Photo Credit: AFP

Hillary Clinton joined the Irish in Pennsylvania to campaign as nervousness set in over Obama’s ties to a controversial minister.  Clinton is by no means down and out.  With the luster somewhat tarnished in the last couple of weeks, Obama shows signs of vulnerability.  His association with a minister known for negative attacks on America has led Obama to distance himself from the Reverand Jeremiah Wright, Jr. – the minister he has known for two decades.

While Obama and his supporters have constantly accused Hillary Clinton of playing politics, what better evidence of Obama’s tactics than waiting until now to disclaim the inflamatory statements of the minister?  The answer is to save political face.  Although Obama began shying away from Wright last year, he did not denounce him until just recently.  Obama’s difficulties come at a time when both candidates are fighting to nail down the remaining primaries.

Two polls taken recently in Pennsylvania show that Hillary Clinton is maintaining her lead with 52% Democratic popular support, while Barack Obama has just 41%. The poll shows Clinton 9% points ahead Obama. The poll – with MoE = 4.0% – signals massive victory for Clinton.

Insider Advantage/Majority Opinion Research conducted a Pennsylvania poll from 8-10 March. Again, the poll indicates a huge win over Obama. It shows Hillary Clinton leading with 55% Democratic voters, while it shows Barack Obama with just 36%. With MoE = 4.0% – the poll shows Clinton with 19% points advantage over Obama.

With a little over five weeks to go before the Pennsylvania primary, Obama cannot afford to have his image tarnished any further.  Hillary is a tough, intelligent, and competent candidate, and her lead in Pennsylvania once again demonstrates that she is a candidate who still has great drawing power.


About Charlotte A. Weybright

I own a home in the historical West Central Neighborhood of Fort Wayne, Indiana. I have four grown sons and nine grandchildren - four grandsons and five granddaughters. I love to work on my home, and I enjoy crafts of all types. But, most of all, I enjoy being involved in political and community issues.
This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Democrats, Hillary Clinton. Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Jeff Pruitt says:

    “While Obama and his supporters have constantly accused Hillary Clinton of playing politics, what better evidence of Obama’s tactics than waiting until now to disclaim the inflamatory statements of the minister?”

    Or maybe, as he has said, he wasn’t present for those remarks and didn’t know anything about them. This is standard Rovian, race-baiting, fear-mongering BS.

    I cannot imagine, nor will I support, a return of the Democratic party back to the DLC-Clinton wing. Dean will be out at the DNC and McCauliff or Harld Ford Jr will be put in there to go back to the old triangulation strategy of ignoring 49% of the population. More Clinton “free trade” policies and more “business as usual” in DC.

    The Clintons had their time but it’s now past and I hope they don’t return. Come convention time Obama will have more pledged delegates, more popular votes and more states won – he will have been the choice of the people. The only way Clinton can win is to pursue a strategy that allows insiders and elitists to overturn the will of the people. It’s despicable and it will only lead to intra-party war.

    But I don’t think she cares – she’d rather destroy Obama, have him lose the general election and run again in 4 years…

  2. Jeff:

    I am constantly amazed at the “thou can do no wrong” attitude of Obama’s supporters. The man is human, he does not walk on water, and he is a politican.

    If he wasn’t aware of Reverand Wright’s views, then why did he invite him to give an invocation at his presidential announcment event and then cancel the invitation? Oh, never mind, Obama has explained it away as not wanting to draw attention to the church.

    In other words, the more attention drawn to the church, the more attention focused on Barack Obama and the teachings of Reverand Wright. He already recognized the potential for the controversy then.

    You don’t attend a church for 20 years and not know the views of the Minister. Whether he sat in the pews or not does not change the fact that he was affiliated for two decades with a minister of Wright’s philosophy. Of course he knew of Wright’s philosophy, and to argue that he had no knowledge of the remarks flies in the face of logic.

    I am really tired of the phrase “Rovian.” Anything that happens anymore is labeled Rovian without further explanation – whether a tactic is legitimate or not. Everything is Rovian.

    The knowledge of Obama’s ties to Wright has nothing to do with fear-mongering – again a term that is also bandied about without much explanation. Reporting that Obama’s minister – one he has known for 20 years – has made anti-American speeches is fair game in the political world. That is why you distance yourself from that kind of rhetoric and why Obama knew the danger over a year ago.

