You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘hillary clinton’ tag.
By Jose Rodriguez
Barack Obama ran for President promising to bring “change” to Washington D.C., which turned out to be a winning promise. Even though Americans elected him to bring that change, there has been a shrill and loud portion of our society, motivated by partisan hatred, who have stopped at nothing to block his efforts to bring the change that Americans elected him to enact. Change is a frightening prospect for this segment of society, who respond with scurrilous allegations: Obama is really a Muslim; he hates America; he’s a socialist; he was not really born in this country; he’s a Nazi; he wants to kill old people; and on and on and on. People, like Rep. Joe Wilson, want to engage in that form of demagoguery in order to uphold the status quo. They want to shout down the President during an important speech, calling him a liar or contradicting him.
But Joe Wilson is not the first Wilson to shout at a President advocating for change during a speech.
In late November 1995, President Bill Clinton became the first U.S. President to make an official visit to Northern Ireland. More so than any President before or since, Bill Clinton was heavily involved in the Irish peace process; Clinton even appointed former Maine Senator George Mitchell to be the first Special Envoy to Ireland (George Mitchell is now the Special Envoy to the Middle-East, where he hopes to broker a peace deal). The conflict between Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland seemed so intractable that no previous President wanted to expend any energy finding a solution. President Clinton, however, had made bold promises to the Irish community in the United States, and he intended to keep them. By going to Ireland, he hoped to jump start the failing negotiations between Catholics and Protestants, who had been locked in conflict (known as the Troubles) for decades. Before long, not only had Clinton fallen completely in love with the Irish, but the Irish fell head over-heels in love with the Clintons (Hillary benefited from this love during her Presidential run in 2008). That the leader of the free world would come and meet with Irish leaders and everyday people was an immense honor for them. Protestants and Catholics alike flocked by the thousands (culminating in a speech attended by 100,000 people in Dublin) to see and hear the President of the United States, who was there to advocate for change and peace.
While a majority of Irish on both sides of the conflict wanted change and peace in Northern Ireland, fringe elements within both communities wanted to uphold the status quo. They were the loudest and most violent, so they were successful, for decades, in prolonging the conflict. These people criticized the President’s visit, saying that he had no business being in Ireland, and that he certainly had no business interfering in the on-going negotiations.
However, as Clinton got out into the public, shook hands, hugged hundreds of people, shared stories, and even accepted a few beers (which the Secret Service quickly poured out), the Irish public were very warm and receptive to Clinton and his message of hope. The Irish flocked to Clinton by the droves, swarming him and enveloping him, wanting to touch him and be in his presence, as though they could be infused with his energy and power. In reality, it was the President who was feeding off their energy, driving him for nearly 48 hours with virtually no sleep. The Secret Service was alarmed by this obvious inability to maintain security, but the President was more than eager to drown himself in the sea of people. This was, as he put it, the happiest time of his life.
While in Ireland, President Clinton stopped at the Mackie factory in Belfast, Northern Ireland. It was owned by a Protestant, but he employed Catholics and Protestants. This place was, ostensibly, a symbol for peace and co-existence, but many of the employees either belonged to the IRA or for Protestant para-militaries in their time off. Before Clinton spoke, two children gave speeches that told of their suffering, but also called for peace. After young Cathy Hamill brought the room to tears with the story of her father’s murder, Clinton took the stage.
President Clinton, wagging his finger and clenching his fist, proclaimed, “only you can decide between division and unity, between hard lives and high hopes. You must say to those who would still use violence for political objectives: ‘You are the past, your day is over!'” This was a bold statement, considering that those people were in the room with him. It was also an obvious play on the famous IRA slogan, which said “Our day will come.” Clinton was challenging these people to turn their backs on the past and to move forward toward change, toward peace.
Not everyone was receptive to his message of change.
Cedric Wilson, a Protestant leader of the Northern Ireland Unionist party, shouted, “Never!”
As Clinton promised to “walk with” them if they chose to “walk the path of peace,” Wilson continued to heckle President Clinton: “Never!” “Those who showed the courage to break with the past,” Clinton said, “are entitled to their stake in the future.” Again, Wilson shouted, “Never!” Clinton pointed out Wilson, the heckler, who stood for the past, not the future of Ireland.
