Top of the Ticket

Political commentary from Andrew Malcolm

« Previous Post | Top of the Ticket Home | Next Post »

Pennsylvania: Tidal wave or big yawn in Democratic race

Did the Pennsylvania primary make no difference at all, or did it change the course of the race for the Democratic nomination?

The answer is in the eye of the spinner.

Chief strategist David Axelrod for Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama discussed the Pennsylvania primary results on NPR Aides to Hillary Clinton said this morning that the "tide is turning" because of her win.

"By providing fresh evidence that Hillary is the candidate best positioned to beat John McCain in the fall," campaign spokesman Phil Singer said in a widely circulated memo, "the Pennsylvania primary is a turning point in the nominating contest."

Barack Obama, Singer continued, made an unprecedented investment in television advertising, but he "again failed to win a state that will be vital to a Democratic victory in November and spurred new questions about his ability to beat John McCain."

Over at Camp Obama, though, the results were getting the equivalent of a big, loud yawn, at least in public.

Campaign manager David Plouffe noted that Clinton's win did not substantially change the pledged delegate lead Obama has over her.

"She obviously in these remaining nine contests needs to win with big margins," Plouffe told reporters.

Essentially, he argued, the campaign moves on to the May 6 primaries in North Carolina and Indiana without a shift in relative position.

"We don't believe the structure of the race is going to change fundamentally," Plouffe said.

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean there isn't some concern ...

within the Obama brain trust. Again, for public consumption, Obama chief strategist David Axelrod (above) sought today to discount the long-range importance of his candidate's failure to garner much support from white, blue-collar workers.

"Let's understand," Axelrod said on NPR, "that the ... white working class has gone to the Republican nominee for many elections...."

Right -- and the GOP has won five of the last seven presidential votes. So with their eye on the White House prize, it's unlikely that in private deliberations Obama and his top aides are as nonchalant about the white working-class vote as Axelrod sounded today.

Indeed, among the reams of copy published this morning on the Pennsylvania primary, we were most inrigued by a tidbit in a New York Times story. Obama strategists, Jeff Zeleny wrote, "immediately began studying the results — and intended to interview voters in a postmortem — to see what kept them from supporting Mr. Obama."

That would have been an even better idea after the March 4 Ohio primary, but better late than never.

-- Christi Parson and Don Frederick

Christi Parsons writes for the Swamp of the Chicago Tribune's Washington bureau.

Photo credit: Getty Images

Comments () | Archives (36)

The comments to this entry are closed.


According to the Wall Street Journal, the #'s have changed minimall at best.

Indeed, turning to the more important question of who will eventually become the Democratic nominee, last night's loss left Sen. Obama's chances virtually unchanged at 82%. Sen. Clinton remains a 16 chance to win the nomination. Markets still believe there remains a slight chance of a floor fight at the convention yielding a compromise candidate, and the only viable candidate appears to be former Vice President Gore.

But the real winner from the six week Pennsylvania primary campaign was the Republican Party. On the eve of the last major primaries, in Ohio and Texas, prediction markets rated the chances of the eventual Democratic nominee prevailing in the November general election to be 64%. The Democrats' chances have now fallen to 60%, with the Republicans now a 39% chance.

I don't think Obama is electable. I have a few questions for the Clinton-bashers: 1. Name the most significant thing that Obama has actually accomplished besides giving speeches. 2. How much jello must Obama have in his spine to sit for 20 years in the pews of a maniac like Wright who believes that AIDS was a US govt. plot, that Farrakhan is a great hero, etc, etc? 3. Why did Obama vote "present" on each controversial issue? 4. What is the most difficult situation that Obama has ever faced in his adult life? 5. Name one major state Obama has won besides his home state.

Hillary is an absolutely remarkable woman, in my opinion, though she is not perfect. Obama is a perfect piece of plastic with no content. Americans will be able to see the difference by November. Americans previously elected "nice clean guy" Bush (with no content of character), and look what happened.

McCain has a very strong character, and there is no way that Obama could stand up to him.

My hope is that the PA results will begin to end this charade that has been played now for over a year - the pretense that Obama is electable in November. If, after outspending Mrs Clinton by millions, he could get no closer to her than this (10%), and was losing to her 30 to 70 in the PA rural areas and small towns, how can he possibly hope to beat McCain?? Then adding in the certain and catastrophic damage that he will incur by the smear attacks that will come, how can anyone pretend any longer that he is viable?

His campaign can minimize, deny and ignore the facts all they like, but it won't make it not true: he can NOT beat McCain!

KEEP ON YAWNING......AND HILLARY WILL KEEP ON WINNING!!! People cannot stomach the bad ties to these individuals, they cannot erase what they heard!! You cannot say, "Trust me" earn trust!! It's simple...kind of like us!


There proves to be the most interest in this race as any other in our history as a nation. People around the U.S who still have their primaries before them, are thrilled to finally be included in deciding the candidate.
The calls for either candidate to pull out at this juncture only sours the rest who want to vote their voices.
I still feel that Florida and Michigan were the victims of a party policy that seems to want to flush a victory down the toliet in November.
This is not the slimeball campaign that people keep crying foul about. That comes after our convention.
Let Democracy work for us all, letting all have equal voice in this vetting period for a nominee. We as a nation will be more satisfied, and plugged into the process because of it.

I wish less-than-conscientious reporters would get their facts straight. Hillary, who everyone said had to win by double digits, DID NOT. Her total is somewhere around 9.2 or so--respectable, but down 10-15 from a month or so ago, despite all her slander and damage to Sen. Obama. CNN is still saying "10 points." AP is still saying "10 points." Others continue this inaccuracy. What sloppy reporting, especially when the "margin" has been their main focus for weeks.

Sen. Clinton gained a handful of delegates but is still not significantly closer to "winning" the nomination than she was before she made PA this artificially "crucial" state--which the press has bought into due to their inability to think for themselves and write accurate stories.

I suppose now the majority of reporters will parrot her "I'm on a roll" claims, which are simply not accurate. She's losing, she can't catch up, she can't win except by convincing super-delegates to disregard the will of voters. DELEGATES are what this is about. That's the rules, despite her fervent desire to follow only rules that benefit her (see MI and FL) and steal the nomination out from under the candidate who is WINNING.

The harm she's doing to our party through her stubborn denial of facts is unconscionable and surely demonstrates where her real interests lie--with herself and her lust for power. Millions of us are waiting for her to DO THE RIGHT THING and bow out and SINCERELY support the winner, Sen. Obama. If she really thinks anyone will support her in '12 if she sabotages this election for our party, she'll find only humiliation when that time comes around. She can still be a strong fighter for our party and our nation, but not if she helps hand the election to the Vader party for her own purposes. That's just rude.

So Hillary won by just under 10%. With the lead she had going into the primary and the support of the the entire Democrat Party machine, her win shoul have been much larger. Furthermore, a sizeable number of the Pennsylvania voters voted for Clinton because they will not vote for a black candidate. A win is a win but nothing changes with the Democrat contest. When it is over, Obama will have the delegate lead. The fun will begin when the super delegates throw one or the other under the bus. At that point, McCain will win the election because many Democrats will be angry, and the rest of the voters will be tired of the way the Dems have been running this campaign. They will be ready for the only grown up in the race - John McCain.

Spin all you want. Just give me MSNBC's Chuck Todd and the numbers. Obama has wrapped this nomination up.

I find it remarkable that Clinton supporters start in PA with a 20% margin and were only able to stop the Obama gains (which got that down to 3-5%) through an ABC debate moderated by a former Clinton white house aide.

The reality is this: MATHEMATICS.

Clinton must now win every remaining contest with 23-25% margins to overtake the delegate and popular vote lead held by Obama.

Keep drinking the Clinton Kool-aid.

I'm no fan of the Democrats, but the perspective of past presidential elections might be more balanced if, instead of saying out that the Republicans won 5 of the 7 presidential votes, saying more comprehensively and just as accurately, that the Republicans won 5 of the last 8 presidential votes. Then there's also the technicality of the 2000 election, where some might say that it is more accurate that the Repubs won a controversial Supreme Court descision, not a presidential vote. You could go on to look at the vote count irregularities in Ohio of the 2004 election. So the point about the working class helping the GOP doesn't seem to hold up.

cbl talked about gaining trust. is this trust gained by dodging sniper fires?!!

also I am getting really sick of hearing the Obama cannot win the big states argument! are you all telling me that come November, the democrats in the big states will vote for McCain over Obama?!! please people, get real!!