    Politicans are constantly looking for connections between candidates and pther individuals – wether they be negative or postive connections.

    After all, aren’t words important? Or at least that is what Obama has been saying all along.

    And as far as the Clintons having had their chance, that should be “Clinton” in the singular. Hillary was not president and Obama’s supporters continue to make light of her involvement in Bill’s administrations. So you can’t have it both ways – either she was a part of the administrations or she wasn’t.

    As to the free trade policies I don’t believe Obama has any intention of renegotiating the free trade agreements as indicated by the follow-up to the debate in Ohio. After he had said on the air that he would renegoiate NAFTA, he tried to placate Canadian fears by allowing one of his advisors to tell Canadian officials that it was just “political posturing.”

  3. Jeff Pruitt says:

    Let me start by saying that I was an Edwards supporter but now I am likely going to vote for Obama. That doesn’t mean I don’t think Clinton would make a better President than McCain – clearly she would. The problem is the Clinton campaign is using general election tactics that are going to hurt Obama once (ok, if) he becomes the nominee. Arguing that the Republicans would do it anyway is beside the point. When the public sees a Democrat attack another Democrat it gives the appearance that the attack is valid and not couched in the typical partisan politics.

    The very idea that you believe Obama made those NAFTA comments to the Canadians proves my point. That has been 100% discredited yet the Clinton campaign continued to use it. By the way, Hillary Clinton has spent her entire political career praising NAFTA until very recently – yet I’m supposed to be duped into believing that she would seriously pursue fair trade policies? I don’t think so.

    If you don’t like the term Rovian then how about Swift-boating. Personally, I don’t care who Obama’s minister is. Do you believe Obama shares all the views of his minister? Of course not. And I highly doubt the Clinton campaign wants anyone bringing up all the old 90’s dirt dug up by Republicans to be used against them. It’s just not how a primary should be run.

    As for fear mongering what do you think this minister dust-up is all about – honestly? It’s about tying Obama to an “angry black man” in hopes of labeling him an “angry black man” by association. I call it fear mongering but you can call it what you want. It’s the same reason the Clinton campaign put out an ad where they darkened Obama’s complexion and made his nose look bigger. Those are Rovian tactics in my book and beneath her and what she stands for.

    I have philosophical differences with the Clintons (Hillary and Bill) and especially dislike the political crowd that surrounds them. But if she’s the nominee then I would back her 100% against McCain. The party shouldn’t destroy itself from within and that’s my view on what the Clinton campaign is currently doing…

  4. Jeff Pruitt says:


    I just read a post over at DKos that I agree with 100% and I think summarizes my feelings (that I previously expressed) quite well. I’m not sharing this in hopes of convincing you or anyone else – merely to point out why I and many others feel the way we do towards Clinton. Here’s a rather long exerpt:

    But I could deal with all of that, really, if Clinton was headed toward victory. I see this as a long-term movement, and I’ve always expected setbacks along the way. Clinton isn’t the most horrible person in the world. She’s actually quite nice, despite all her flaws, and would make a fine enough president.

    If she was winning.

    But she’s not, and that’s the rub.

    First of all, the only path to victory for Clinton is via coup by super delegate.

    She knows this. That’s why there’s all the talk about poaching pledged delegates and spinning uncertainty around Michigan and Florida, and laying the case for super delegates to discard the popular will and stage a coup.

    Yet a coup by super delegate would sunder the party in civil war.

    Clinton knows this, it’s her only path to victory, and she doesn’t care. She is willing — nay, eager to split the party apart in her mad pursuit of power.

    If the situations were reversed, and Obama was lagging in the delegates, popular vote, states won, money raised, and every other reasonable measure, then I’d feel the same way about Obama. (I pulled the plug early on Dean in 2004.) But that’s not the case.

    It is Clinton, with no reasonable chance of victory, who is fomenting civil war in order to overturn the will of the Democratic electorate. As such, as far as I’m concerned, she doesn’t deserve “fairness” on this site. All sexist attacks will be dealt with — those will never be acceptable. But otherwise, Clinton has set an inevitably divisive course and must be dealt with appropriately.

    To reiterate, she cannot win without overturning the will of the national Democratic electorate and fomenting civil war, and she doesn’t care.

