is, 2 months ago he was down over 20 points in PA. PA was considered a bankable "big-win" state for Clinton. Obama assiduously closed that gap. In the end, he lost the state by a SINGLE DIGIT MARGIN. (Not 10 percent -- as was erroneously reported by the media -- but 9 percent). All toll he lost less than 9 delegates, which is inconsequential  in terms of cutting his overall delegate lead.

Concerning this issue of Obama and the "white working class vote", as Obama himself has mentioned in recent interviews, he's won the white working class in many states. The fact is,  Obama  has scored significant and respectable vote tallies throughout all strata of American society. If he hadn't, he certainly would not be in the lead right now.

Why the media keeps contorting their story after each unfavorable Obama primary indicates to me the extent to which they want to manipulate the masses by reporting stories devoid of context AND sell newspapers.

When the issues are placed in context, a very different picture emerges.

Generally speaking I like debates and think they have been instructive during the presidential campaign. But after the deplorable Pennsylvania debate, I find it almost laughable that Hillary is clambering to schedule a new debate.

Perhaps if Hillary had recognized the severe bias of the ABC commentators and admonished them to focus on more substantive issues, she might deserve another debate.

Perhaps if she had shown some self-restraint during the first 45 minutes, she might well deserve another debate. 

But no, not only was there no self-restraint, but Hillary was glutinous for more! She relished twisting the knife in Obama's back with each and every non-issue ABC raised, including invoking Farrakhan's name out of the blue, to deliberately smear Obama.

Obama, on the other hand, when asked to respond directly to Hillary's Bosnia LIE, he demurred. In a moment of pure restraint, Obama indicated that all politicians make gaffes. That instead of playing "gotcha" politics, that they should focus instead on the many grave issues that plague America.

Hillary Clinton was ugly as hell in that last debate. And the fall-out from it demonstrates that, even as she received votes from the ignorant racists whom her veiled attacks were designed to appeal to, the cost of such a tactic will cripple her in the end, and mar her "legacy" for millions of people. 

And what of the fact that Hillary's chief surrogate in PA, Gov Rendell had had audience with AND praised Louis Farrakhan in 1997? Why is there no comment from the Clinton campaign after the fact, since she was so eager to raise his name to inflict harm?  This  is the height of hypocrisy.

So for all that and a hell of a lot more, no debate for Hillary.

Obama Team Remains Unshaken And Unstirred

By Carrie Budoff Brown

After Sen. Barack Obama's third major primary loss and endless media coverage dedicated to dissecting the apparent weaknesses of his candidacy, one of the most striking elements of his campaign this week was what's missing: Any hint of internal upheaval.

At Obama headquarters in Chicago, hundreds of miles removed from the Beltway bubble, advisers held steadfast in their adherence to The Plan, a blueprint devised 15 months ago by the same inner circle that runs the campaign today, supported by the candidate and carried out by a tight-knit staff.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's operation could not be more dissimilar. Her campaign, ensconced in a Washington suburb, has experienced two major staff shakeups fueled by high-level staff rivalries, shifting strategies and an unusual degree of finger-pointing.

The contrast raises the question: How has the Obama campaign managed to maintain an island of comparative calm?

A winning record undoubtedly aids the cohesion, Obama advisers and unaffiliated Democratic strategists said, but so do other key dynamics: A candidate intolerant of infighting, a clear line of authority and a healthy distance from the city they want to take over.

The Obama campaign reminds some observers of George W. Bush, circa 2000, who presided over a loyal, linear and leakless operation in Austin, while Al Gore stumbled through multiple makeovers first in Washington D.C. and later in Nashville.

"In a parallel universe kind of sense, there are real similarities" between Obama and Bush, said Jim Jordan, a Democratic consultant who left the top post in Sen. John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign amid a shakeup.

"Intense loyalty to and belief in the candidate," Jordan said, citing the similarities. "Simple, clear lines of authority with real discipline among the staff and consultants. Deep, talented teams. Maybe most importantly, candidates who trust their campaign, who understand what they're doing, who deliver as well as demand loyalty, who intuitively relate to and handle their campaigns with just the right touch."

There are certainly disagreements and strains - Obama advisers acknowledge as much, without admitting the details--but rule No. 1 is no fratricidal behavior, which includes unauthorized disclosures to the media. Obama himself on Friday acknowledged the need for the campaign to continually "fine tune itself."

But on the whole, the rival Democratic campaigns are a study in contrasts.

Clinton tapped the ranks of Sen. Charles Schumer, a hard-driving New York Democrat, for a press shop that can be as aggressive and unforgiving as the one favored by their former boss. Obama drew from the slightly more sedate worlds of Kerry, former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) and former Rep. Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.).

Strategist Mark Penn, a veteran of the toughest White House battles of the 1990s, was deeply unpopular and a divisive presence within the Clinton campaign. Obama strategist David Axelrod is the anti-Penn. In the midst of Penn's demotion earlier this month, one Obama aide in Chicago remarked to his colleagues about the low-key and well-liked Axelrod: "Do you know how lucky we are that he is our Mark Penn?"

Unlike Clinton's team, the Obama campaign did not start with preexisting rivalries. Axelrod and campaign manager David Plouffe were business partners while Plouffe and Robert Gibbs, the communications director, share season tickets to the Washington Nationals. The staff, many of whom left family and lives behind to work in Chicago, only have each other to rely on in a place far from home.

"We would go to a basketball or baseball game together if we weren't doing this right now," Gibbs said. "We are all both friends and colleagues, and I think that is important. We feel we are a cohesive type of unit, not a group of individuals."

Jim Margolis, Obama's media consultant, said he had planned to pass on the presidential race in 2008. His first candidate, former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, dropped out, and he had a rocky experience on Kerry's 2004 campaign. But he ended up on the same plane one day with Axelrod, and began to reconsider.

"You gotta come spend a little more time with Barack," Axelrod told him.

"You know what these things are like," Margolis said.

"There are no assholes," Axelrod responded. "There are going to be no assholes on this campaign."

While the Clinton campaign toggled between strategies and messages, Obama aides crafted an approach months ago that remains their guiding document to this day: Run on change, win Iowa, and then embark on a national campaign aimed at maximizing their delegate count.

That disciplined adherence to plan flows from Plouffe, the publicity-averse campaign manager who, with a demeanor like Obama's, tends to avoid highs or lows. A signature trait is his ability to block out the din and the whims of the 24-hour cable news culture.

Bad stories annoy Plouffe, but they don't affect strategy or goals, aides said.

In Plouffe's world, there should be only intentional leaks, and disputes must be dealt with in-house. Aides say that, from the beginning, the campaign declined to confirm even routine stories by Washington standards, such as personnel moves, because they wanted to release information on their terms - and have prided themselves on following the edict ever since.

Plouffe barely hid his disdain for the individual who stepped out of line when he disputed a Washington Post report last week quoting a Democratic strategist "familiar with the Obama campaign" who said "aides are likely to turn to the controversies" of the Clinton years to hasten an end to the nomination fight.

"That was I think an unnamed strategist claiming to have some relationship with us," Plouffe said on a conference call with reporters. "I can assure whoever was, in an act of puffery, suggesting they had some knowledge of what we're doing is incorrect."

Acts of "puffery" have been minimized because of one of their earliest - and in retrospect, according to aides, smartest - decisions: They did not base the campaign in Washington, D.C.

Obama chose Chicago largely because of family considerations, but he was well aware of the side benefits: less opportunity for distraction. Campaign aides won't run into journalists at the Washington Sports Club or at Café Milano and divulge secrets. And they are removed from the scorekeeping and constant second-guessing that marks Washington's political culture.

"There isn't a day where I don't think I'm glad to not be doing this in an atmosphere where every 30 minutes somebody decides or a group of somebodies decide, who honestly have no basis of knowledge other than the fact that they make an appearance on cable TV, to tell you who is winning and who is losing," Gibbs said.

Steve Elmendorf, deputy campaign manager for Kerry in 2004 and a Clinton supporter, said the role of geography should not be underestimated.

"If you look at the history of successful presidential campaigns, the ones that have done the best are not in Washington," he said. "By headquartering your campaign in a place that makes it harder for people to sort of casually get involved, you get a tighter, more disciplined team. I know there are people who have indicated (that Clinton) should have been in Westchester or up somewhere in New York."

Less than 24 hours after Pennsylvania voters dealt Obama a sound defeat, Gibbs dismissed any suggestion that a fresh wave of critical analysis would take a toll on the campaign.

"I don't think so," Gibbs said, eating mashed potatoes in the lobby of an Indiana University Southeast building, where his candidate just held an event. "I'm sure it is easier to sit elsewhere and say 'I would do this differently.' But we feel confident in the plan and we are still ahead, so it is hard to quibble."

(CNN) – Sen. Barack Obama used a question during a campaign event Saturday to explain his unusual approach to politics.

“How do we get rid of that huge divisiveness in this country?,” a voter asked Obama in Anderson, Indiana.

“The president sets the tone,” the Illinois senator said before explaining the bipartisan approach he’d take if elected to the White House.

“But, I’m also going to try to show this during the course of the campaign,” he added. “Sometimes you take some hits. Even during this campaign, I’ve been taking some hits.”

“One of the things that I learned in the school yard was: the folks that are talking tough all the time, they’re not always that tough. If you’re really tough, you’re not always looking to try to start a fight. If you’re really tough, sometimes you just walk away. If you’re really tough, you just save it for when you really need it,” Obama said.

“I’m not interested in fighting people just for the sake of scoring political points.” “If I’m going to fight somebody it’s going to be fighting over the American people and what they need.”

Obama’s effort to explain his sometimes non-confrontational approach came on the same day that his rival Sen. Hillary Clinton proposed a Lincoln-Douglas style debate. Prior to Clinton’s challenge, Obama said in a television interview set to air Sunday that he would not agree to any more debates with Clinton before the May 6 primaries in North Carolina and Indiana. After learning of Clinton's proposal, the Obama campaign maintained that the Illinois senator would not participate in any more debates until after May 6.