“Peace must be waged with a warrior’s resolve– bravely, proudly, and relentlessly– secure in the knowledge of the single greatest difference between war and peace; in peace everybody can win.” The President received a standing ovation that seemed to last forever. The people of Ireland were resolute: they were rejecting the Wilsons of the world.
In the end, due to the tireless efforts of Clinton, Mitchell, and the interested parties in Ireland, there was a negotiated peace in Ireland. The Good Friday Agreement (April 10, 1998) was not only supported by the Irish governments and the British government, but it was also supported by the Irish people through a referendum. The people made a
choice for peace, rather than protracted violence and conflict. Though in recent years groups in Ireland have tried to re-ignite the Troubles, the people have held fast to the principles of the Good Friday Agreement. Hillary Clinton has even appointed Declan Kelly to be the U.S. Special Envoy to Ireland, and she plans to visit Northern Ireland next month to review the peace process and to give a speech about the threat to peace posed by para-military groups in Ireland. This focus on Ireland is a break from the Bush administration, who largely ignored Ireland and left the U.S. participation in the peace process to the State Department. Had they continued Bill Clinton’s level of involvement, the situation in Ireland might be less perilous.
In the end, in a round-about sort of way, there are Wilsons in our world who shout “You lie!” or “Never!” to people who are interested in change, or in making progress. They are defenders of the status quo. As our country struggles to make sense of the health care bills in Congress (while continuing to be raped by insurance companies), we should all, at least, agree that we want to move forward– that we all want change and progress.
And we should all agree to ignore all the Wilsons of the world.
Israel’s invasion of Gaza was a humanitarian disaster. Roughly 1,417 people were killed in the 22 day war, 926 of them civilians. Of those, 313 were under the age of 18 and 116 were women. The war, aimed at the 1.5 million Palestinians living in Gaza, destroyed 15,000 homes and businesses, seriously damaged another 20,000 homes, destroyed 16 government buildings, and destroyed 20 mosques. The World Health Organization also reported that half of Gaza’s 27 hospitals and 44 clinics were seriously damaged in the invasion. Two clinics were completely destroyed. In addition to delaying treatment to civilians injured during combat, according to Physicians fo Human Rights, Israel also targeted medics, killing 16. During the war, the International Red Cross ceased operations within Gaza after 13 of its ambulances were attacked while transporting victims to hospitals in Egypt. Despite these horrific figures (and thousands of personal accounts), Defense Minister Ehud Barak maintained that the Israeli army is the “most moral in the world.”
Hamas militants in Gaza were also guilty of gross disregard for human life. These militants fired rockets, such as the Kassam, into Israel, with reckless disregard for the damage to property and loss of life these rockets would cause. By the end of the war, 13 Israelis were killed: 3 were civilians killed by rocket fire, 6 were soldiers killed in battle, and the remaining 4 were killed by friendly fire. Throughout the three week war, Hamas militants fired 796 rockets into southern Israel (mostly in Sderot and Ashkelon), damaging an estimated 1,500 homes, 327 vehicles, and damaging 9 schools. Israeli officials have also accused Hamas of using human shields, though no evidence has been provided and human rights groups have found no evidence to support the claims. Both Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have called for independent investigations into the conduct of war by both Hamas and Israel.
Though all life is valuable, it is ridiculous to assert that conducting a major ground invasion that results in the destruction of a society and causes the deaths of over 1,400 people is a reasonable and proportionate response to the attacks from a minority of militants using inaccurate shoulder rockets.
In an earlier blog, as the war was being waged, I wrote that “one must remember International Law, which dictates that the aggressor must keep the rule of Proportionality in mind.” The principle of Proportionality, an international law, dictates that “even if there is a clear military target it is not possible to attack it if the risk of civilians or civilian property being harmed is larger than the expected military advantage.” This is also known as the Fourth Geneva Convention. Proportionality should always be a guideline in war, and it clearly was not in this war.
Revelations of civilian abuses over the last week from veterans of the Gaza war have sent the Defense Ministry (still headed by Ehud Barak) into a defensive position. Soldiers came forward late last week with revelations that the Israeli army violated the rules of war and recklessly targeted civilians. One squad leader, quoted in a newsletter by Oranim Academic College in Kiryat Tivon (a pre-military preparatory program), explained the IDF’s (Israeli Defense Forces) procedures for clearing out houses: “When we entered a house, we were supposed to bust down the door and start shooting inside and just go up story by story. Each story, if we identified a person, we shoot them. I asked myself: ‘How is this reasonable?” Another soldier, according to Haaretz, described how a mother and child were killed by a sniper located on a rooftop. They misunderstood an order from an Israeli commander and went left, instead of going right. They paid for that mistake with their life. A soldier, named Aviv, described how an unarmed elderly woman, who was walking down a road, was killed, on command, by a sniper. When asked how this could happen, he remarked: “That’s what is so nice, supposedly, about Gaza: You see a person on a road, walking along a path. He doesn’t have to be with a weapon, you don’t have to identify him with anything and you can just shoot him. With us it was an old woman, on whom I didn’t see any weapon. The order was to take the person out, that woman, the moment you see her.” One soldier, identified only as Moshe, was asked if these kinds of killings are investigated, to which he responded: “The attitude is very simple: It isn’t pleasant to say so, but no one cares at all. We aren’t investigating this. This is what happens during fighting and this is what happens during routine security.”
There were many more stories of wanton disregard for human life. Palestinians are widely regarded in Israeli society as homo sacer. In other words, according to the Roman designation, those who are homo sacer cannot be sacrificed, nor can their killing be considered homicide. They are entities without human rights. So, it becomes easy to kill them, or to destroy their homes and property. Vandalism becomes a medium for expressing this disregard, as evidenced by the fact that some soldiers wrote “Death to Arabs” on the vacated homes of Palestinians, as they threw their furniture out windows and desecrated family pictures. How could they do this? The squad leader (mentioned earlier) explained: “…the atmosphere in general [was that] the lives of Palestinians, let’s say, are something very, very less important than the lives of our soldiers, so as far as they are concerned they can justify it that way.” Further revelations have made these attitudes even more worrisome.
A soldier identified as Ram described how Rabbis (like Chaplains in the U.S. army) were assigned to the military in order to provide services to religious soldiers, and to ensure that the kitchens were kosher. However, according to Ram and many others who served in Gaza, the military rabbinate have assumed the role of holy warriors. “The rabbinate brought in a lot of booklets and articles, and … their message was very clear: We are the Jewish people, we came to this land by a miracle, God brought us back to this land and now we need to fight to expel the non-Jews who are interfering with our conquest of this holy land. This was the main message, and the whole sense many soldiers had in this operation was of a religious war,” Ram said. A staff Sergeant echoed this sentiment: “This rabbi comes to us and says the fight is between the children of light and the children of darkness. His message was clear: ‘This is a war against an entire people, not against specific terrorists.’ The whole thing was turned into something very religious and messianic.” The staff Sergeant said that he was uncomfortable about the sermon, but he noticed that other “troops seemed receptive.” This attitude, that Palestinians should be completely removed from Gaza, and that the Gazan invasion was part of that larger effort, was reinforced by the military rabbinate, who indirectly argued that international law should not prevail– instead, using overwhelming force to eliminate civilians was not only acceptable, but necessary in order to minimize the danger to soldiers. The words “Our ancestors did not always fight with a sword and at times preferred to use a bow and arrow from a distance” appeared in some of the texts distributed by the military rabbinate. These religious figures were unabashedly advocating ethnic cleansing.
Though the military rabbinate sound extreme, and they are, they represent only a small faction of Jewish clerics. The problem, according to Rabbi David Hartman, is that this minority is passionate about their belief in “Holy War” (like their Islamic fundamentalist counterparts) and so they are more likely to volunteer for military service, adding, “There’s a vacuum and it gets filled by crackpots.” Hartman said that this extreme nationalistic ideology has “to be fought with a rational religious ideology that takes into account the living reality of two peoples.” This is certainly a belief that needs to be shared by both sides of this conflict.
What always amazes me about the United States is that there is zero room for dialogue on this subject. None. Dissent on this topic is not tolerated. However, in Israel, there is a sharp debate on this very issue. On the left, there are secular pragmatists who believe the occupation and settlements should come to an end; on the right, there are religious fanatics who seek Zionist control over the whole region. There are some moderates, but they tend to be more right-leaning. For example, Ehud Barak and his Labour party are generally regarded as moderate, as is Tzipi Livni’s Kadima party. These parties only seem moderate when compared to Likud, the extreme right-wing party led by Prime Minister-elect Benjamin Netanyahu. Both Livni and Barak were key figures in the recent invasion of Gaza. Under Netanyahu, more settlements and more war can be expected. For President Barack Obama, this is troubling. He has high hopes of resolving this conflict, which has dogged every President since 1967. He has already sent his Mid-East envoy George Mitchell to the region in order to signal his readiness to engage in the peace process. However, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has already publicly rebuked incoming-PM Netanyahu for his assertion that the Palestinians are not yet ready for a state. She has also criticized Israel for its plans to destroy 80 Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem, saying: “Clearly this kind of activity is unhelpful and not in keeping with the obligations entered into under the ‘road map’… It is an issue that we intend to raise with the government of Israel and the government at the municipal level in Jerusalem.” This is a troubling sign for the President, who is willing, but is currently being sucked more and more into the day to day management of the failing economic situation. Added to this domestic crisis is the extreme right-wing stances of the Netanyahu coalition, one that has signaled it will not place a high value on diplomacy.
It may very well be time for an imposed settlement, whether either side likes it or not.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton shaking hands with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas
Middle-East Envoy George Mitchell talks with President Abbas, as a portrait of Yasser Arafat hangs on the wall behind them
President Obama with President Abbas
Hopefully, this administration will take a more evenhanded approach to this conflict.
First and foremost, I am pro-life. Now, I know a lot of you probably think, “Oh, he’s one of these Ultra-right wing Christians who hate women.”
I am actually a fairly liberal guy who proudly voted for Hillary Clinton in the California primary. I love women. I’m married to one. But I also love life.
Where I differ from right-wing extremists, is the fact that I am actually pro-life. That means I am against abortion, but I am also against the death penalty, I am against needless war, I am for a healthy and clean environment, I am for raising the minimum wage, I am for Universal Health Care, and I am for equal quality education across our country. The economic and social justice that the Democratic party fights for actually reduces the number of abortions across the country. The right-wingers don’t support any of these pro-life measures. See, the right-wingers are simply anti-abortion. They are not pro-life.
Which brings me to my next point: we need to forget about Roe v. Wade. That single court ruling has had the most imapct upon our society since Brown v. Board of Education. I think most people, whether “pro-life” or “pro-choice” (both ridiculous and stupid labels that mean nothing) can agree that nobody likes abortion. Is that some common ground we can all stand upon? I think it is.
From there, I argue that we should, as a nation, have better Sex Education in our schools. As an educator, I can see how pervasive sexuality is, even at the junior high level. That may be where we need to begin. Education is the best tool we have, so we ought to use it to fight unneccessary abortions from unwanted pregnancies. That means teaching our kids how to use contraceptives effectively. It also means emphasizing abstinence (I am by no means advocating abstinence only education). Prevention is crucial.
But schools can only do so much. Parents need to better educate their children in the home about sexuality. They need to be more firm and direct with their children with rules and boundaries. I see it all the time: parents allow their children to do whatever they want, whenever they want, at all hours of the day. This is certainly not true in all cases, but I do see this as the norm. We would have fewer Jamie Lynn Spears’ and Bristol Palins running around the country if parents took on the responsibility of parenthood.
I am Catholic. Abortion is an important issue for Catholics, as it is for many Protestants. I find myself, at times, arguing with Christians about whether or not to vote for a Democrat because the party supports abortion. My view is, an educated voter needs to weigh all the issues, not just a single issue that provokes an emotional response, and vote for the candidate that best represents the common interest. Republican candidates know that every election cycle there will be a core group of voters that simply ignores all the issues and votes primarily on the abortion issue. There are many good, honest, hardworking people who are perpetually in hard times who consistently vote for Republicans, even though it is not in their economic best interest. The Republican candidate, once elected, will go back to Washington and simply shelve the abortion issue until the next election, and then will proceed to pursue their actual agenda, which is to uphold the status quo the elites.
I think it is interesting, as I wrote earlier, to mention that abortion rates actually go down when we have Democratic administrations, as opposed to the increase in abortion rates under Republican administrations. Take, for example, according to the recent Guttmacher study, the fact that abortion rates went down more dramatically under President Clinton, going from 1.61 million abortions in 1990 to 1.31 abortions in 2000. Between 1992 and 1996, there was a 3.4% decline in abortion rates per year; between 1996 and 2000 there was a decline of 1.2% per year. Under President Bush, the number of abortions performed went from 1.31 million (in 2000) to 1.2 million (in 2005, the most recent data). That is a decline of only 0.9% per year. Why is that? It is because people who are in hard times, who have an unexpected pregnancy, are more likely to consider having an abortion than they are when they are in economic good times.
The findings of a study released in October 2007 also point to the need to abandon the fight to overturn Roe v. Wade. The study, conducted by the World Health Organization in Geneva and the Guttmacher Institute in New York , found that abortion rates tend to be the same in countries where abortion is legal and where abortion is illegal. Virtually the same! The legality of abortion makes no difference! What is different, however, is the safety of abortions being performed and the mortality of the woman having the abortion. The study found that the women in countries where abortion was outlawed were drinking turpentine, bleach or tea made with livestock manure; inserting herbal preparations into the vagina or cervix; placing foreign bodies, such as a stick, coat hanger or chicken bone, into the uterus; or jumping from the top of stairs or a roof. The study found that there “Worldwide, an estimated five million women are hospitalized each year for treatment of abortion-related complications, such as hemorrhage and sepsis… [and] Complications due to unsafe abortion procedures account for an estimated 13% of maternal deaths worldwide, or 67,000 per year.” How is this pro-life? It is not.
Again, I turn back to the need for better sex education, both in the schools and at home, with a particular emphasis on abstinence. That said, contraceptive use also needs to be taught because not every individual is going to abide by the fact that abstinence is the only 100% way to avoid unwanted pregnancies or STD’s (though STD’s are an entirely different conversation for another day). Sex Ed cannot be a one size fits all program that abides only to religious considerations (abstinence only); instead, this needs to be a secular program that promotes good health for individuals as well as smart family planning for future generations. Again, and this is crucial, prevention is the best way to avoid unwanted pregnancies and abortions that result thereof.
And, finally, I would like to also express my deep belief that America can and will overcome this issue. There is common ground between both sides of the issue. If both sides can come together and work to create social and economic conditions that have been proven to reduce the number of abortions, then we can go a long way to reaching that goal of zero abortions (as optimistic that number may be). For this to work, we also need to support mothers who do opt to keep their child, rather than undergo an abortion. We also need to support our adoption agencies and cut a lot of the red tape that prevent or slow down the adoption process. In addition to that, we should support those families that decide to adopt children, as they are performing an admirable and honorable service to the children of our nation. As this election winds down, I hope that people start to consider an array of issues before making their decisions. If they do that, I am confident Barack Obama will be the man they elect to be the next President of the United States of America.
Some fun with Hillary Clinton!
And on to some depressing crap about Barack Obama…
Someone created a video and posted it on youtube.com that was really insulting to Barack Obama because it questioned his patriotism. This “someone” is conservative Lee Habeeb, a former producer of the Laura Ingraham Show and is currently the director of strategic content at Salem Radio Network, the conservative talk radio powerhouse. What a bastard. Here’s the video:
1) I find the Reverend’s remarks very incendiary and very divisive. There was no talk of forgiveness or unity, only hate. He would not have been my Pastor.
2) There is a well of anger and resentment that still exists within the black community.There is no way that African-Americans can possibly overcome the centuries old oppression in a mere 44 years. Poverty, jut like wealth, is inherited, as is desperation. Just because they were given equal rights in ’64, did not mean that they were suddenly on par with whites. Whites are miles ahead of blacks still, to this day. There is still racism on both sides of the racial divide, as the reverend’s remarks make absolutely clear. It will take more time to heal the wounds and to level the playing field. This country needs to talk honestly about race, but I think we’re not ready yet. People, on both sides, are too immature and sensitive to hold an honest and open discussion.
3) As for Patriotism, I do not question either Obama’s or Clinton’s patriotism. They are both serving as civil servants, which is a noble and altruistic sacrifice. However, I do think, as far as politics go, that Barack Obama would be better off if he would wear the pin and salute the flag. I don’t really care either way, but there are millions of other people who do. Common sense should have told him to wear the stupid pin and salute the flag, if only for appearances sake.
4) As for “the chickens are coming home to roost,” what about that is not factually correct? Again, his presentation is very abrasive and divisive, but his basic point is right on: America has committed a number of atrocities (including Nagasaki and Hiroshima) but they are viewed by Americans to be okay. They do not view American foreign policy as aggressive or hostile, but benevolent and peaceful. The terrorists are at war with us because of our policies in the middle-east, not because they hate us for being Christian or because we have freedom and democracy. They hate that we support Israel’s brutal military occupation of Palestine; we imposed sanctions on Iraq that were devastating the Iraqi people and resulted in the deaths of 1.5 million Iraqi civilians; and because we had troops on the Holy Lands of Mecca and Medina. Those are the reasons Usama bin Laden gave when he declared war on the United States in 1996, not religious reasons. So, whether people agree that the policies are wrong or not is a completely different argument, but the fact remains that the terrorists perceive them as being negative and harmful, so they have to fight us. That’s the truth. It’s called “blowback.” One might say that the “chickens are coming home to roost.”
5) And finally, I think Obama’s handling of the situation has been sub-par, which is par for his course of dealing with negative attention. People can celebrate and jump for joy over his speech, but he really has not adequately distanced himself from the remarks nor the pastor, which is what’s really bothering people. The “god damn America” part, coupled with the pin and salute and his wife’s remarks, really paint an unflattering portrait of Obama’s patriotism. This is a republican’s wet dream. They’re all about patriotism over there. They don’t have to make any other arguments than the patriotism argument and that will be enough to sway that block of voters. Obama’s problem all along is that he really doesn’t know how to strike back. Hillary is great at that. He can talk all he wants to about unity and change and bi-partisanship, but if he becomes President the republicans aren’t going to give up and say, “Oh, okay! We’ll work together now! Yay!” They are going to kick and scream and yell their way to defeating anything he wants to do, particularly with the war and health care. We need someone who can work with republicans when neccessary, but kick in some skulls when something needs to get done. I don’t think, judging from how he has thus far handled crises, that he is the man for the job.
And another thing, I hate to admit it, but watching CNN is like watching an orgy for Obama. I’m so sickened by this that I watch Fox News (which is equally sickening, but at least they’re not ejaculating over everthing Obama says or does). Everything about Obama is positve, or when they deal with something negative they’re always defensive. With Hillary it’s always negative and hateful. Just today, they were going after her because she finally made a statement about the Reverend Wright scandal. She did not go out of her way to bring up the subject– she was asked a question and she gave her answer. They make her seem like a vindictive bitch. If they’re butt-hurt over her comments, then they’re going to get a rude awakening when the Election gets underway and the republicans really start their attacks.
I fuckin hate Bill O’Reilly, so imagine my headache when I actually agreed with him!
Senator Barack Obama (D- Ill) might be gaining momentum, but Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D- NY) is the most qualified candidate. Here are some of the people that are endorsing Senator Clinton.
