The Clinton campaign is publicly 'challenging' Sen. Obama to another debate before the May 6th contests in North Carolina and Indiana. The two candidates have previously met in 21 nationally televised debates including 4 exclusive debates. Clinton is calling for a Lincoln-Douglas style 90-min debate with no moderators.
Speaking from the stump in South Bend, Indiana, Sen. Clinton made her cowboy-esque challenge: “So here’s my proposal: I’m offering Senator Obama the chance to debate me one-on-one, no moderators. Just the two of us, going for 90 minutes, asking and answering questions. We’ll set whatever rules seem fair.”
Sen. Obama indicated on FOX News Sunday that he would not accept a debate before the May 6th primaries. “I’m not ducking. We’ve had 21 (debates), and so what we’ve said is, with two weeks, two big states, we want to make sure we’re talking to as many folks possible on the ground taking questions from voters,” he said, so no debates.
The Clinton campaign formalized the challenge in a letter from campaign manager Maggie Williams to the Obama campaign. Obama strategist David Axelrod responded: “I think if Lincoln-Douglas had debated 21 times, I don’t think there would be much appetite for another Lincoln-Douglas debate.”
The debate challenge is a part of Clinton's most recent strategy; playing the fighting hawk. Despite Sen. Clinton's $10 million day of fundraising immediately following the Pennsylvania primary, her campaign is still facing significant financial woes; a debate is millions of dollars worth of free advertising. As she is getting out spent, but also, out fundraised, in both Indiana and North Carolina, the campaign has turned to desperate measures.
This is not the first time Sen. Clinton has resorted to the aggressive desperado challenge to a debate. After losing 9 straight contests in February, Clinton revved up the tough talk, demanding a debate before the Feb. 19th contests in Wisconsin and Hawaii.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
The New Debate Over Debates
Sunday Talking Heads Preview
This Week with George Stephanopoulos
--Sen. Evan Bayh, D- Ind., Clinton Backer
--Fmr. Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., Obama Backer
--Rep. Artur Davis, D-Ala., Obama Backer
--Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, Clinton Backer
Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace
--Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.
Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer
--Chief Strategist David Axelrod, Obama Campaign
--Communications Director Howard Wolfson, Clinton Campaign
Meet The Press with Tim Russert
--DNC Chairman Howard Dean
Graceful Departure
As the Clinton portrays herself to voters as the continually respawning terminator of politics, the fighter that never quits; it has many within the Democratic party, well, down right scared. While she may be able to effectively portray her determination as a merit to the voters, party elders are concerned her determination will result in the termination of the Democratic party.
The prospect of a brokered convention scares everyone. However, solving the issue behind closed doors in the month following the final June 3rd contests posses its own problems too.
Obama supporter and Missouri Rep. William Lacy Clay (pictured left) called on Sen. Clinton to do what is right in order to ensure a united Democratic front: “If you have any, any kind of loyalty to the Democratic Party, perhaps you need to rethink your strategy and bow out gracefully in order to save this party from a disastrous end in November.”
Clinton's moment to bow out 'gracefully' has come and gone, but each day the destructive terminator trudges on is a blow to the Democratic party.
May 6th is the golden opportunity for Clinton to get out. She is guaranteed a big loss in North Carolina where 115 delegates are at stake. Indiana remains a horse race, but with only 72 delegates at stake, Sen. Obama will be the one on May 7th netting more votes and delegates (and, likely, more superdelegates). Considering Clinton most win 70% of the delegates in ALL remaining contests, a loss on May 6th, the two largest contests remaining, means only one thing: she must bow out.
The determined beast that she is, everyone knows she will march forward if she wins Indiana, even if its only by 1 pt. But what if she loses Indiana?
In a series of radio interviews, Sen. Clinton declined to acknowledged she would exit the race upon a loss in the Hoosier State:
In satellite interviews with television stations in Indiana and Kentucky, Clinton three times sidestepped questions about whether she would remain in the race if she lost Indiana's May 6 primary.
"We have a long way to go," Clinton told a Louisville station when asked if she would campaign in Kentucky if she lost Indiana. "I'm looking forward to coming up to Kentucky." The Bluegrass State holds a primary on May 20.
Pressed on the question, she said, "Well, I don't make any predictions or speculate on things that haven't happened yet."
Asked a similar question by a station in Evansville, Ind., she hewed to her message and avoided future commitments. "I'm thinking about how I'm going to do well in Indiana," she said.
Oy vey!
Ad Watch: Clinton
Clinton has a new 30 second TV spot focusing on gas pries that will be airing in the Hoosier State.
A Day In The Life ~ Saturday, April 26th
BARACK OBAMA
-- 10:30 am ET: Attends event with voters, Marion, IN
-- 2:15 pm ET: Attends event with voters, Anderson, IN
HILLARY CLINTON
-- 10:00 am ET: Attends rally with voters, Fort Wayne, IN
-- 2:00 pm ET: Attends rally with voters, South Bend, IN
BILL CLINTON
-- 11:45 am ET: Attends event with voters, Junction City, OR
-- 1:30 pm ET: Attends event with voters, Albany, OR
-- 3:00 pm ET: Attends event with voters, Monmouth, OR
-- 4:45 pm ET: Attends event with voters, McMinnville, OR
-- 7:00 pm ET: Attends event with voters, Oregon City, OR
-- 8:30 pm ET: Attends event with voters, Portland, OR
JOHN MCCAIN
-- No public events scheduled
MITT ROMNEY
-- 1:30 pm ET: Addresses Nevada Republicans on behalf of McCain at the state convention, Reno, NV
Friday, April 25, 2008
Sealing the Deal
In classic MSM short-sighted fashion, many political commentators jumped on the "Why can't Obama close the deal?" story in the wake of the Pennsylvania primary.
It is often overlooked that Clinton was up by nearly 25 pts only 2-3 weeks prior to the Pennsylvania primary.
The New Republic's Jonathan Chait sees the flip-side: Why can't/couldn't Clinton close the deal?
For all of Hillary's brand recognition, institutional advantages (including the ferocious support of a former president), fund-raising head start and inherent appeal to the party's core constituency (working class white women), she finds herself on the ropes, in debt and having to go hugely negative just to stay alive. Does any sane Democrat really think that this is a viable alternative to Obama?
Chait has more on what's seriously wrong with the "Why can't Obama close it?" argument:
First, you can't automatically assume that any constituency that didn't support him in the primary also won't support him in the general election....
[The] assumption that a candidate's primary base will be the same as his general election base strikes me as seriously flawed. If Hillary Clinton wins the nomination, will her electoral base consist of blue-collar whites? No, it will be highly similar to Obama's, with a major reliance on minorities and white liberals. As my colleague Chris Orr has just burst into my office to point out -- don't be alarmed, he does this several times a day -- right now Obama is having a hard time winning blue collar whites on the economy in large part because he has an opponent with a virtually identical economic platform. When he has an opponent who's tethered himself to President Bush's highly unpopular economic policies, winning over blue collar whites on the economy will get a lot easier. Extrapolating from primary dynamics to general election dynamics is very dicey business.
The media has been obsessing over Obama's electability problem in a vacuum. But the Real Clear Politics poll average still has Obama performing a bit better than Clinton versus McCain -- and this is after several weeks when Obama suffered his worst two moments of the campaign, and the Republicans have been concentrating all their fire on him....
There has been obsessive media analysis of the demographic groups that support Clinton but might not vote for Obama. It's a fair point. But, given that Obama is running better than Clinton in trial heats, then the groups that would vote for Obama but not Clinton must be at least as numerous....
I agree that Obama will have a tough go of it against McCain. But the Clinton campaign has been marshaling the electability argument not as a reason for Democrats to feel glum about their inevitable nominee, but as a reason for superdelegates to flock to her. Their argument doesn't work if Clinton is even weaker than he is.
...all very valid points.
The Indiana Horse Race
A new Indianapolis Star/WTHR poll out today shows a dead-heat in Indiana. The poll has Obama with a statistically insignificant 3pt lead over Sen. Clinton in the Hoosier State.
Sen. Barack Obama holds a narrow lead over Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in Indiana, with the outcome of the May 6 primary likely in the hands of a large number of undecided voters, according to a new Indianapolis Star-WTHR poll.
The poll showed that Obama -- helped in particular by strong backing from black voters -- is leading Clinton 41 percent to 38 percent among likely Democratic primary voters. But given the poll's margin of error of plus or minus 4.2 percentage points, this race is either candidate's to win or lose.
Among Hoosiers who said they would vote in the general election -- a statewide sample of voters with a margin of error of plus or minus 4.4 percentage points -- Obama beat McCain 49 percent to 41 percent. Clinton broke even with McCain, with both backed by 46 percent of those polled.
And, by 49 percent to 35 percent, Democratic primary voters said Obama is the candidate best able to win in the general election.
The poll found that voters age 18 to 35 favor Obama over Clinton 48 percent to 34 percent, while the oldest voters, age 55 and older, prefer Clinton 43 percent to 32 percent.
Obama is winning urban and suburban voters, 47 percent to 33 percent, while Clinton wins the rural areas by more than 2-to-1: 55 percent to 20 percent.
Clinton is doing well among white women, who back her 48 percent to 29 percent. Among all women, though, Obama is slightly edging her out 41 percent to 40 percent.
Among voters who back Obama, 6 percent said it's because they don't believe the nation is ready for a female president. Among those supporting Clinton, 7 percent said it's because they don't believe the nation is ready for a black president.
A Day In The Life ~ Friday, April 25th
BARACK OBAMA
-- 6:15 pm ET: Attends town hall meeting with voters, Kokomo, IN
-- Plays 3-on-3 pick-up basketball game with local students, IN
MICHELLE OBAMA
-- 4:00 pm ET: Attends event with voters, Fort Wayne, IN
HILLARY CLINTON
-- 8:30 am ET: Attends event with voters, Jacksonville, NC
-- 2:15 pm ET: Attends town hall meeting with voters, Bloomington, IN
-- 7:00 pm ET: Attends event with voters, Gary, IN
-- 8:30 pm ET: Attends rally with voters, East Chicago, IN
BILL CLINTON
-- 10:45 pm ET: Attends event with voters, North Bend, OR
JOHN MCCAIN
-- 3:00 pm ET: Addresses college class, Little Rock, AK
-- 3:45 pm ET: Holds media availability, Little Rock, AK
-- 6:15 pm ET: Holds media availability, Oklahoma City, OK
At the White House and Beyond. . .
PRESIDENT BUSH
-- 8:45 am ET: Signs the Presidential Proclamation in Honor of Malaria Awareness Day, Washington, DC
-- 9:20 am ET: Delivers remarks on economic stimulus package checks, Washington, DC
-- 11:00 am ET: Visits Northwest Boys and Girls Club, Hartford, CT
-- 1:25 pm ET: Attends David Cappiello for Congress and Connecticut Victory 2008 luncheon, South Kent, CT
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY
-- 1:30 pm ET: Delivers remarks at reception for Rep. Jeff Miller and NRCC, Fort Walton Beach, FL
Thursday, April 24, 2008
UPDATE: Zimbabwean Election
Zimbabwe opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai was the "clear" victor of last month's poll, a top US envoy says. BBC World has more HERE.
Related stories on Once Told:
Breaking the Influence of Special Interests in the UK
The Democratic contest in the US has brought the influence of special interests into the national spotlight. Most commonly, Barack Obama will reference the oil and drug companies strangle hold on US national politics. However, special interests are certainly not an issue unique to American politics.
In the UK, the case in question involves a corruption inquiry into a case between the Saudi Arabia and UK's British Aerospace Engineering Systems, BEA. Under suspicions that BEA had paid off the Saudi government in order to secure the arms bid, Britian's Serious Fraud Office, SFO, launched an investigation into the deal. However, shortly there after, the case was dropped when the Saudi government threatened to discontinue sharing intelligence information with the British government.
BBC World reports:
On Thursday judges said the decision to halt the inquiry represented an "abject surrender" to pressure from a foreign government.
Lord Justice Moses said that the SFO and the government had given into "blatant threats" that Saudi co-operation in the fight against terror would end unless the probe into corruption was halted.
Mr Clegg has written to the prime minister, saying the inquiry should be re-opened and a "full inquiry" be carried out into how it came to be dropped in the first place.
He also says Gordon Brown has backtracked on plans to reform the role of the attorney general in the draft Constitutional Renewal Bill and urges a rethink.
And he asks the prime minister to update Parliament on the progress of other anti-corruption investigations involving Britain - including a separate US probe into BAE.
"How can Britain stand up to corruption and bribery abroad if we are not spotless at home?," he said.
The SFO said national security would have been undermined by the inquiry and SFO director Robert Wardle has said he took the decision to drop it independently and did not coming under any political pressure.
Former Foreign Office minister Dennis MacShane told BBC Radio 4's Today programme the ruling appeared to undermine Parliament.
He called for a debate on "whether the government of the day can take decisions in what it perceives to be the national interest".
And the debate ought to be an interesting one. With the lack of Arabic speaking (not to mention Arabic-looking) British operatives in the region, there is no doubt that the Saudi's provide much needed intelligence to the UK government. However, for the UK to cancel a serious corruption inquiry at the mere mention of the Suadi's denying intelligence information speaks volumes to the Saudi influence over domestic politics (and the US-Saudi relationship is no different).
Former Prime Minister Tony Blair has received much criticism for his decision to terminate the corruption probe. Per Al Jazeera News:
Critics have attacked Tony Blair, Britain's former prime minister, for saying it was right to halt the investigation, which he said would have damaged Britain's national security if it went ahead.
In the earlier ruling high court judges said the fraud authorities and the government had caved in to threats made by Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the former ambassador to the US and now head of Saudi Arabia's National Security Council, that Saudi Arabia would drop a multibillion pound contract for Typhoon Eurofighter jets.
A $40bn deal for 72 Typhoons was signed in September.
The House of Lord's appeal is now expected to be heard towards the end of this year though no date has yet been fixed.
[UPDATED 12:05 pm ET] UK-Saudi Arms Deals Timeline courtesy of BBC World:
- 1985: Britain signs deal to sell 72 Tornados and Hawk jets to Saudis
- May 2004: Guardian reports MOD police are investigating £60m payments made during deal
- Nov 2004: BAE confirms it is being investigated by SFO, but denies wrongdoing
- 1 Dec 2006: French firm Dassault in talks to sell the Rafale, a rival to Eurofighter, to Saudi Arabia.
- 14 Dec 2006: MPs told SFO probe has been stopped
- 17 Jan 2007: OECD anti-bribery group has "serious concerns" about the decision
- June 2007: BAE says it is being investigated by US justice department
- April 2008: High Court rules the SFO acted unlawfully
The Silent War
(Source: Al Jazeera News)
Since 1983, Sri Lanka has been consumed by an ongoing Civil War. The war is being fought between the Tamil separatists to the Northeast and the Sinhalese Sri Lankan government. The fighting has been on and off much much of the 2 decades. Perhaps the 'routine' nature of the prolonged war explain away its lack of coverage in the media, but once again, things have flared up and the crisis deserves attention.
BBC World reports that in a mere 11-hours of fighting on Wednesday, hundreds were left dead with hundreds more missing and wounded. Both sides reported conflicting stories of success as journalists are denied access to the conflict torn Northwest region and unable to verify either account:
The military said 43 soldiers died and 33 were still missing, but insisted the offensive was a success.
More than 100 rebels were also killed in fighting which ended after 11 hours on Wednesday, the military said.
The rebels put their losses at 16. They said they had killed more than 100 soldiers and wounded about 500.
Al Jazeera News reports that hospitals in and around Colombo (the capital) have been filled with wounded soldiers.
As the Tamils maintain a firm hold on the Northwest region of the country and the Sinhalese government shows no signs of devolving any degree of autonomy to the Tamil rebels, it is unlikely that the violence will end any time soon.
It will likely continue in its current state: heated violent clashes on the front-line followed by retreats and temporary silence. Both sides displayed signs of national unity following the December 26, 2004 tsunami that devastated much of the coastal land in the Southeast-Asian oceanic region. However, as the urgency of tending to the destruction left behind by the tsunami faded, so too did signs of reconciliation and peace.
The Intermperate Candidate
Some recommended reading from The Nation's Robert Scheer. Great summary of the tactics being used by the Clinton regime, I mean, campaign.
How proud the Clintonistas must be. They have learned how to rival what Hillary once termed the "vast right-wing conspiracy" in the effort to destroy a viable Democratic leader who dares to stand in the way of their ambitions. The tactics used to kneecap Barack Obama are the same as had been turned on Bill Clinton in earlier times, from radical-baiting associates to challenging his resolve in protecting the nation from foreign enemies. Senator Clinton's eminently sensible and centrist--to a fault--opponent is now viewed as weak and even vaguely unpatriotic because he is thoughtful. Neither Karl Rove nor Dick Morris could have done a better job.
On primary election day in Pennsylvania, even with polls showing her well ahead in that state, Hillary went lower in her grab for votes. Seizing upon a question as to how she would respond to a nuclear attack by Iran--which doesn't have nuclear weapons--on Israel, which does, Hillary mocked reasoned discourse by promising to "totally obliterate them," in an apparent reference to the population of Iran. That is not a word gaffe; it is an assertion of the right of our nation to commit genocide on an unprecedented scale.
Shouldn't the potential leader of a nation that used nuclear bombs to obliterate hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese employ extreme caution before making such a threat? Neither the Japanese then nor the Iranian people now were in a position to hold their leaders accountable, and to approve such collective punishment of innocents is to endorse terrorism. This from a candidate who attacked her opponent for suggesting targeted strikes against militants in Pakistan and derided his openness to negotiations with other national leaders as an irresponsible commitment on the part of a contender for the presidency.
Clearly the heat of a campaign is not the proper setting for consideration of a response to a threat from a nation that is a long way from developing nuclear weapons. Obviously the danger of Iran's developing such weapons can be met with a range of alternatives, from the diplomatic to the military, that do not involve genocide and at any rate must be considered in moral and not solely political terms. Or is it base political ambition that would guide Clinton if she received that middle-of-the-night phone call?
If so, it cannot be assumed that Hillary Clinton as President would be less irrationally hawkish and more restrained in the unleashing of military force than John McCain. The latter, at least, has personal experience with the true, on-the-ground costs of militarism gone wild. Yes, I know that McCain still holds out the hope of winning the Iraq war that both he and Hillary originally endorsed, but for Clinton to raise the rhetoric against Iran in the midst of a campaign is hardly the path to Mideast peace, whether it concerns Israel or Iraq. It is bizarre that a politician who bought into the phony threat about Iraq's nonexistent WMD arsenal now plays political games with the alleged threat posed by Iran.
The war has accomplished only one major change in the configuration of Mideast power: Iran now holds uncontested supremacy as the region's key player. Whatever chance there is for stability in Iraq now depends on the blessings of the ayatollahs of Iran, whose surrogates were put in power in Baghdad as a consequence of the American invasion. It is totally hypocritical for Clinton or McCain to now talk about getting tough with Iran over the nuclear weapons issue, when both contributed so mightily to squandering US leverage over Tehran.
To meet that potential nuclear weapons threat from Iran requires a serious, non-rhetorical, multinational response that makes clear that no nation has the right to obliterate the population of another, and that nations, even our own, that claim that right should be challenged as unacceptably barbaric. Instead, Clinton played into the thoughts of fanatics throughout the world who believe that might makes right and who take the United States--which spends more on its military than the rest of the world combined (including many billions on new sophisticated and "usable" nuclear weapons)--as both their enemy and an example to emulate.
What better argument do the ayatollahs need to justify their obtaining a nuclear "deterrent" than that the possible leader of the first nation to develop nuclear weapons, and the only one to ever use them to kill people, now threatens the people of Iran with obliteration?
And this spicy quote from Bill becomes increasingly relevant as the races trudges on:
Bill Clinton: “Now one of Clinton’s Laws of Politics is this: If one candidate's trying to scare you and the other one's trying to get you to think; if one candidate's appealing to your fears and the other one's appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope. That's the best.” [campaign rally, 10/25/04]
A Day In The Life ~ Thursday, April 24th
BARACK OBAMA
-- No public events scheduled, Chicago, IL
HILLARY CLINTON
-- Attends event with voters, Jacksonville, NC
-- 4:15 pm ET: Attends event with voters, Fayetteville, NC
-- 8:00 pm ET: Attends event with voters, Asheville, NC
JOHN MCCAIN
-- 8:15 pm ET: Attends event with voters, Baton Rouge, LA
At the White House and Beyond. . .
PRESIDENT BUSH
-- 10:20 am ET: Delivers remarks at the White House Summit on Inner-City Children and Faith-Based Schools, Washington, DC
-- 1:15 pm ET: Meets with the President of the Palestinian Authority, Washington, DC
-- 3:20 pm ET: Speaks to members of the Wounded Warrior Soldier Ride, Washington, DC
SECRETARY OF STATE RICE
-- 7:15 pm ET: Attends working dinner for Mahmoud Abbas, Washington, DC
FIRST LADY LAURA BUSH
-- 10:30 am ET: Reports on the President's Malaria Initiative, Washington, DC
COMMERCE DEPARTMENT
-- 10:00 am ET: Releases new home sales figures for March, Washington, DC
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
The Morning After
While the media hysteria over Clinton's "triumphant comeback" wages on, the New York Times Editorial Board, who has previously endorsed Sen. Clinton, puts last night's contest into perspective:
The Pennsylvania campaign, which produced yet another inconclusive result on Tuesday, was even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it.
Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it does not work. It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election.
If nothing else, self interest should push her in that direction. Mrs. Clinton did not get the big win in Pennsylvania that she needed to challenge the calculus of the Democratic race. It is true that Senator Barack Obama outspent her 2-to-1. But Mrs. Clinton and her advisers should mainly blame themselves, because, as the political operatives say, they went heavily negative and ended up squandering a good part of what was once a 20-point lead.
On the eve of this crucial primary, Mrs. Clinton became the first Democratic candidate to wave the bloody shirt of 9/11. A Clinton television ad — torn right from Karl Rove’s playbook — evoked the 1929 stock market crash, Pearl Harbor, the Cuban missile crisis, the cold war and the 9/11 attacks, complete with video of Osama bin Laden. “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen,” the narrator intoned.
If that was supposed to bolster Mrs. Clinton’s argument that she is the better prepared to be president in a dangerous world, she sent the opposite message on Tuesday morning by declaring in an interview on ABC News that if Iran attacked Israel while she were president: “We would be able to totally obliterate them.”
By staying on the attack and not engaging Mr. Obama on the substance of issues like terrorism, the economy and how to organize an orderly exit from Iraq, Mrs. Clinton does more than just turn off voters who don’t like negative campaigning. She undercuts the rationale for her candidacy that led this page and others to support her: that she is more qualified, right now, to be president than Mr. Obama.
Mr. Obama is not blameless when it comes to the negative and vapid nature of this campaign. He is increasingly rising to Mrs. Clinton’s bait, undercutting his own claims that he is offering a higher more inclusive form of politics. When she criticized his comments about “bitter” voters, Mr. Obama mocked her as an Annie Oakley wannabe. All that does is remind Americans who are on the fence about his relative youth and inexperience.
No matter what the high-priced political operatives (from both camps) may think, it is not a disadvantage that Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton share many of the same essential values and sensible policy prescriptions. It is their strength, and they are doing their best to make voters forget it. And if they think that only Democrats are paying attention to this spectacle, they’re wrong.
After seven years of George W. Bush’s failed with-us-or-against-us presidency, all American voters deserve to hear a nuanced debate — right now and through the general campaign — about how each candidate will combat terrorism, protect civil liberties, address the housing crisis and end the war in Iraq.
It is getting to be time for the superdelegates to do what the Democrats had in mind when they created superdelegates: settle a bloody race that cannot be won at the ballot box. Mrs. Clinton once had a big lead among the party elders, but has been steadily losing it, in large part because of her negative campaign. If she is ever to have a hope of persuading these most loyal of Democrats to come back to her side, let alone win over the larger body of voters, she has to call off the dogs.
On the one hand, Sen. Clinton has spat at calls for her to drop out, accusing her esteemed Democratic colleagues of 'disenfranchising' voters in the remaining states yet to hold contests. Meanwhile, the ENTIRE basis for her continued candidacy rests on her malicious intent to bring down Sen. Obama's reputation in flames through a barrage of character attacks with the hope that the superdelegates come in at the end of it all and overturn the will of the people, thus disenfranchising voters in EVERY state. It's pure hypocrisy. Or, to quote the all-wise Jackie Chiles: "It's lewd, lascivious, salacious, outrageous!"
A Day In The Life ~ Wednesday, April 23rd
BARACK OBAMA
-- 12:45 pm ET: Attends town hall meeting with voters, New Albany, IN
-- Attends to Senate duties, Washington, DC
HILLARY CLINTON
-- 7:00 am ET: Appears on the Morning Shows
-- 12:45 pm ET: Attends event with voters, Indianapolis, IN
BILL CLINTON
-- 1:45 pm ET: Attends event with voters, Hillsborough, NC
-- 3:15 pm ET: Attends event with voters, Elon, NC
-- 5:00 pm ET: Attends event with voters, Asheboro, NC
-- 6:45 pm ET: Attends event with voters, Thomasville, NC
-- 9:00 pm ET: Attends event with voters, Statesville, NC
JOHN MCCAIN
-- 11:00 am ET: Attends town hall meeting with voters, Inez, KY
-- 1:15 pm ET: Holds media availability, Inez, KY
At the White House and Beyond. . .
PRESIDENT BUSH
-- 11:05 am ET: Attends congressional gold medal ceremony honoring Dr. Michael Ellis DeBakey, Washington, DC
-- 2:10 pm ET: Participates in photo opportunity with recipients of the Baldrige National Quality Award, Washington, DC
-- 3:35 pm ET: Speaks on National Small Business Week, Washington, DC
SECRETARY OF STATE RICE
-- 2:00 pm ET: Meets with Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, Washington, DC
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS
-- Releases existing home sales figures for March