Clintons are documented scumbags...wake up america!!!
there are no one who can compare with the clintons' lying, cheating and stealing...they are crooked and corrupt to the core. truth and facts documented their corrupt practices from their larval stages as sleazy communist sympathizers, drug lifestyle, war protestors, to bribery, illegal political contributions, slandering, libeling, unauthorized use of public resources for personal use, unlawful coercion of witnesses to their illegal behavior....
can the american ppl smell the stench of clintorious and kick those 2 clinton sleaseballs out of politics for good????
tune in later this year for it....
An aide to Barack Obama says the man who led former President Clinton's 1992 bid plans to endorse the Illinois senator.
Obama's campaign plans a 1 p.m. conference call Wednesday to announce the endorsement by David Wilhelm, Bill Clinton's campaign manager in 1992, who later became chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
Wilhelm plans to tell reporters that Obama can build a coalition of Democrats, independents and Republicans needed to win the general election. He also says Obama can bring the change he promises—improving the economy and ending the war in Iraq.
Wilhelm is a superdelegate from Illinois who was previously uncommitted in the race.
From the Virginia exit polls.
Obama carried white men with 55%.
He carried Latinos with 55%.
He carried Catholics with 52%.
He carried voters with incomes under $50,000 with 59%.
He carried independents with 62% - and far more independents voted in the Democratic primary, for Obama, than in the GOP primary, for McCain.
And he carried Republicans who chose to vote in the Democratic primary (they constituted 7% of the vote) with 70%.
And, lest the Clinton campaign try to say that Obama's win was the result of his popularity among said independents and Republicans? Obama carried Democrats with 59%.
Clinton held on to win whites overall, but by a whisker: 51 to 48%.
These numbers constitute arguments that Obama can carry into Wisconsin's primary next Tuesday and beyond.
Suddenly, he can say that he's got juice with Latino voters, that he can win white votes in large numbers and that he can win among middle to lower income voters. Additionally, there's just the question of winning. Virginia and Maryland are large or at least large-ish states with primaries, not caucuses (some Clinton partisans have tried to devalue Obama's string of caucus wins on the basis that they draw a more elitist voter).
They are important in November, especially Virginia, where Democrats smell the possibility of general-election victory for the first time since the distant civil right era in 1964. They are what we might call "evidence states": states in which a candidate can use the primary to amass evidence that he or she can go the distance in November.
Which brings us back to Clinton's strategy with regard to these states. The fact is, you can't say, "Well, we never expected to win there," and hope the results somehow won't count. A Democrat can get away with that with regard to some of the smaller caucus states Obama won on Super Tuesday: Idaho, Utah and so forth. But you can't say it about states like Virginia and Maryland.
Hillary will prove she's the bee itch she is said to be.
For the second election night in a row, Hillary Clinton failed to acknowledge or congratulate Barack Obama after he won the day in dominating fashion.
The courtesy of conceding a primary or caucus loss — and then congratulating your opponent — is by no means required. But it has become standard practice during campaign season.
Clinton congratulated Obama and John Edwards after their first and second place finishes in the Iowa caucuses. Obama returned the favor in New Hampshire, saying Clinton "did an outstanding job." That courtesy continued through the early states.
But as the race has shifted to a delegate chase with dozens of states in play around the country, the notion of congratulating one's opponent seems, for Clinton, to have fallen by the wayside.
Democrat voices are speaking out against the Clintons.
WASHINGTON - For years, Bill and Hillary Clinton treated the Democratic National Committee and party activists as extensions of their White House ambitions, pawns in a game of success and survival. She may pay a high price for their selfishness soon.
Top Democrats, including some inside Hillary Clinton's campaign, say many party leaders — the so-called superdelegates — won't hesitate to ditch the former New York senator for Barack Obama if her political problems persist. Their loyalty to the first couple is built on shaky ground.
"If (Barack) Obama continues to win .... the whole raison d'etre for her campaign falls apart and we'll see people running from her campaign like rats on a ship," said Democratic strategist Jim Duffy, who is not aligned with either campaign.
"Superdelegates" are not all super fans of the Clintons.
Some are labor leaders still angry that Bill Clinton championed the North American Free Trade Agreement as part of his centrist agenda.
Some are social activists who lobbied unsuccessfully to get him to veto welfare reform legislation, a talking point for his 1996 re-election campaign.
Some served in Congress when the Clintons dismissed their advice on health care reform in 1993. Some called her a bully at the time.
Some are DNC members who saw the party committee weakened under the Clintons and watched President Bush use the White House to build up the Republican National Committee.
Some are senators who had to defend Clinton for lying to the country about his affair with Monica Lewinsky.
Some are allies of former Vice President Al Gore who still believe the Lewinsky scandal cost him the presidency in 2000.
Some are House members (or former House members) who still blame Clinton for Republicans seizing control of the House in 1994.
Some are donors who paid for the Clintons' campaigns and his presidential library.
Some are folks who owe the Clintons a favor but still feel betrayed or taken for granted. Could that be why Bill Richardson, a former U.N. secretary and energy secretary in the Clinton administration, refused to endorse her even after an angry call from the former president? "What," Bill Clinton reportedly asked Richardson, "isn't two Cabinet posts enough?"
And some just want something new. They never loved the Clintons as much as they feared them.