    That’s why she has earned my enmity and that of so many others. That’s why she is bleeding super delegates. That’s why she’s even bleeding her own caucus delegates (remember, she lost a delegate in Iowa on Saturday). That’s why Keith Olbermann finally broke his neutrality. That’s why Nancy Pelosi essentially cast her lot with Obama. That’s why Democrats outside of the Beltway are hoping for the unifying Obama at the top of the ticket, and not a Clinton so divisive, she is actually working to split her own party.

    Meanwhile, Clinton and her shrinking band of paranoid holdouts wail and scream about all those evil people who have “turned” on Clinton and are no longer “honest power brokers” or “respectable voices” or whatnot, wearing blinders to reality, talking about silly little “strikes” when in reality, Clinton is planning a far more drastic, destructive and dehabilitating civil war.

    People like me have two choices — look the other way while Clinton attempts to ignite her civil war, or fight back now, before we cross that dangerous line. Honestly, it wasn’t a difficult choice. And it’s clear, looking at where the super delegates, most bloggers, and people like Olbermann are lining up, that the mainstream of the progressive movement is making the same choice.

    And the more super delegates see what is happening, and what Clinton has in store, the more imperative it is that they line up behind Obama and put an end to it before it’s too late

  5. Phil Marx says:


    I think it is unfair to refer to the super delegate system a coup. That is the system that the Democratic Party has instituted for itself and has chosen to use for many years.

    There are many other electoral practices employed by both parties and for the system as a whole that are equally unfair. It seems like the only time most people complain about these methods is when it harms their own candidate.

    The super delegate system is legitimate, because it is the system which was in place at the begining of this cycle. I don’t believe that either candidate spoke against this sytem in the beginning. But now, only when it looks like Obama may be harmed by it, his supporters claim it is unfair. If that system needs changed, it should be done immediately after this election.

  6. Jeff:

    I appreciate the information, and you are right, it won’t convince Hillary supporters. I have a few observations:

    1. Why is it that Clinton’s ties to other than sterling individuals can be questiond and Obama’s ties cannot? If Clinton were tied to a minister who had made the same comments, you better believe the Obama camp and the Hillary haters would have been on it.

    2. The democratic party has put into place a system that relies on regular delegates and super delegates. If democrats don’t like the notion that a candidate can be backed by enough superdelgates to win, then why not change the system instead of chastising someone for relying on it?

    3. Clinton is not eager to split the party apart. She is running for the presidency, and it just happens this year that we have one heck of a fight. Would Obama step aside if the positions were reversed? I think not, and his supporters would more than likely not want him to.

    4. As to the comments by Obama’s advisor on NAFTA, why was he even meeting with the Canadians in the first place right after the Ohio debate? Could it be that he really was sent to assuage tensions and he made comments he shouldn’t have made? Once done, the only thing to do was damage control.

    I think you do miss the point that Obama has based his campaign on words and how important and inspiring they can be. Yet he has associated himself with a minister whose words are seen as divisive and hostile. Obama realized this last year when he began to distance himself from the minister. Again, if he wasn’t concerned and worried why spend energy saying he vehemently disagreed with the minister?

    To be honest, Jeff, I think that those who are now writing why they have decided they don’t like Clinton had their minds made up months ago. I would almost bet that as soon as Hillary announced, the Hillary haters immediately began to formulate a strategy against her.


    1. Senator Obama as Chairman of an oversight committee with responsibility to fight Al Qeada in Afghanistan:

    Senator Barack Obama says he has the judgment to be president, repeatedly criticizing Clinton for supporting the Iraq war. I can’t just figure out the fix, right here: As chairman of an oversight committee charged with the force of fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, Senator Barack Obama was too busy running for president to hold even one hearing. Senator Barack Obama, admitted: “I became chairman of this committee, at the beginning of this campaign, at the beginning of 2007, so it is true that we haven’t had oversight hearings on Afghanistan.” Is this the right judgement that will make America safe. We support Clinton because she is ready to secure America, with nothing held back. In fact, Clinton will NEVER be too busy to defend our national security-bringing our troops home from Iraq and pursing Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

    No wonder former admirals, generals, and senior defense officials, not long ago, gave their reasons for supporting Senator Clinton to be our next Commander-in-Chief. In a conference call with reporters, some of the nation’s most distinguished flag officers testified to Senator Clinton’s qualifications, experience, and strength of character.