Robert Kennedy jr. and Caesar L. Chavez
Barack Obama wins the South Carolina Primary
According to the polls, Barack Obama gained roughly 55% of the vote, with John Edwards and Hillary Clinton splitting the remaining half with 18% and 27% respectively. Since African Americans are half of the registered voters in South Carolina, it was a crucial state for Barack to win in order to demonstrate that Iowa was not just a fluke. Today, 80% of those African American voters voted for Barack, with the remaining 20% voting overwhelmingly for Clinton over Edwards. He also picked up a quarter of the white vote, while Clinton and Edwards split the remaining two-thirds. Clinton picked up a disappointing 40% of women, while Barack and Edwards split the remaining 60%. Interestingly enough, six in ten voters were persuaded by Bill Clinton’s campaigning in the last couple of weeks. Over half of those white voters who decided within the last three days voted for Edwards, with the rest going to Obama and Clinton about evenly.
Here is the latest delegate count:
The Democratic nominee needs to win 2,025 delegates.
The Republican nominee needs to win 1,191 delegates.
The latest LA Times/Bloomberg Poll found that Clinton would fare best, according to registered voters, in a general election against any of the Republican candidates:
McCain 38%Clinton 49%
In a recent LA Times/CNN poll, Hillary Clinton was ahead of Obama in California:
Being that New York is the state that Clinton represents, she is expected to win that contest. Here are the results of a Times-Herald poll:
The results of a Rasmussen poll taken in New Jersey:
An IVR Poll in Texas:
Quinnipiac University conducted a poll in Ohio and found that Senator Clinton was ahead of Senator Obama:
I’m tired of writing this all out, so here is this:
Arizona Clinton 37% Obama 27
Alabama Clinton 43% Obama 28
Connecticut Clinton 41% Obama 27
Oklahoma Clinton 45% Obama 19
Utah Clinton 31% Obama 18
Missouri Clinton 44% Obama 31
Arkansas Clinton 57% Obama 17
Delaware Clinton 41% Obama 17
Minnesota Clinton 47% Obama 22
Tennessee Clinton 34% Obama 20
We should know who the nominee is by February 6.
And for the Republicans…
New Jersey McCain… 29 Romney… 14 Huckabee… 9
New York McCain… 30 Romney… 9 Huckabee… 8
Georgia McCain… 19 Romney… 16 Huckabee… 34
California McCain… 29 Romney… 17 Huckabee… 10
Arizona McCain… 40 Romney… 23 Huckabee… 9
Alabama McCain… 27 Romney… 15 Huckabee… 27
Connecticut McCain… 39 Romney… 11 Huckabee… 8
Oklahoma McCain… 29 Romney… 8 Huckabee… 31
Colorado McCain… 11 Romney… 8 Huckabee… 5
Illinois McCain… 31 Romney… 20 Huckabee… 11
Utah McCain… 6 Romney… 65 Huckabee… 2
Missouri McCain… 31 Romney… 21 Huckabee… 25
New Mexico McCain… 20 Romney… 7 Huckabee… –
Arkansas McCain… 9 Romney… 7 Huckabee… 59
Delaware McCain… 14 Romney… 10 Huckabee… –
Idaho McCain… 14 Romney… 38 Huckabee… –
Minnesota McCain… 22 Romney… 5 Huckabee… 2
Tennessee McCain… 12 Romney… 7 Huckabee… 24
These candidates all know who they are facing in the general election…
And Hillary knows it…
For the Democrats, if the results are close by the time the Convention rolls around, we may see John Edwards attempt to throw his weight around, albeit light. Barack and Hillary might begin courting Edwards for his support because he may very well be the kigmaker. He might be looking for a VP spot, to position himself for a future White House bid, or for some other important position. This is why Edwards has insisted that he will go all the way to the Convention.
Oh, and Rambo exceeded my expectations. It had an overly simplistic storyline, but the action and gore effects were fantabulous. I left with a smile.
The LA Times has published new poll numbers today. They show Hillary Clinton leading nationally, but Barak Obama is closing that gap. The poll also shows that John McCain is leading nationally, with Mike Huckabee in second and Mitt Romney a not too distant third. For a more in depth look at the results here is a link:
National Poll Numbers
Breakdown of issues in the Democratic and Republican Parties
A closer look at the Republican results