NC Gov. Easley to endorse La Clinton

The Raleigh N&O blog reports this evening that our Democrat governor will endorse Hillary Clinton for prez tomorrow:

Gov. Mike Easley is going to endorse U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton on Tuesday, according to Tom Hendrickson, a former state Democratic party chairman who is a key Clinton supporter in North Carolina.

Easley agreed to the endorsement after returning from an economic development trip to Italy, reports Rob Christensen. Clinton is expected to fly to Raleigh on Tuesday for a joint event with Easley.


An Easley endorsement would be the first endorsement for Clinton from a major North Carolina political figure. Three members of North Carolina’s congressional delegation have endorsed Sen. Barack Obama.

Easley does not have the same sort of political machine that Gov. Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania used to help deliver votes for Clinton in that state.

But Easley is popular with rural, white, blue-collar Democrats, the sort of voters that Clinton has successfully targeted in wins in Pennslyvania and Ohio.

I don’t think the endorsement will help her much in next week’s primary, outside of solidifying her core group of voters (working class whites, seniors, etc). Easley, I should note, is known by those paying attention to politics around here as the “absentee governor” (as described by, surprisingly, the liberal Charlotte Observer).

Speaking of Hillary, I wonder if she had any BBQ today while she was in Concord, NC (Charlotte’s next door neighbor)?

CONCORD –About 300 supporters stood through a downpour this afternoon to see and hear Hillary Clinton outside Troutman’s Bar-B-Q restaurant in Concord.

Some had waited for hours for the appearance, scheduled for 4:30 p.m. Clinton appeared about 4:45, as the rain stopped.

“I’m here in Concord because I need you next Tuesday,” she said of the N.C. primary.

The nation needs a change, Clinton said, and she’s the right person to clean up the damage she said the Bush administration has caused.

“I happen to know a little bit about cleaning house,” she said, to cheers from the crowd.

She talked about creating jobs for an area that’s been devastated by the loss of thousands of manufacturing jobs, including the closing of the Pillowtex textile plants in 2003.

“I thought the economy was working pretty good in the 1990s,” she said of her husband’s administration.


Inside the restaurant, another 150 supporters who had waited — some since 1 p.m. — weren’t disappointed. Clinton worked her way through the crowd one by one, shaking hands, hugging supporters and having her picture taken with them.

“Have you already voted?” she asked them.

Four female students who identified themselves as “students for Hillary” had their photos taken with her.

Caroline Ford of Concord, a 22-year-old UNC Charlotte student, held a poster that said, “I’m 22 and I’m voting for you Hillary.”

Clinton autographed her poster.

“She seemed very genuine,” Ford said. “We don’t judge books by their covers.”

“Yeah, I heard some girl say she would vote for (Obama) because he was cute,” said Anita Honeycutt, 21, another UNCC student from Concord.

Wow – now that’s a shocker.

Related: “Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) has requested nearly $2.3 billion in federal earmarks for 2009, almost three times the largest amount received by a single senator this year.” – The Hill

Sounds like she’s getting an early start on her “Shared Prosperity” plan


Many, many apologies for the continued off and on site access issues. My hosting service told me today that I am on their “big blogs’ server where a lot of their heavy traffic sites are, and it’s been under attack for the last few days on and off. They’re still looking into a fix for the prob. Hopefully they’ll find one soon because I’m pulling my hair out.

So very very frustrating. I’d offer you all a ‘partial refund’ for the services you’re not getting from the blog but, er, since this isn’t a pay per view blog well, there’s not much I can do …. ;)

Bad news for Democrats: USSC rejects challenge to Indiana voter ID laws

Via AP:

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws.

In a splintered 6-3 ruling, the court upheld Indiana’s strict photo ID requirement, which Democrats and civil rights groups said would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots. Its backers said it was needed to prevent fraud.

It was the most important voting rights case since the Bush v. Gore dispute that sealed the 2000 election for George W. Bush. But the voter ID ruling lacked the conservative-liberal split that marked the 2000 case.

The law “is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting ‘the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,'” Justice John Paul Stevens said in an opinion that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy. Stevens was a dissenter in Bush v. Gore in 2000.

Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also agreed with the outcome, but wrote separately.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter dissented, just as they did in 2000.

More than 20 states require some form of identification at the polls. Courts have upheld voter ID laws in Arizona, Georgia and Michigan, but struck down Missouri’s. Monday’s decision comes a week before Indiana’s presidential primary.

The decision also could spur efforts to pass similar laws in other states.

Lyle Denniston explains the ruling:

The Supreme Court, voting 6-3, on Monday rejected a constitutional challenge to Indiana’s law requiring voters to show a government-issued photo ID before they may cast a ballot. Three Justices said the evidence offered against the requirement in Indiana did not support a challenge to the law as written — that is, a “facial” challenge – and three others said the law only imposed a minimal and justified burden on voters. Three Justices dissented. The decision means that the law will be enforced without a legal cloud over it in the presidential primary election in Indiana on May 6. About half of the states have such laws.


The voter ID ruling may turn out to be a significant victory for Republicans at election time, since the requirement for proof of identification is likely to fall most heavily on voters long assumed to be identified with the Democrats — particularly, minority and poor voters. The GOP for years has been actively pursuing a campaign against what it calls “voter fraud” and the Court’s ruling Monday appears to validate that effort, at least in part. The main opinion said states have a valid interest in preventing voting by those not entitled to do so, even if there is no specific proof of that kind of fraud in the state.

While the Court’s main opinion said it was “fair to infer that partisan considerations may have played a significant role” in enacting the photo ID law, it went on to say that that law was neutral in its application and was adequately supported by the justifications the state had offered.

Putting together the three votes of Justices who found the paate rticulart challenge to Indiana’s law wanting on the evidence, with the votes of the three dissenters, means, however, that a majority of the Court has not barred all future challenges to voter ID laws, provided future cases seek to test such laws as they were actually applied in a specific election. Still, the plurality opinion that announced the Court’s judgment – written by Justice John Paul Stevens — probably means that any such “as-applied” challenges would not be easy to make.

The opinions can be read here. As expected, the usual corners are crying foul, believing “harassment” and “disenfranchisement” are just around the corner for poor and elderly Dem voters. How dare voters have to show proof of identity, even when they’re no longer with us! :-O


Rev. Wright’s 2008 “Look at Me” tour

I’ve read at some blogs that Obama’s “former” pastor Jeremiah Wright is on a “rehab” tour to restore his image, but I wouldn’t call it that because as far as many of the groups he’s talking to are concerned, there’s no rehab or restoration needed. They love him. And he’s eating it up.

Memeorandum has links galore to the “fiery” speech Obama Wright made over the weekend to the NAACP, and Michelle Malkin is liveblogging Wright’s speech this morning to the National Press Club. Per Malkin, the NPC gave Wright a standing ovation. Why am I not surprised.

Wright is not just a racist – one who said things in his speech this past weekend that would have a white pastor begging for forgiveness later on a national stage had he made similar remarks about white brains versus black brains – but also one very selfish individual. He knows the guy who looked up to him for 20 years and who still views him as a spiritual mentor doesn’t want the aggravation of continuing to have to defend his “former” pastor, yet Wright continues to bask in the limelight, knowing that Obama will have to continue to answer for the “distraction” that we all now know as Rev. Wright.

This is one of those times where I’m glad I can’t watch a speech live and blog about it while watching – because I’d write unladylike things I’d very likely later regret.