The cable pundits are going to speculate breathlessly about whatever spin they put on the results.
They have nothing but air time to fill. and babble about 8 zillion possibilities, of what the results mean.
First the big story was Hillary should quit because she was running out of campaign funds, and that Obama had the advantage because he could afford more ads.
Then they predicted Hillary would take Pa. by 10 points
Then Hillary wins by 10 points, and its a big victory, after their accurate prediction.
Now the spin is, why didn't Obama win because he had the advantage
I wish the broadcasting media would focus on the position and differences on the candidate's issues, regarding the Iraq war, the economy, etc.,
In other words provide a public service, and use the airwaves productively, instead of the smarmy tabloid endless speculation, about gossip, and innuendo currently provided
It's true the public is craving changes in Washington and politics
The refreshing change should start with the broadcast media taking the lead in this important process before the election, and become professional. and engage in professional responsible journalism.

Without the "white working class" that the elitists Mr.Obama and Mr. Axelrod arrogantly and distastefully dismiss, you can't win an election.

Message to both "It's the white working class that will decide who will be President" and not the pro-Obama elitist intellectuals nor the Media talking heads".

People who are upset about Obama's minister reveal their ignorance about African American culture -- or else are just showing phony outrage. Every Sunday, every black church in America is full of similar rhetoric (maybe not so far as to say 'GD America' -- but similar rhetoric) -- and congregations see it for what it is -- overblown rhetoric, with a grain of truth. White pastors exxagerate to their congregations too, and all the while, we're snoozing in our pews, or thinking about the game or Sunday dinner -- and so do black church goers. America has terrible sins in its past, and blacks have felt those the worse. You have to be mindless sheep to think that America doesn't deserve to be rebuked for its past sins. It's funny to watch white people like the FAUX News crew pretend to get their BVDs in such a bunch about such things.

Without the "white working class" that the elitists Mr.Obama and Mr. Axelrod arrogantly and distastefully dismiss, you can't win an election.

Message to both "It's the white working class that will decide who will be President" and not the pro-Obama elitist intellectuals nor the Media talking heads".

So before PA, Hillary needed to win 66% of the remaining pledged delegates. PA was her last best hope to make up most of that margin.

After today, because of her small margin of victory, Hillary needs 71% of the remaining pledged delegates.

Explain to me how a 5% weakening of her position is a substantive victory for Hillary?

There's no question in my mind that McCain benefits from the lull, if only in unifying and building his base, something the democrats can't do while still engaged in primary battles. The problem, to me, isn't the length of the battle, it's the negativity and raising doubts. If all Hillary has is "he can't win" that's a negative message. If her message is "I can win, too" okay...and? Because he HAS won. So, the whole notion that he "can't" flies in the face of reality. Further more, Gallup today (23-Apr) has a poll about whether Obama or Clinton is better against McCain=--they are the same. Again, the facts do not support the argument that Obama can't win, either in Democratic primaries or in the general. He's run a better campaign, and he has both the money and results to show it. Furthermore, Hillary has started to sound right of McCain and a little desperate in her attempt to tarnish her opponent. As to which candidate's character will hold up in comparison to McCain's, consider the many polls that show most Americans simply do not trust her or think she is honest.

Facts are like math...if we want a strong candidate we need to work together to make him stronger, not tear oursevles apart so Hillary can prove she is tougher but again show she lacks the judgement to know when to pull a punch...

While her PA win is somewhat significant, the fact that she has been the winner in other large, primarily Democratic states is not at all an indicator or electability. Whichever one wins the nomination is certainly going to win historically Democratic states like New York and California, and theres no chance at all of a win in Texas.

What you should be looking at is the candidates performances in swing states: Virginia, Missouri, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Nevada, New Mexico and New Hampshire, of which Obama has won 6 over Clinton's 5, giving him more potential electoral votes.

I have been saying this for months. Obama is not electable. It will not happen. Not in 2008 - even though it is likely that the DNC will give him the nod in August. Not when his "record" is spotty at best. You can lift up and inspire until the stars fall, but without any substance to show action vs. ideology, people will not continue to buy it.

Could Clinton beat McCain? I doubt it. I seriously doubt it. What the Democratic Party has done is supported candidates with historical significance but no real political viability in the general election in November. City folk may like to pretend that small town America doesn't count, doesn't add up to much, but I think 8 years of Bush disproved that theory - with major cities supporting Democrats who still lost.

Obama is sweeping primarily states that usually show up on CNN's big election board in Republican Red. When McCain became the presumptive nominee, Republicans lost interest in primary voting (based on the drop in numbers). Do you think those same voters will just stay home in November, or will they be out in droves to vote AGAINST the most liberal senator in Washington? Republicans... think about that one.

And what of those disenfranchised voters in Michigan and Florida. Will they be out supporting the candidate they did not get to help choose? You think so? Do you believe that the heavily populated conservative base in Florida will vote for Obama in November because they think McCain is a WORSE choice than the most liberal senator in Washington?

Michigan... if McCain makes a smart move and chooses Romney for his VP, do you think that Michigan will go for Obama over their native son?

I know a LOT of Republicans who would be ecstatic if McCain chose a VP running mate like Romney - for the simple reason that Romney is an economics wizard. It would, in the opinion of many Republicans, be the ultimate unbeatable ticket - war or no war.

But the Democrats always seem to pick a candidate that is such an economic and policy socialist, that the voters are turned off well before November rolls around. We haven't even gotten to the point of the election where all of the conservative hot-button issues take center stage. No way will all the socialism fly with the conservatives - and even if they hate McCain with a mad passion, they will always hate liberalism far more...

Re: Carl Spackler

"1. Name the most significant thing that Obama has actually accomplished besides giving speeches. "

Drawing millions of people who never voted before to have record turnouts throughout the entirety of this primary as well as generating record amounts of money without taking any from special intrest groups or current lobbyists. Yes, he does take from former lobbyists, but zero dollars from current lobbyists. Hillary takes the most money in from special interest groups. She has a record of being enslaved to them. Remember the failed Healthcare plan?

"2. How much jello must Obama have in his spine to sit for 20 years in the pews of a maniac like Wright who believes that AIDS was a US govt. plot, that Farrakhan is a great hero, etc, etc?"

Well, maybe that just goes to show Rev. Wright can't be summed up in 30 seconds of video footage. Let's not forget during the clinton years when Rev. Wright was a special guest invited to the WH during a time of crisis. Google it.

"3. Why did Obama vote "present" on each controversial issue?"

This question will need to be more specific. Let's not forget Clinton's vote to go to war. Sometimes a lack of voting may be better than actually voting.

"4. What is the most difficult situation that Obama has ever faced in his adult life? ?

Running for President despite being only a junior senator. Hate him all you want, if you are not impressed by how far he has come then you are lying to yourself. You call him inexperienced, unelectable and unfit for the presidency yet he leads nationwide across the table. That's pretty impressive.

"5. Name one major state Obama has won besides his home state."

Iowa where he was a severe underdog and not even expected to show up yet he took home the bacon. Obama has won all the states he has been expected to win and has won some states he was not expected to win. Whether or not he is truly electable is something Hillary supporters are defining. Of course he is unelectable if all the Hillary supporters jump platforms to vote for McCain. If the democrats stop fighting and support eachother, he's most definitely electable. The same argument works against Hillary. If the so called "obamabots" or "kool-aid drinkers" jump ship for mccain, Hillary is unelectable. All these blue collar white workers Hillary has been winning are also notorious for voting republican. That's how Bush got into office, twice. How many of them truly support Hillary and will support her in the general?

Yes, keep on bashing Obama. Or keep on bashing Clinton. Obviously this doesn't hurt the democrats considering 25% or so refuse to vote for one of the candidates if they are elected, meanwhile John McCain has done nothing but watch the election and he is quickly climbing in the polls. Keep fighting and the democrats will give this election away.

To the people above who wrote "Barack is unelectable" and "the millions he spent didn't gain him any ground against Hillary, and he was slaughtered in the rural, while working-class vote", think long and hard about what yesterday actually proved. Barack began, by most accounts, 20-25% behind in PA. With approximately a month of campaigning, he cut that lead in half. I live in PA, and can tell you for a fact that the "white, rural" counties that Clinton won by such wide margins never, ever vote for Democrats in a general election. Kerry carried PA in 2004 because he won Phila., Pittsburgh, and the Phila. suburbs. While Clinton won those white, working-class Dems in "the T", their size in the overall electorate pales in comparison to the rural Republicans that will never, ever vote for a Clinton.
Let's talk about "electability" for a second. Clinton's campaign rolled in $9 million in March, while maintaining a steady $10 million in debt. Obama has tons more money and begins with a lead in many of these states. Clinton had to hold on to this victory in PA, she didn't widen the margin, much rather it closed on her. He will make her move all over the place and spend money in all of the remaining contests because his $40 million that he brought in will allow him to do it . Even if she does win, she'll be bankrupt for the general, leaving her to be bankrolled by the DNC and, guess who, Barack Obama in a fight against John McCain. If someone can't handle their own campaign, they wont manage the economy with any kind of success. Even if I didn't like Barack, that'd still be true. Guess facts are stubborn things.

Obama's team and some of the media are whining that Hillary needs to quit; that the Party is being devastated. Reality is Obama's lead over Hillary in popular votes is only 500,000 votes over hers out of 28 million total votes. That is 1.7%. Seems awfully close to me. This is the population of one mid-sized city. But of course Hillary is wrong to continue on. Also all the fuss over her negative campaigning is such hype! This is a contest! Can you imagine Obama crying foul in one of his pickup basketball games when someone tries to take the ball from him? The worst part of Obama is his hypocrisy and lies, while declaring himself the "high road" candidate. He took PAC money until last November. He had his own PAC that funded many of the democratic senate races during the last 4 years. He has ties with nuclear waste (special interest) where he receives money from every individual in the company, thus obscuring their corporate donations. Look it up. His voting record is wimpy in Illinois. Several months ago he declared Rev. Wright as his Spiritual Advisor. Now he says, no that's not true, he was only his pastor. What drivel. Hillary isn't perfect, and I have several disagreements with her but she seems a lot more real that Obama. Years ago I dropped out of college because I got tired of the lala, unrealistic approach that college taught about life. The mindlessness of Obama followers who accept him at face value with no critical thought or questioning reminds me of the old college days. If a college education can make a person so blind to discernment, then I'm glad I left. Obama may mean well in some ways, but he is a phony, as plain as day, if one would just open the curtains and let the light in.

Hillary''s new slogan is " Why can''t he close the deal?" Someone should remind Hillary that they are running for the office of the President of the United States and that they are not some used car salesmen. Keep counting those imaginary delegates from Michigan and Florida. If there is one thing that America stands for, is that We are a nation of Laws, and Michigan and Florida broke the Democratic laws. The Democratic Party is not going to show the rest of the country that they will break their own rules."If we had the same system as the Republicans, I would already be the nominee...." yet another Clinton scenario for winning the primary. Do you think that you can make any other points as to whether the superdelegates should back Hillary ? Why did the media fail to chastise Ed Rendell " There are some people in this State that will not vote for a black man" but they vote for someone who channels Truman and said " we can totally obliterate Iran" By the way that wasn''t McCain who made that statement... it was Hillary. I did not say Clinton, because you may have understood it to be Bill Clinton. By the way AOL might want to get their facts straight.... Hillary won by 8.5 points and not 10



Don't believe the Clinton's campaign that they raised $10 million since the primary. It is a misstatement.

Mrs. clinton does not have the funds to compete in both Indiana and North Carolina and she is going to lose both. And then watch her have a tantrum. Her homestate newspaper the New York Times attacked her today for her mean, vaporous and desperate campaign and said she is destroying her reputation and the Dem party.

She needs to leave now. We're all sick to death of her.

i have cast my vote, prehaps you have also?
if so, can we just let our votes talk? whats the point of bashing one another? It seems we have gotten our chance to vote, prehaps we should just leave it at that. good luck all Democrats.

I'm from Pennsylvania. The Democratic machine in the cities is still old-school and entrenched. Obama closed a previous 20+ points lead to about 9 points. It didn't include independents. His surge to within 9 points of Clinton in a machine-run state party is impressive grassroots work. Clinton's win however tells us *nothing* about her relative electability in the general election. It only suggests that among primary Democrats in Pennsylvania, she can win with that restricted audience. In the general election, the state's ornery dead-even division between Republicans and Democrats, with a significant cadre of Independents willing to swing, will likely tilt to McCain over either of these candidates. But if either Democrat has an edge, it's Obama with his grassroots appeal to Pennsylvania's large college population and Independents.

"She can't win, but she won't quit," about sums it up. Hillary Clinton is dismantling the Democratic Party's chances for the White House in 2008 out of ego, sense of entitlement and Clinton family arrogance. I'm a Democrat, but I have to say: Let me introduce the next President of the United States, Senator John McCain.

Art wrote: 1. Name the most significant thing that Obama has actually accomplished besides giving speeches. 2. How much jello must Obama have in his spine to sit for 20 years in the pews of a maniac like Wright who believes that AIDS was a US govt. plot, that Farrakhan is a great hero, etc, etc? 3. Why did Obama vote "present" on each controversial issue? 4. What is the most difficult situation that Obama has ever faced in his adult life? 5. Name one major state Obama has won besides his home state.

Art, consider these answers. 1. Most people would consider serving in the U.S .Senate and running for President of the United States accomplishments, but obviously you don’t. 2. You can’t blame Obama for what his pastor thinks any more than you can blame a Catholic for the priests that turned out to be pedophiles. Because Catholics continue to go to Mass doesn’t mean that they endorse pedophilia. 3. Obama didn’t vote “present” on EACH controversial issue. Out of 4,000 votes cast in his eight years as an Illinois legislator, 129 votes were “present.” Those familiar with the Illinois legislature say that is not an uncommon number. Many of his “present” votes had to do with questions of constitutionality. 4. How is this question relevant? Maybe you would find the answer in one of his books. 5. How about Missouri, Kansas, Minnesota, Virginia, Maryland, Maine, South Carolina, Mississippi, Iowa, Colorado? But obviously you don’t consider them major states. It doesn’t matter. He’s winning in all pertinent categories – pledged delegates, number of states won, majority of votes, and probably soon will be leading in super delegates.

Senator Obama has proved he is excellent at execution by the way he has run is campaign. Case in point, in every contest he always maximizes his delegate count, regardless if he wins or looses! For example, in the Washington D.C primary – Clinton 3 delegates, Obama 12 delegates. A difference for Obama of 9 delegates. No big deal, right? Let’s contrast that with the Pennsylvania primary – Clinton 82 delegates, Obama 73. A difference for Clinton of 9 delegates. So Clinton's big win basically negated Obama’s Washington D.C. primary win. Additionally, Senator Clinton talks about her win in Texas. However, in point of fact she lost Texas - Clinton 91 delegates, Obama 94 delegates. The Obama campaign understands the delegate apportionment system in every contest and always maximizes there delegate count.

At the end of the day, these primaries are about delegate count and ONLY delegate count. Senator Obama gets that and Senator Clinton never seemed to. Senator Clinton has paid a dear price for her inability to execute.

"Hillary Clinton is dismantling the Democratic Party's chances for the White House in 2008 out of ego, sense of entitlement and Clinton family arrogance," wrote Phil.

Isn't it great! It's funny how Obamaniacs want Hillary to quit, I guess because she's a little bit behind in the numbers game... But why doesn't Barack quit for the good of the party? Oh, well, Pres. McCain will have an easier time this way...

In answer to ihummer one point of clarification. In Rev. Wright's church, as Pastor of the church, he preached hatred and racism from the pulpit as though that IS OK. In the Catholic church the Pastors do NOT preach pedophilia as though it is OK. There is a VERY BIG difference here. Wright condoned, exhorted, taught, and sanctified hatred. Catholic pastors do not exhort or teach pedophilia. Think about it. It's really not a true analogy.

Hillary Clinton has two objectives: Get the nomination if she can; and if she can't, cripple Obama, so that she gets another shot at the prize in four years. She is more than willing to destroy the Democratic Party to serve her own ends.

The news media must love these two. Barack and Hillary have brought on a golden age in election journalism.

It's a positive thing for the Democrats, So many past campaigns have been set candidates and exercises in boredom. More turnout means more of a chance of the Democrats winning in November. Republicans win when too many people lose interest in politics.

I think I would ALMOST want to vote for BUSH again vs. Hillary Clinton.

My feelings have gone from I like her, maybe I'll vote for She is a slimy monster who I wouldn't allow in my house to take the garbage out.

She will be the reason why John McDummy wins the White House.

When will this country EVER get rid of the CLINTONS and BUSHS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Recommended on Facebook


In Case You Missed It...

About the Columnist
A veteran foreign and national correspondent, Andrew Malcolm has served on the L.A. Times Editorial Board and was a Pulitzer finalist in 2004. He is the author of 10 nonfiction books and father of four. Read more.
President Obama
Republican Politics
Democratic Politics



Get Alerts on Your Mobile Phone

Sign me up for the following lists: