MILWAUKEE — Gathering strength, Sen. Barack Obama collected a key labor endorsement and coaxed away one of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's delegates on Friday, at the same time he criticized his rival for supporting legislation harmful to workers.
"Her supporting NAFTA didn't give jobs to the American people," Obama said of the free trade agreement implemented while Bill Clinton was in the White House. "Her supporting a bankruptcy bill made it harder for people to get out of debt that didn't help them with the bills that were stacking up on their desks."
Obama traveled across Wisconsin during the day, hoping to add the state to an impressive string of primary victories. At the same time, he hoped his second labor endorsement in as many days, would help him in Ohio, Texas and other primary states, and block Clinton's efforts to establish a campaign firewall.
The Illinois senator won the endorsement of the 1.9 million-member Service Employees International Union, one day after he collected the support of the United Food and Commercial Workers, a politically active union 69,000 members in Ohio and another 26,000 in Texas. The food workers also have 19,000 members in Wisconsin, which holds a primary Tuesday.
Addressing voters in Wisconsin, Obama accused Clinton of lashing out at him as a cheap ploy to get ahead and being so divisive that she couldn't pass her signature effort of health care reform.
"Hollering at Republicans and engaging in petty partisan politics didn't help health care get done," he said. "The American people don't want to play the same games. They don't want the cheap shots. They don't want the negative ads. What they are looking for are solutions and bringing people together."
Obama's advisers say even though some of his supporters assume she is on the verge of collapse, it would be a mistake to underestimate the Clintons. They have proven their ability again and again to make a comeback when they were at their lowest.
Clinton has suffered a spate of crippling developments — eight straight losses, campaign finance problems, a shake-up of her staff — but has fresh reason for hope in recent polls. A poll of Wisconsin voters released Friday found Obama with only a slight edge in a state he was expected to win.
In Wisconsin, she's airing ads criticizing Obama for refusing to debate her in the state — which Obama called a "curious argument" since they have two debates scheduled in the next two weeks. But he added more campaign stops before Tuesday's primary to shore up his support.
Recent polls in Ohio and Pennsylvania show Clinton with a more than 15-percentage point advantage. She's pinning her campaign hopes on winning Texas and Ohio on March 4 and Pennsylvania on April 22.
Obama's support from SEIU and the 1.3-million member United Food and Commercial Workers a day earlier gives him an organizational boost in those critical states with large numbers of working-class voters. Sarah Swisher, a superdelegate and an SEIU member from Iowa City, switched from Clinton to Obama after her union's endorsement.
In the latest delegate count by The Associated Press, Obama had 1,280 and Clinton 1,218/
Obama has cultivated an image of being above the fray, and his criticism of Clinton usually comes in the form of a response to her charges. But he's not above upping the ante, as he did Friday during a stop in Milwaukee.
During a news conference, he was asked about Clinton's accusation that he watered down a bill regulating the nuclear industry. He pointed out that Clinton is criticizing him for a bill she voted for and touted on her Web site.
"I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she's feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal," he told reporters.
At a subsequent rally at the downtown Midwest Airlines Center, Obama brought up her latest criticism of him as someone who gives a good speech but doesn't have much action to show for it. Clinton told voters in Cincinnati Friday, "This primary election offers a very big choice to the voters of Ohio. You can choose speeches or solutions."
"She's right," Obama said in Milwaukee. "Speeches alone don't do anything. But you know what, neither do negative attacks."
___
On the Net:
Barry is so-right-on with his comments about guns. We must be careful though, getting rid of the second amendment will not be all that easy. We must be stealthy, because a lot of gun-totin'-conservatives are going to say "if someone in that classroom had had a gun, he or she might have shot the shooter before he killed those people". We all know that is ridiculous. OK so "Although Obama supports gun control, while campaigning in gun-friendly Idaho earlier this month, he said he does not intend to take away people's guns." Who's to say we can't redefine "gun" to mean BB guns ONLY, then the most that would happen is that someone might get their eye put out. And it's solved!
I'll take the troll bait.
I wish you luck and all possible speed. I'm really getting tired of slow, Fabian-Society process you've been using so far. Crank this thing up to full speed. In fact, while we're gutting things, let's chuck free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, oh, and please add something eliminating private property too.
Boiled frog, anyone?
Barry is so-right-on with his comments about guns.
Which comment? The "2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right to arms" one, or the "DC's total ban on handguns is reasonable" one?