    Distinquished Generals and Flag Officers, have endorsed and continue to endorse Hillary Clinton to be the Nation’s next President. Senator Clinton has received five endorsements in recent days, including those of General Henry Hugh Shelton, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral William Owens, the former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and Army Major General Antonio M. Taguba. Overall she has the endorsement of two former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, five admirals and generals at the four-star rank. Remember, they are in addition to over 2,000 veterans and military retirees who are members of Senator Clinton’s national and state veterans’ steering committees.

    These include, but are not limited to the following: General Wesley Clark
    Admiral William Owens, General Johnnie E. Wilson, Lt. Gen. Joe Ballard
    Lt. Gen. Claudia J. Kennedy, Vice Admiral Joseph A. Sestak, Lt. Gen. Frederick E. Vollrath, Major General George A. Buskirk, Jr., Major General Paul D. Eaton, Rear Admiral Stuart Platt, Rear Admiral David Stone
    Major General Antonio M. Taguba, Brigadier General Michael Dunn
    Brigadier General Evelyn “Pat” Foote, Brigadier General John M. Watkins, Jr., Brigadier General Jack Yeager, Former Secretary of the Army and Veterans Affairs Togo West, Former Secretary of the Navy, John Dalton

    2. The Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Sen. Obama’s relationship:

    Senator Obama’s Pastor for 20 years, Friend, Mentor, Spiritual leader, gave inspiration to write a book, ‘Audacity of Hope’, Was married by him, Baptized two daughters by him, Thanked him after he won the Senate seat, Consulted him before deciding to run for president, Prayed privately with him before announcing his candidacy, Member of his campaign team (resigned today), And was like an uncle.

    Sen. Obama said that he NEVER HEARD of this kind of comment from the pastor. I agree, Senator Obama used all the convenient words, denounce, reject, repudiate, condemn, e tal to turn off the heat.

    Please, you be the judge if Sen. Obama has ‘Judgment to Lead’ the United States of America, the most powerful nation on the planet, as you know, ‘judgement to lead’ is Sen. Obama’s campaign slogan.

    Back to the Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s relationship with Sen Obama. It is now an open secret that Sen. Obama took his two beautiful daughters to this church- are these the lessons Sen. Obama wants to teach his young children? What does Sen. Obama say to them when he disagrees with part of the sermon? As an honest American, would you continue to expose your young children to speech you disagree with and then try to teach how to reject a part of the speech? What does this choice say about Sen. Obama’s judgment and how much of what Rev. Wright says he rejects?

    3. Because Sen Obama was ALMOST becoming the front runner and could end up as the next President, we have a right to know before we vote some of his explanations to what is in parlance today. Below are some questions to Sen. Obama:

    Sen. Obama, in a previous debate you told the Nation that you worked for the slumlord Tony Rezko just for 5 hrs. According to a report in Salon magazine, your relationship went back to 17 years; in fact Mr. Rezko has looked after your political growth, contributed a great deal of funds to your campaign and was involved in the purchase of your home and land. Mr. Rezko is in jail now. So please tell us the truth. Particularly that you made an error in judgement to have your life driven for 17 years by a slumlord from Syria who exploited the state and federal govts for millions of dollars, and he did not even provide heat and electricity to the housing units where poor African Americans lived. And you were his friend.

    Sen. Obama, you say that Hillary Clinton made an error in judgement in voting for the Iraq war. If I were in Hillary’s position, and had all the various documents from CIA and NSC, I probably would not have taken a chance with the safety of my country and would have voted for the war; I could not imagine President Bush by no mistake of his giving me false information.

    Sen. Obama, you were not a senator and you told that you would not have known, how you would have voted, were you a senator. Even if you voted yes I would not fault you because I do not want any one taking a chance protecting American citizens. If you were a senator, and did not know what you know now, how you would have voted? Justify your answer with your subsequent votes on the matter.

    Sen. Obama, you have been given huge campaign contributions by a nuclear energy company in Illinois, and the legislation to control deposit of nuclear waste was watered down by you according to NYT. What is your explanation?

    Sen. Obama, you simply are not qualified to be President. In your 60 minute interview you indicated your qualifications have to do with running this campaign and your Senate Office; and according to one of your advisors, your foreign policy credentials involve taking a course in foreign affairs while you were in college. Tell me please, how does this qualify you to sit with the Generals of the US military, and operation leaders in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and understand them?

    Sen. Obama, how many times have you visited Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and spend time with our forces and our offices there? What is your take from these visits.

    Sen. Obama, please tell America about your competence and substance about pulling the levers of the govt, and extracting accountability.

    Sen. Obama, why are African American population supporting you from 80-90%. Sen. Extraordinary margins of such support are unheard of in the history of democracy except in Islamic countries in the middle east and central asia where dictators run phony democratic elections and obtain 90% support from enslaved people. In addition, your devotees are pouring in contributions far, far exceeding the norm. To a lot of people you have become a God, and your rhetoric, and promises with no explanation of how are you paying for it, contribute more to this frenzy. You have made electing a President of a country into a carnival and showbiz hoopla. Do you think that this is good for the country?

    Sen. Obama, you continue to claim correctly that you opposed the war in Iraq in the beginning. But after that you have aided, just like Hillary, President Bush to wage this war. What have you done to stop this war after you became a senator? Your colleague Dennis Kucinich opposed the war from the beginning, continued to oppose it, and every chance he got, he voted against the budget for the war. Why did you not oppose the war like Dennis Kucinich?

    Sen. Obama, you say that you do not work with the politicians and corporate hacks who lobby; but you do at the State level, according to News reports. Do you? if yes, why?

    Sen. Obama, if you answer the above questions honestly you will find that you are not any different from any other politician inside the beltway.

    Sen. Obama, your messages of hope, unity and cooperation are slogans designed to be in resonance with the aspirations of the American citizens, they are just slogans, the available data show that you do not mean to live by them, just like any other Washington insider politicians. Your argument that you are free from the influence of Washington establishment is not true; the torch of the Democratic Party is being passed on to you by the Kennedys, by the titular head of Dems John Kerry, and you are being supported by the showbiz mogul Oprah, and you have won more delegates and more States and argue that you are an underdog. Is not this the typical Washington insider lie?

    Sen. Obama, we realize that you do not want an issue-driven debate because you are on a roll, and debates are dangerous; a moderator can ask you focussed question since there are only two people. But you will not be serving the country properly and wisely if you dodge American Demand Driven Debates (ADDD). If Hillary were in your position, in a roll for the nomination, obviously she will resist debating you. But this is OK because she is not promising a kumbayya Presidency like you, but a tough inside the beltway Presidency breathing competence, substance and accountability.

    4. Sen. Obama and the NAFTA:

    Countless Americans, without specific number, don’t believe Sen. Obama has any intention of renegotiating the free trade agreements (NAFTA) as indicated by the follow-up to the debate in Ohio. After he had told the American people that he would renegoiate NAFTA, he tried to placate Canadian fears by allowing one of his advisors to tell Canadian officials that it was just “political posturing.”

    Fellow Americans, we face an enemy that has repeatedly attacked us and remains committed to killing Americans and the destruction of our most cherished values. This election is about who is best prepared to lead and defend our nation and its international allies as Commander-in-Chief from day one. This election is about MAKING SURE we have the experienced leadership to guide us to victory in this war, protect the nation against future terrorist attacks, and support our troops and first responders who are on the frontlines of the war.

    We ALL like Sen. Obama, BUT we have the United States of America to govern in a very difficult time of Islamic jihad, the economy, health care, housing crisis, Iraq, nuclear weapons and our image abroad; the OVERWHELMING challenges confronting us in the 21st century. The stakes in this election are so very high, and it will take a leader with Hillary Clinton’s strength, will, resolve, determination and experience to tackle the challenges we face.If Hillary should succeed, America and the world would be changed forever and for the better, FOREVER.

    Not only is she the best qualified candidate, Hillary Rodham Clinton will win in November, take back the White House, and deliver real tangible and VALID results for America and globally by creating a strong, secure, prosperous and globally respected America, AGAIN.

    About Sen. Obama: I am saying, DON’T WE ALREADY have ENOUGH WARNING SIGNS?

    Fellow Americans, there will be a clear choice November 2008, and I strongly believe that Hillary Clinton’s life has prepared her to lead our country, the country we love so very much in the transcendent challenge of the 21st century. God bless Hillary Clinton, OUR NEXT President for a secure, strong, prosperous and globally respected America. God Bless America.

    Reverend Felton D. McBride
    Los Angeles, California

Comments are closed.