Thursday, March 06, 2008

Breaking: Puerto Rico switches to a Primary, moves up to June 1

WE'VE MOVED! Democratic Convention Watch is now at

We've just been informed by email from Kenneth D. McClintock, DNC member from Puerto Rico, that Puerto Rico is changing from a caucus to a primary, and moving their date to June 1:

[Puerto Rico will] change the voting process from 8 caucuses to a primary with voting places in all 1,800+ barrios in Puerto Rico's 78 municipalities. This is done in light of the hundreds of thousands of Democrats expected to turn out on June 1, a late date in which we would have originally expected a pro-forma vote with low turnout.
Good move. I think we've all seen enough of overflowing caucuses rooms. (Hello Texas and Nevada).

The LA Times had a hint of this earlier in the day:

Puerto Rico, with about 55 pledged delegates, is scheduled to hold the last Democratic primary on Saturday, June 7. But election rules require the primary to be held on the first Sunday in June -- which is June 1. The Democratic National Committee is expected to approve the switch, which will mercifully shorten the primary calendar by four full days, and give Montana and South Dakota the last ballots on June 3.

DNC spokeswoman Stacie Paxton blamed the problem on a "clerical error.

Update: More information from Senator McClintock:
The change was approved unanimously by all members present, including many Clinton supporters (such as State Chair Prats and myself) and many Obama supporters.

The rationale? There's no way we could handle more than a few tens of thousands of voters in eight district caucuses, while we can handle a million voters (at least 500 voters between 8am and 3 pm per polling place in each of 1,800+ barrios) in a primary.

By the end of the delegate selection season, we would normally have a pro-forma vote that could fit into caucuses. This time around, it was increasingly obvious that we'd have a turnout well in excess of caucus capacity.
Update 2: Via MyDD, the final word that Puerto Rico is not winner-take-all:
The notion of Puerto Rico being a "winner-take-all" jurisdiction stems from previous presidential primary contests, which were pretty much over by the time the Puerto Ricans got to vote. John Kerry swept Puerto Rico in 2004 just as Al Gore triumphed in 2000 because they were the only candidates left in the race, and the party bosses could manipulate the caucus process.

This time will be very different, according to several Puerto Rican Democratic leaders I contacted earlier today by phone. ... If the race is still competitive, participation is likely to be very high, and there is no way that one candidate will sweep all the delegates.

"Both the candidates have supporters on the island," said Eliseo Roques, vice-chair of the Democratic National Committee's Hispanic Caucus, and a prominent Puerto Rican politician who is neutral in the race. "You will see a closely contested race."


math 101 said...


Richard said...

This is a very interesting development. Hopefully this will result in true proportional allocation for Puerto Rico this year; in past elections the head of the leading liberal party usually saw to it that all delegates went to his chosen candidate (I've been anticipating that they would all go to Clinton). Despite his supposed advantage in caucuses, I have to believe that Barack Obama's campaign likes this development.

sunkissed said...

I have been reading some PR blogs and there seem to be questions as to whether or not it will be a winner-take-all primary. Can anyone assure me that it will be a proportional allocation? They also caution US to not confuse them with Latinos in the States for most PR are natural born citizens and have totally different issues from Latinos in the States. My take-away from their blogs was that either only Obama supporters have internet or there IS a lot of Obama support in PR.

Richard said...

I believe that Democratic party rules require proportional allocation. I tried to find it in the rules, but could not. Anyone help?

Unknown said...


Yes, proportional allocation is required by the rules (see them at

Allocation is discussed in section 8, NATIONAL CONVENTION DELEGATE APPORTIONMENT

Bill UK said...

Bad news for Clinton then.

Unknown said...

Obama gets 4 more and Clinton loses 4 pledged delegates in California


Will Puerto Rico be able to decid everything?

Are the 55 delegates going to be chosen on an all-or-nothing basis thus making Puerto Rians the biggest swing voter population in the United States ?

Michael Barone of U.S. News & World Report aparently suggest these are all strong possibilities, right?


Jeff said...

I believe Obama has already received one or two endorsements in Puerto Rico - I expect he'll do well even though it's switched.
My Obama Blog

El Usuario said...

Is it just me, or does anyone else find absolutely pathetic that Puerto Ricans can vote on presidential primaries, but are not allowed to vote on the general elections?

oh the irony.

Anonymous said...

What do I need to do in order to vote in the Puerto Rico primary?

Matt said...

Rafael - I would suggest contacting your local government or election board for that information. I don't know if the registration deadline has passed already. (This assumes you actually live in Puerto Rico. If not, you won't be able to vote).

Oreo said...

I can't find any specific information as to what the primary procedures and requirements are.

Here's some contact info:
Puerto Rico Democratic Party
P.O. Box 19328
San Juan, PR 00910-3939
787-759-9075 (fax)

Let us know if you still need help and we'll see what we can do

Al Carbon said...

"Is it just me, or does anyone else find absolutely pathetic that Puerto Ricans can vote on presidential primaries, but are not allowed to vote on the general elections?

oh the irony."

It's not that Puerto Ricans can't vote in the general election, it's that anyone living in Puerto Rico can't vote in the general election. Puerto Ricans with residency in a US state can vote, and on the flip side Americans born in a state who reside in Puerto Rico may not vote. As an American living in Puerto Rico I think it's beyond ironic, I think it's totally stupid and unfair.

Most things are Connected at Some Level? said...

Talking about Latinos and Politics ... did you see this?

Segolene Royal dans Harvard: Pour l'independance de Porto Rico ("territory of the United States") ?!!!

¿Have you seen this about Segolene Royal which seems to have appeared, among other places, in a page associated to Le Monde Diplomatique?

Will you comment on it to offer a more balanced and the unique and facinanting perspective you may offer? (Porto Rico, "exemple de colonialisme de la pire espèce", île américaine en faillite)

Fulcanelli said...

Regarding the history of the development of the winner-take-all myth, see:

Anonymous said...

can someone please email me explaining this to me?
i was told that puerto rico was granted the right to vote for presidency just as a regular state would. is this true? when were they given the right to participate in the elections for presidency? they werent allowed to do so before! thanks

Unknown said...

The reason that citizens of PR aren't allowed to vote in the general election is because they have voted against becoming the 51st state. Incidentally, this also exempts them from paying Federal Income Tax, so don't feel too bad for them.

Unknown said...

The reason citizens of PR can't vote in the general election is because they have voted, several times, not to become a state. Incidentally, their status also exempts them from paying Federal Income Tax, so don't feel too bad for them,

independentvoter said...

I've heard that Puerto Rico actually has the potential to shift the popular vote in the overall Democratic popular vote. I wonder if that's true.

independent voter @ my political forum

carmen63 said...

Very convenient for HRC, now she got another endorsement from L.Cabannas. Why are most Hispanics supporting this woman?? It is just beyond my comprehension. She has a record of misreppresentation, she is a fake populist, she is wealthy but prones on simple people to fund her campaign to pay rich lobbyists, she doesn't even care about the status of PR or her husband would have done something about it already, and what do the PR superdelegates do? Endorse her!! It is simply dumb! Pure old politics! Sub-servient to an old rich woman!

Harry Callaghan said...

OK, so they can't vote in the general elections, nor do they have any standing in the electoral college. Why then, do they have a primnary which enables them to seat delegates at the convention. Isn't it a little like foreplay with nothing coming after it. Deep down, I know it's got to make sense, like so much of the rules of the U. S. government, but it's too deep for me.

Tony In Largo, FL said...

As to the comment that people in Puerto Rico don't pay Federal Taxes, allow me to educate you by saying: that, is not a correct statement. Maybe if you'd like, I could send you a copy of my mother's documents showing that she pays Federal Taxes to the United States IRS (as the result of working and retiring in Puerto Rico from Citibank with 42 years of service). The IRS Tax Code stipulates that taxes are due on income generated from a US source. In Puerto Rico, that includes from all jobs held: taxes for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. In her case, that means plain old Income Tax from a pension from Citibank. Others pay Federal Income Tax from similar sources, including naturally, Soldiers and the Federal Employees, i.e. USDA, Federal Courts, FBI, Customs, FDA, VA Hospital, Satellite Cinincs , Retired Veterans, INS, USDOT, Coast Guard, etcetera etcetera. Ignorance can't be held against anyone. However, knowing the truth and turning one's back on it is a personal character flaw. Since I'm on the subject of the worthiness of the people of Puerto Rico as U.S. born citizens and for the benefit of Congressional Rep. Ginny Waite Brown of Florida, I remind her that our men and women sacrificed their lives in every war since 1900 in order for the U.S. Constitution to reign sovereign in Puerto Rico. This includes the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan where, per capita, more soldiers from Puerto Rico have died than from any other state or territory of the United States of America to date!!! It also includes three (3) Congressional Medal of Honor recipients througout 110 years of military service. Whether she or anyone else, agrees or not, makes no difference to me because I can move-on to tend to other matters, knowing that we are time tested and tried, true United States Citizens. By the way, Ms. Waite, are you aware that Texas was an Independent Nation before it became a state of the Union ? Do you know the words on the State Flag of California ? Reading and listening before speaking is a virtue !!

Harry Callaghan said...

Ok, Jose, it's like this. Your people cannot vote in the National Election in November; you have no say in the electoral college. Why whether it be a caucus or primary, are you having delegates seated at the convention. Oh yeah, glad to hear you pay your taxes but I wasn't really concerned over it.

USYankee said...

Frank Pastorella who had been blinded by a FALN bomb said, "this is truly pandering to the Hispanic community."

Former U.S. atorney DiGenova stated, "Let me just say...the Puerto ican terrorists were pardoned because they were a political benefit to the president's wife. Make no mistake about it. There is no justification for those pardons." [McLaughlin, John McLaughlin's One on One, January 26, 2001]

Prez. Clinton pardoned 14 Puerto Rican terrorists (FALN) to promote Hilary for her Senate seat in New York. 130 bombing attacks that killed and maimed Americans because this group wanted to separate from America.

USYankee said...

Puerto Rico can vote in the primary but not in the general, which doesn't make sense. They could steer the primary in a differenct direction for what? They can't vote in the general.ccx

Harry Callaghan said...

Primary? caucus? What's the diff?
If PR can't vote in November because they're not a state and then have no representation in the electoral college, why are they even being seated at the Democratic convention?
To me, it's like useless foreplay when there's not going to be any sex.

carmen sims said...


USYankee said...

Carmen Sims -- Slander and lies will not be tolerated. We are not resentful nor have any reason to be resentful towards Hispanics, and you know it. You are a fine - example of YOUR candidate-- the very ignorant, low-class corrupt, illegal and immoral Clinton way of doing things.

We believe in uniting not dividing. You might find yourself in a class-action suit if you are not careful. Say goodbye to the same old way of politics. Buenos noches.

cristina said...

carmen sims shame on you.
My son has a Puerto Rican father... my ex husband.
What kind of mother would I be if I resented hispanics?
My son and I both are voting for Obama.
While I can say I will vote for anyone BUT McCain, I am an avid Obama supporter (so is my son).
Hillary is the same old thing - the same old politics - promising change.
She's too career-oriented to bring about real change.
The United States needs something NEW AND FRESH to bring about change.
Doing the same thing, expecting a different result = insanity.
Don't stoop to levels of lying and slander.

HumShluk said...

I have been living in Puerto Rico for the past 8 months, working in a non-profit. In a nutshell, this commonwealth status needs to be put to an end. The Puerto Ricans deserve to be heard, its a messed up situation.

Harry Callaghan said...

So I leave a harmless little comment, with no offense meant toward anyone. I was only raising the question as to why Puerto Rico has a primary & sends delegates to the convention if they can't vote in the national election, let alone play a part in the electoral college. Now, every time some guy gets caught cheating on his wife in San Juan, I've gotta hear about it. Or, are these other people making contributions Puerto Ricans living on the mainland? I'm totally confused by the whole thing.

538_Fan said...

Does anyone have a current poll on who PR is going to vote for on June 1?

Unknown said...

Why is it so hard to find a poll or two for PR? RCP lists them in upcoming races, but there are no polling results that I can find.

In addition, does anyone know if the PR primary is winner take all? On Feb. 6, Chuck Todd on MSNBC predicted that it could all come down to PR in June. At that time, he said there were 53 delegates, and that it was a winner take all primary. What's the straight dope? Thanks in advance for any source.

Harry Callaghan said...

Having recently retired from being a political pollster for 14 years, I feel I am qualified to know the value of polls.

They can be tremendously influential with regard to people like "Barbara74" and "dogblogger" who apparently don't know enough about the issues to make their own independent decision as to who to vote for and need to be led by the hand.

Do yourself a favor (and the candidates); find out what the hell is going on or just stay home!

I don't mean to be rude or offend anyone; I'm just stating the very basic and real facts.

Harry Callaghan said...

I don't think I'll be asking Carmen to the prom

USYankee said...

If Hilary makes it into the White House, I wonder who SHE is going to pardon in exchange for any quid pro quos. I wonder how many favors they owe people for campaign funds that will jeopardize America's security once more? How many trucks will they bring this time to the White House stealing government/American's property?

We also need DRUG TESTING in the White House. If police officers have to do background checks prior to getting hired and drug testing to protect a smaller community, then the White House needs to drug testing and background checks prior to getting hired as well.

Harry Callaghan said...

If I just clicked onto "unsubscribe" because I'm tired of reading all these comments that are being forwarded to me, why would I want to leave a comment.

Oh, I know.......because whoever is running this site is as dumb as most of it's participants.

No, I'm not a bigot. I'm not knocking you people because you're Puerto Rican; it wouldn't matter if you were black, or oriental or even a muslim. It's just that you all bore me.


Unknown said...

Of course Harry's a bigot, signs of manic behavior as well. Now, I am happily here to find he's gone to take his meds, or just gone.

Sorry I didn't read from the top down, or wouldn't have asked about winner take all.

So, anyone have any source for the mood in PR?

Tony In Largo, FL said...

OK, Harry Callaghan, I know that, when I go to Puerto Rico, no one feels like they "belong" to me. So, the phrase "your people", which you use in addressing me, is an anachronism which could easily be understood to have survived in the mind of someone who possibly yearns the era of exclusion in the United States of America. The good news is that the brilliant, legal, social, educational, scientific, political, financial and military leaders and scholars of our great country have guided us from the Oval Office, the Supreme Court Benches and the Halls of Congress, throughout 232 years of history, into being a society of inclusion.

The people in Puerto Rico are proud of being United States Citizens; proud of the U.S. Flag and proud that the U.S. Constitution reigns sovereign on the island. Unfortunately, our media will give more coverage to a 3 - 5 % minority that advocates independence, than to the remaining 95-97 % who want statehood or commonwealth (the status quo). The people of Puerto Rico have not voted against statehood. That is an inaccurate simplification of the reality of the votes to date. The more accurate interpretation is that, as I implied previously, those who earn wages on the island, in jobs that are not considered "U.S. Sources", (an IRS phrase & definition), don't want to vote themselves a Federal Income Tax on top of the very heavy Commonwealth "Hacienda" Taxes. Take those heavy Hacienda taxes out of the way, and Puerto Rico would probably begin voting regularly (much like in Hawaii), where they voted 11 or 12 times for statehood, before it was admitted to the Union as a full partner.

By the way, one more thing, as to the rest of your opening statement: after "your people.." i.e "..."cannot vote in the National Election in November; you have no say in the electoral college", please be informed that: me, my wife, my daughter, and many friends, including doctors, nurses, construction workers, law enforcement officers, business owners, clerks, secretaries, bank officials and government employees born in Puerto Rico, USA will vote in the General Election and those votes will count for the Electoral College!!

I'm truly dissapointed that you have chosen to "leave". Something tells me, however that you still read these comments.

I agree with Humshluk. The voters in Puerto Rico need to be heard. There's no doubt that the political "arrangement" is a strange one. Anyone from Puerto Rico can vote in primaries and general elections......but the vote can't take place on the island !!! It is a messed-up situation. There are many things that need to be done, beginning with the people in Puerto Rico identifying themselves not just as "Puertorriquenos", but as Americans. That's understood very well by the independence advocates who don't have the popular backing and try to perpetuate the "divide" with music, songs, poems and literature to and about "the Puertorriqueno". And when I say that they don't have the popular backing, I will expand on that by saying that in the past 40 years, the pro independence party has had to re-register two times as a party, because it didn't garner the minimum amount of votes necessary required to be recognized as one. Don't get me wrong, I'm proud of my hispanic heritage. I speak the language, eat the food, dance to the music, and I know the literature and the culture......of here and there. And, as far as I'm concerned, it makes me richer inside.
For now, anyone on the island can vote, primaries only. As to the results, my sources on the island tell me that, the vote will be split right down the middle, with the pro-statehood faction on one side and the pro-Commonwealth faction on the other. Pro-Statehodd will be backing Hillary Clinton and pro-Commonwealth will be backing Barak Obama.

xiape said...

I find this all very interesting, and even find some of it rather distressful in terms of the obvious racial tension caused by one or more posters. In addition, with regard to race, I would like to point out that not all hispanics are, by any means, voting for HRC.

I might point out, in the first place, Bill Richardson of New Mexico endorsing Obama. I would also like to point out that many more hispanics holding baccalaureate degrees or higher are strongly supporting Obama, and this divide, between those with a higher education and those without, has existed throughout the primary race. I would further point out that, though I'm not a Puerto Riqueno, I am an AZ native and a hispanic--I've already voted for Obama in my primary and plan to vote for him come November, God willing, if/when he wins the nomination of my party.

Honestly, as a hispanic, I do find it quite disturbing that many of my brothers and sisters across the continent support HRC without any seriously good reason for doing so. The fact of the matter is that HRC will use any group--ethnic, political, or religious--for her own personal gain and will be quick to toss that group aside when they no longer serve her needs. Clinton has shown throughout this process that she is a self-serving demagogue that believes that if she can't have this nomination then no Democrat should win come November. She'd much rather continue watching this country go down the drain than right this ship and begin repairing the extensive damage done to this country's ability to (1) defend itself and (2) to support its people economically.

For instance, because Bush and his cronies were so forceful and effective in pushing through legislation (supported by many Democrats) by disguising it as "just" and "necessary" reform offering protection to the "average American" above all, the existing bankruptcy law was dramatically changed, essentially making it easier for lending agencies to prey on sub-prime borrowers while making it harder for those same people to get meaningful debt relief later when the eventual outcome of these predatory lending practices happened to hurt those same sub-prime borrowers who can least afford the loans they were given for everything from cars to homes.

Essentially, this bill was nothing more than a move to put more and more money into the hands of the wealthiest 1% of white Americans, and how did Hillary vote? She voted "yes" for this piece of legislation, one that has now caused a very large number of hispanics in my state to lose their homes to foreclosure after these same rich, white people came here during the artificially created "housing boom" of 2004-05 and made millions off the sweat and the back-breaking labor of those who, again, can least afford it.

Just as Hillary has used her good ol' Republican slash-and-burn smear tactics in the campaign against Obama, she's taken yet another page from the Republican neo-con playbook: prey on the poor and the middle classes, promising them the world, convincing them to vote against their own self-interest come election time by disguising yourself as a defender of the "little guy." In the meantime, behind closed doors, when the people who are really financing your campaign are glad-handing you, dropping millions of dollars into your coffers, you make promises to them you intend to keep, promises that will eventually tear apart the middle class even more, ensuring that the true wealth in this country can never find its way to the people who actually produce that wealth. (And "no," I'm not a communist or a socialist, but I believe very strongly that capitalism can only truly work if everyone at least has a fair opportunity to gain from the system they work to support.)

The Clinton legacy from the 1990s is really no different. While he enjoyed a tremendous popularity among the working classes, Bill Clinton literally stole their only hope for earning a decent paycheck right out from under them in the guise of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Free market capitalism, expressed in NAFTA and other like-minded open-market reforms is the bane of all hard-working skilled laborers. Only the well educated--those holding a Master's degree or higher--are essentially immune to the changing tides brought on by such market practices, and these represent only 2% of the population of the United States, meaning that those who went to college only for the baccalaureate degree (and often went into vast debt to obtain said degree) are all still victims to forces they can no more control than they can control the weather.

This is what the Clintons represent, and this is what we're (meaning we as a people in general, as polls show that hispanics back Clinton by a 2-1 or 3-1 majority in most cases) supporting, in deference to serving our own self-interest. If you ask me, it's time we opened our eyes, hispanics and the rest of us, especially the white working class in America, and start voting for candidates who will actually go to Washington and do something for us for a change; and believe me when I tell you that Hillary Clinton is worried only about her own career and the money that supports it, so if she should, by some miracle, find herself in the White House, she'll very quickly forget where all those votes came from and will only remember where all those millions and millions of lobbyist-raised dollars came from.

Hillary Clinton is the furthest thing from a true progressive, which is why she buys into gimmicks like this so-called "gas tax vacation" proposed by Republicans, which is going to do nothing to remedy the whole situation with regard to how hard the working people of our great nation are being decimated by the huge profits of the big oil companies. That's why Barack knows that the only real way to help the people is to influence the actual price of oil by releasing massive quantities of oil from our own strategic reserves and by working to dramatically increase the overall efficiency of both our means of transportation as well as our means of producing energy.

All I really ask is that those of you in Puerto Rico truly take this grand opportunity to finally have a real voice in the electoral process to choose a candidate who will really work to the betterment of all of us, especially those who need it the most, just as Senator Obama has always done for the poorest of Chicago during his 8 years serving them in the Illinois Legislature.

Please, when you are given this wonderful gift of a true and profound voice in the political process, don't waste it on a self-serving fake and a liar who continually makes up story after story to pad her otherwise meager resume wherein she supposedly has all this great political experience. The sad truth is that Hillary has no more experience in the White House than the wife of an aerospace engineer would in building the Space Shuttle. You wouldn't trust a plane or a car built and designed by the spouse of an engineer or mechanic, so why should you trust the so-called experience of a woman who had no security clearance during her husband's time in the White House and who therefore shared little or nothing in the business of governing during that same time? Frankly, Pat Nixon or Lady Bird Johnson would likely have more "experience" if they were available than does Hillary Clinton.

Don't be fooled by the packaging of a good lie. Instead, buy into the truth and get behind someone who will matter to you for at least the next four, if not eight, years of your life.

NYC Leon said...

"The packaging of a good lie"???
First of all, as a Latin, you know that all person's of Latin heritage are not the same- what does Bill Richardson, born in Mexico City, have to do with Puerto Rico?

Secondly, you go on and on about Hillary and the parts of her history that you don't like, but don't actually mention which policies you are supporting for Barak- which is largely because "change" has been undefined and rhetorical. For example, on NAFTA, she released her policies first, and his are a light version of hers- only he sent his representatives to Canada to tell the government that he really didn't mean it.

The gas tax holiday was a part of a series of proposals of hers on energy policy. He has not made nearly the amount of proposals and his fundraising has depended heavily on bundlers from the energy (oil prices) and banking (sub-prime mortgage crisis) industries. Even as the campaign presents itself as a "people's campaign" they neglect to tell you that they accept bundled donations, as do HRC and McCain- and that these have been the primary source of corporate and special interest influence since McCain-Fiengold capped donations of any entity at $2600.

In the senate she as a "non-progressive" has differed on 6 votes of any substance from him- and on 3 of them took the more progressive position. Why was he the "most liberal" senator this year? Because he voted in only 17% of all of the votes in his 3rd year in senate, and avoided any potentially controversial vote such as the one dealing with Iran.

Why is she the better candidate. They are both politicians. She, however, has a history of "crossing the aisle" to work with others in Arkansas, during the later years of the administration and as a senator. He actually does not- he crossed the aisle 2 times of substance since being in the senate. She has a much clearer understanding of the intimate details of each policy as well as the global implications. Her healthcare policy is clearly better than his- how can you start negotiations giving away the universality of universal health care? She has a detailed plan to redeploy troops in the middle east and has some interesting foriegn policy ideas for the area- while his plan starts later, moves troops more haphazardly and talks to the leaders of each entity without precondition, which sounds good- but NO INTERNATIONAL MEETINGS occur without preconditions- they are set to avoid potential errors that might otherwise occur. Kennedy met with Kruschev without precondition and as a result described the meetings as the worst disaster of his life at the time- from someone who's plane was shot down in WW2.

That is why you should not dismiss HRC or allow some false narrative to bring you to vote against her. Compare the two for real- their records, their proposals, their electability (she wins the electoral votes of OH, MI, FL, AK, and more and he does not)- she is the better candidate. It is probably to late- but let PR speak.

Soy Columbiano.

Tony In Largo, FL said...

I'm sure that many of those posting comments on this website, have heard, at least once in their lives, "just when you thought things couldn't get worse, they did" (Murphy's Law). I'm crossing my fingers and voting for a Democrat in November but I don't feel so sure about the results. Both Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama have to "reach out across the aisle", if anything is going to get done to straighten out the mess in which we find ourselves, both, on the home front and abroad. But, for all of you out there, who expect either BO or HRC to "reach out", don't forget to "do as you say". Vote and reach out to the other camp. Vote for whoever wins the Democratic Party Nomination. If not, things will get worse. Make-up your minds now. Otherwise, the prediction of another Republican President winning because of a Split Democratic Party will become a self-fulfilled prophecy. Polls don't lie, they are good indicators, and the indications are that if Barak Obama doesn't invite Hillary to be his running mate, voters will either abstain from voting or vote Republican. I know that many HRC backers may be offended or appalled that I'm practically saying that Barak Obama has won the nomination. The fact is, however, that HRC, at this point in the campaign, appears to be mathematically eliminated as the presidential candidate. Obama and his supporters, on the other hand, think they've won it all because they have the nomination just about "wrapped-up". Iv'e got news for Barak and his supporters. They haven't "won it all" and what's worse, he won't win it all, unless he shows that he's able to face reality, negotiate and be practical. His first big test will not be as President, but as the candidate from his party who is willing to forego his ego, before the final interview for the job of President of the United States. His willingness to do so will be a testament or not of his leadership ability to unite his party. Right now, there's only one way he'll be able to do that. Republicans are keying-in on his weaknesses and they will exploit them. Make no mistake about it. Lopsided victories by HRC in some states will be exploited by the Republicans. John McCains ideas are close to middle of the road. His problem is: the people that already surround him and the ones that will, if he gets elected. They will keep this country going in the same direction as now, and that's not good. The only way that the Democratic Party Leaders will act to persuade BO is if they hear from you, the constituents. As the campaign intensifies, and people call for help with the campaign, voice your opinion. If there are enough numbers of voters saying the same thing, they may listen. Otherwise, it's assured that the many egos together will handle it differently, like one huge ego. SPEAK OUT NOW.

Unknown said...

My dear Brothers and Sisters in the beautiful isle of Puerto Rico, Please vote for Barack Obama in your upcoming primary. I may live in the midwest now, but I grew up in New York City, and as you no-doubt know New York and Puerto Rico have that special something together. I used to live in "The Bronx" and 3 other boroughs. Bill and Hillary Clinton are like squatters up in Harlem...They need to be evicted! Likewise they need to be evicted from your minds, because they have taken up residence there too as squatters. Hillary only wants your votes for her own selfish reasons. She was once a good person (had to be to put up with Bill's B.S.), but she has changed. You can see from all of her lying and Scheming as of late how voracious her and Bill have become. They only want to have that "White House" power again; and as you can plainly see they will obviously do anything to get this power again. You have to admit, they played the race card, the dumb white people (RedNeck)card, any card they could utilize to gain votes. They certainly want to use you too. Don't let them! Do yourself the best favor you can do for yourself and the world at large....Do Not vote for those pandering/race-baiting Clintons....Do vote for the person who is like us and will probaly be in our corner for the next four years and beyond....Please make your vote count for real change....Vote for Barack Obama. He will truly represent........;)p RonE... From The Mid-West