Who's to say we can't redefine "gun" to mean BB guns ONLY, then the most that would happen is that someone might get their eye put out. And it's solved!
What a ridiculous notion. Sure, people will totally stop killing each other if only there were no guns. Then we can get on with banning pointy knives, pointy sticks, crossbows, longbows, clubs, rocks, and automobiles. And rubber bands. And canes. And chain. And rope.
Creative redefinition of meanings is not a legitimate way to approach the problem of gun violence.
Nool from AL says..."Barry is so-right-on with his comments about guns. We must be careful though, getting rid of the second amendment will not be all that easy. We must be stealthy..."
Absolutely. There's going to be a lot of economic dislocations in the coming years. Literally hundreds of thousands and millions as we start feeling the effects of an unfolding petrol energy crisis. Those people will be vulnerable to exploitation by various shades of leftists. They will have to be controlled as will those who will attempt to agitate. This task can only be accomplished if the only ones with access to the tolls of coercive force are duly appointed police, military and military/police security contractors.
Failure to control this social shift by any and all means could lead to a breakdown in our free market economic system and government authority as it is presently structured. Such a task will be impossible in the current environment where privately held arms are prevalent. Iraq has shown what a scene a few determined people, well stocked with basic small arms, can cause. Even without the presence of military grade IED technology, the potential for targeting corporate and security chiefs is a dangerous spectre as they go about their assigned duties. Interference with those duties will greatly upset measures to enforce social order.
Times will be very delicate, fortunes could easily be lost as economies shift and the potential for disruptions looms. Civil disturbance from socialist or populist agitation will have to be contained. The only way to do that is to make sure that the consumer does not have access to anything that could be used to challenge with equal force the directives of the authorities.
Times will be too tight for a Second Amendment. Order will have to be maintained at all costs. It has to go.
.
We shouldn't get rid of the Second Amendment. That's crazy because as soon as we start to tear the constitution apart then anyone in office can do whatever he wants. Not that Bush hasn't already done that...but we should be moving closer to the constitution. Unfortunately people only see the words "bare arms" and don't see the other writing about safety and good judgement that the forefathers also instituted. As for background checks. Those don't always mean anything. As you may have heard some grad student with a perfect record went and shot a multitude of people in a university lecture hall. The same goes for many other past criminals who decide to mass murder people in public venues. They appear sane but in reality they freak one day and do something rash. Also, you may not want a photo of Bobby Cutts either. He was a cop. He rightfully earned his gun through proper training. Furthermore, HIS WIFE DIDN'T GET SHOT.
Unfortunately people only see the words "bare arms"
As a short-sleeve wearing Democrat, I support the right to bare arms. ;)
No quiche-eating Kumbaya-singing namby-pambys and latte-slurping Brie-and-Chablis panty-waist Vegan wimps are gonna take away my Second Amendment..!
====
Sarcasm tag?
It has always been and it should always be the right of citizens to bare arms. regulated, but the right to bare arms is fundamental
It has always been and it should always be the right of citizens to
bare bear arms.
Homophones suck. Hope you don't mind the correction.
I like bare arms too
Nool from AL says..."Barry is so-right-on with his comments about guns. We must be careful though, getting rid of the second amendment will not be all that easy. We must be stealthy..."
Absolutely. There's going to be a lot of economic dislocations in the coming years. Literally hundreds of thousands and millions as we start feeling the effects of an unfolding petrol energy crisis. Those people will be vulnerable to exploitation by various shades of leftists. They will have to be controlled as will those who will attempt to agitate. This task can only be accomplished if the only ones with access to the tolls of coercive force are duly appointed police, military and military/police security contractors.
Failure to control this social shift by any and all means could lead to a breakdown in our free market economic system and government authority as it is presently structured. Such a task will be impossible in the current environment where privately held arms are prevalent. Iraq has shown what a scene a few determined people, well stocked with basic small arms, can cause. Even without the presence of military grade IED technology, the potential for targeting corporate and security chiefs is a dangerous spectre as they go about their assigned duties. Interference with those duties will greatly upset measures to enforce social order.
Times will be very delicate, fortunes could easily be lost as economies shift and the potential for disruptions looms. Civil disturbance from socialist or populist agitation will have to be contained. The only way to do that is to make sure that the consumer does not have access to anything that could be used to challenge with equal force the directives of the authorities.
Times will be too tight for a Second Amendment. Order will have to be maintained at all costs. It has to go.
Ditto
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |