Under the Dome

Easley to endorse Clinton

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.

"We are excited about this opportunity," Hendrickson said.

Easley's office declined to comment.

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.

The Clintons have been quietly courting Easley, who is also a Democratic superdelegate, for months. Former President Bill Clinton has had numerous telephone conversations with Easley.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Re: Easley to endorse Clinton

In Obama first publication " Dreams from My Father", in 1995, there were two pictures on the cover,him and his sister. Obama republished " Dreams from My Father in 2004. On the cover of the second publication is three different picture. One with a military picture... In the second publication "Dreams from My Father" he deleted approximately 50 pages to build his case for presidency ,to MISSLEAD THE READER that he was a military veteran, and to reduce his exposure so no one would know about his background.....

In 2006 he published " The Audacity of Hope", building his candidacy for president even more, and building his case as a military veteran even more. His Presidential Candidacy is based around WRITTEN LIES, and his military background is to misslead the readers... In 2008 he, also ,indicated that in one of his debate , he first began to run for presidency 1.5 years back. His candidacy began long before 1.5 years back. From the second publication of "Dreams from My Father, you can see that his candidacy for president began as early as 2004, which is more than 3 years.

Certain things in Obama book " Dreams from My Father" were fabricated and some things were used to protect his African Father and White Mother , by his Mother. His mother didnot want some things published. Obama did it for the money. Nor had he tithe (10% ),of his books earning, to his Church( Trinity Church of Christ) . He made over 4.2 million dollars in 2007, and only gave 5.7%($240,000) to Charity. Only a percentage of that $240,000 was given to his Church.

I believe if he would have Tithe ($420,000) to his Church (Trinity Church of Christ), then Reverend Wright wouldnot have call him "Just a Politician".

Re: The Cli-Tanic hit an iceberg in Iowa - will it sink in NC?


The Cli-Tanic hit an iceberg in Iowa - will it sink in NC?

I would have no problem if Obama gave back the Ted Kennedy endorsement if Hillary gave back all of the superdelegates from the states Obama won. Keep in mind, Obama has won more states, more pledged delegates, and more popular votes. If all superdelegates went with how their states voted - do you really believe Hillary would have more superdelegates? Therefore Obama and his supporters are not the ones "whinning".

Certain racist media pundits are attempting to make a big deal of Ohio and Pennsylvania's "blue collar workers (poorer, older white voters who are less educated and more likely to vote their race than their needs)" while attempting to belittle/ignore 12 consecutive landslide victories won by Obama from voters of all races including millions of excited white Americans and independents. According to the Clintons and these pundits, Obama is winning the wrong kinds of whites (isn't this pathetic?). The Clinton/McCain-controlled media are attempting to base Obama's "electability" on only those whites who refuse to vote for an African American, while ignoring the millions of whites, blacks, independents, and hispanics who have and will. This is the only way Hillary can be considered "most electable" while receiving less votes. By focusing on the whites who did not vote for Obama, this allows these racist political analysts to keep playing and playing the race card with hopes they will sway more white voters toward Clinton and/or John McCain. For months Obama led both McCain and Hillary in national polls. At no time did any one question the "electability" of Hillary or McCain. Even when polls indicated a high percentage of voters felt McCain was "too old", the pundits never questioned McCain's "electability". To continuously question Obama's "electability" while he is in the process of winning and is about to become "elected" is blatant racism - pure and simple!

Since when have we elected a Democrat who receives less than 10% of the African-American vote, fewer young voters, fewer educated voters, and depends solely on the votes of "older blue collar whites" and older white women? The last time I checked, it was the African-American voters (not the "Reagan Democrats") who were the most likely to ensure the election of a democratic president. My point is, voters are equally important. Obama is winning the most votes (period). Only the racists are most concern with the color of Obama's voters. Since when did we stop counting votes unless they were poor older whites?

Also, do you think Ted Kennedy and Bill Richardson are the only ones who did not vote with their states. If this was the case there is no way Hillary would be leading in super delegates, while losing in all other categories. It is Hillary and the Clintonites who have been whinning about Ted Kennedy and Bill Richardson. If you recall, Richardson was called "Judas" and Bill Clinton whined as if he supported the "Judas" card that was played. The only reason Hillary has more superdelegates today is because her old "politics-as-usual" crowd thought Hillary was the "inevitable" shoe-in candidate. Consequently many jumped on board early while attempting to be the first in line for cabinet positions.
These overly ambitious politicians did not know they were jumping on the Cli-Tanic and would hit an iceberg upon leaving the station in Iowa. They arrogantly thought their 3 point victory in New Hampshire had repaired the damage. As the captain went full speed ahead while claiming she had "found her voice". They now hope to be saved by desperately beating the dead horse of Rev. Jeremiah Wright without actually dealing with the fact the Cli-Tanic is seriously flawed and punctured with the holes of dishonesty and distrust.

Clinton's campaign can best be described by what the designer of the Titanic said upon looking at documents which included the ship's geographic floor plan, once he realized the ship had been punctured by the iceberg. Rather than being deceptive or attempting to fudge the numbers, the ship's architect honestly stated, "The Titanic will sink - it is mathematically inevitable." North Carolina just might be the ocean where the Cli-Tanic will break apart and sink.

Re: Easley to endorse Clinton

When the Obama whiners tell Teddy Kennedy to shut-up, since Clinton carried Massacusetts, then their argument that Super D's like Easley should be required to vote the way their state dictates.

I think that Easley has shown great courage to buck the masses and endorse with his conscience, unlike his two successor wannabes, who have pandered themselves.

Finally, regarding the Iran misrepresentation. The only "Quid pro Quo" regarding Clinton and Iran is this... IF Hillary Clinton makes a statement on Iran, THEN Obama supporters will twist the meaning.

The question she was asked was what would she do "if Iran attacked Israel with Nuclear weapons. She answered, "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would BE ABLE to totally obliterate them."

This is the concept of deterrence, "being prepared to inflict unacceptable damage on an aggressor, and making sure the potential aggressor is aware of the risk SO THAT HE REFRAINS from aggression."

Just because Obama wants to drink tea with tyrannts, doesn't make it an effective strategy. Just ask Neville Chamberlain.

Re: Easley to endorse Clinton

Obama does have a message, but that is all that he has is a message. He has no plan of attack for of his ideas. Just this morning, I saw an ad touting his education idea and at the end of the ad I sat there and realized that he had spent 30 seconds saying we need to change this and that, but offered no real solutions. I am personally tired of endless promises with no actions or resolve.

Re: Easley to endorse Clinton

Words do matter. Barack Obama sends a message of hope for a better future.
It's a future that belongs to our children and to our people. Old time politics does not resonate. Hillary breads despair and divisiveness. It's the last hurrah for a candidate who has carved out a downward path. Let's hope that she doesn't take the Democratic Party along with her. The charisma of Barack Obama will survive in North Carolina and the rest of the country.

Re: Easley to endorse Clinton


Re: Easley to endorse Clinton

Sleazely SHOULD have had the GUTS to declare both Hitlery AND Obakarama as totally INCOMPETENT to 'lead' the nation, but then Sleazely has to watch out for who he calls INCOMPETENT!

Re: Easley to endorse Clinton





Re: Easley to endorse Clinton


If you think like Barack Obama, that WORKING CLASS PEOPLE are just a bunch of "BITTER"!, STUPID, PEASANTS, Cash COWS!, and CANNON FODDER. :-(
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary's than they had ever been before or since.
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. :-)

Best regards
jacksmith... Working Class :-)

Re: Easley to endorse Clinton

Obama claims 7 years experience in Illinois bringing people together to get good CHANGES passed -as exemplified by 26 good bills with his name on them.

A Chicago reporter says all 26 bills were passed in ONE Year.

But what’s interesting, and almost never discussed, is that he built his entire legislative record in Illinois in a single year.

Republicans controlled the Illinois General Assembly for six years of Obama’s seven-year tenure.

Then Emil Jones Jr. (became the Senate Majority leader), He became Obama’s kingmaker.

Jones appointed Obama sponsor of virtually every high-profile piece of legislation, angering many rank-and-file state legislators who had more seniority than Obama and had spent years championing the bills.

During his seventh year in the state Senate, Obama ... sponsored a whopping 26 bills including many he now cites in his presidential campaign when attacked as inexperienced.

Working Across the Aisles/bringing People together/Making CHANGES = ZILCH
Taking Credit for Other Senators' Work/Integrity = ZERO

Re: Easley to endorse Clinton

Evidently Easley did not care what the people of North Carolina thought (i.e. Obama leads Hillary in NC polls by double digits); Easley did not care about what the people of this nation thought (i.e. Obama leads in most pledged delegates, most states won, most popular votes); Easley evidently wimped out from the pressure of Bill Clinton's race card and others who intend to continue moving the goal posts for Hillary, changing the rules for Hillary, labeling superdelegates as "Judas" who do not support Hillary; and destroying the entire Democratic party if necessary if Hillary does not win.

Bill and Hillary would do anything to stop Obama's likely victory. She is begging for debates because she is out of money and desperately needs to be seen standing in front of the prime-time cameras for 90 minutes since she lacks the ability to operate a campaign that would afford her equal air time. Her claim that she wants a debate "for the people of North Carolina" is as much a lie as "sniper fire". She wants a debate because she feels her and Bill's influence with media pundits will keep the debate focused on Obama's pastor and Obama's flag pins, rather than Hillary's baggage, Hillary's lies (from her own mouth - not her pastor's), Hillary's inferior campaign organization/operation, Hillary's failure to disclose her senatorial ear marks (pork spending), and Hillary's unwillingness to reveal the conflicting sources of the Clinton foundation income. Hillary is not as good of a debater as we are being led to believe. According to polls taken after the debates, Obama beat her in most (including the sabotage debate hosted by ABC).

The Clintons are desperate because they know if Obama wins NC in a big way, they will have no choice but to pick up their race cards, gender cards, and kitchen sink and go back to New York or Arkansas. Bill knows if he loses the election in what is likely to be an unscrupulous manner, his value as a million-dollar public speaker would have vastly diminished. His respect and popularity will have gone from the highest peak to the lowest. They would also have to face the embarrassment of admitting Obama has beaten BOTH Clintons; demolished the "Clinton machine"; and added a larger stain onto the "Clinton legacy".

Therefore I am hoping Easley does not think North Carolinians are foolish enough to believe Hillary is fighting, fighting, fighting, and fighting "for us". Yes, both Bill and Hillary are relentless "fighters". But it is becoming more clear, Hillary and Bill are fighting to save their injured egos; fighting to save their legacy, and fighting to continue building onto the 110 million dollar wealth they acquired by having the opportunity to serve as President. I imagine, they have envisioned seeing that 110 million dollars multiplied by two. They are hell-bent on getting themselves back into that White House after obviously becoming homesick.

As far as I am concerned, Easely, Bill, and Hillary all have one thing in common. They all represent an old politics which tries to hypocritically play on both sides of the fence (appeasing the business as usually crowd with the resources; while appeasing the powerless with the rhetoric). They know how to play the game. Nevertheless, we are most hopeful because Easley, Bill, and Hillary also represent the past.

Therefore, I can assure you, North Carolina will look forward to enthusiastically "turning the page" toward the limitless promises of the future. I pray North Carolinians will see through the Easley politics and shore up a big enough victory for Obama to end this sickening dogfight. No one would mind Hillary staying in the race if she understood as Mike Hucklebee (the last republican to oppose John McCain) to proceed with a wise and respectful strategy to do minimal damage to the likely nominee. Since the Clinton egos will not allow them to understand this, North Carolina needs to end this madness on May 6th.

Re: Easley to endorse Clinton

Wow!! It's thought process like this that makes North Carolina where it is. Almost dead last in Education and Last in Health Care. Are people really that stupid and ignorant to think that the state of affairs of our country is the blame of the current President? Certainly he has not been the greatest thing since sliced bread but due to the absosulte idiocy of the former "more interested in getting BJ's" than dealing with the world or our econmomy President that we had before no wonder we are in a hole. Get a grip people! Hillary would sell her soul to get what she wants and what she wants has nothing to do to help the people. As a former two time Purple Heart recipient and someone who cares about what happens to this country we can't think that anyone is going to really change what is going on in our country. Just plain not that simple.

Re: Easley to endorse Clinton

AWESOME- Mike Easley, stands in support of Hillary Clinton. Great to see Governor Easley speaking his mind in support of the best candidate to defeat John McCain & the GOP machine. Governor Easley shows great fortitude to not pander to the Obama media and support the candidate ready from day one to effectively get this country back on the right track.


I know what you mean about inept. Watching the past eight years of Republican domination in national government has been a slow-motion nightmare from which we will be decades recovering.

Whoever gets to president next will be in a Bush hole so deep that it will be almost impossible to dig out.

Re: Easley to endorse Clinton

It's an interesting and significant move by Gov. Easley and already has made a splash in the online edition of The New York Times, which means that even The Star-News of Wilmington may also take note of this development.

Now, on a lighter note, Democratic candidates for Congress in North Carolina, particularly challengers in districts where incumbent Republicans are running for re-election, have a chance to capitalize on all the excitement in the presidential, gubernatorial and senatorial primaries in the Old North State. This is better than an overtrump in bridge, so here's "the play":

Democratic congressional challengers should consider endorsing the presidential, gubernatorial or senatorial candidates they like best even if they should lose in the primary, then endorse the winners in the fall campaign. That way, regardless of whether the rest of the Democratic Party can unite for the general election or not, congressional hopefuls can summon support from all factions of the party in their own November campaign efforts.

Legislative candidates can do a variation on the same theme. This way the big statewide races for President, governor and U.S. senator won't dominate all the other campaingns politically.

Rather than "run away from the Democratic presidential candidates," simply come out for both of them, or one at a time, and you'd be surprised at the results you can get. But these should be honestly held convictions about the candidates even if they are not favored to win.

When I was in a Democratic congressional primary in the 9th District in 1988, folks in the party couldn't make up their minds as to whether to back Michael Dukakis, Jesse Jackson or Al Gore, so we made it a point to put in a good word for all of them at one time or another, and it gave us a sweep of three of four counties in the district.

But of course, it was honest, grass-roots politics at the same time because all three presidential hopefuls that year ran very impressive campaigns worthy of popular support in the '88 North Carolina primary, won eventually by the senator from the Volunteer State, Al Gore.

In other words, neither congressional nor state legislative candidates campaigning at the grass-roots level should allow themselves be subjected to inappropriate or excessive political pressure to climb aboard any particular national bandwagons traveling through the Tar Heel State unless they feel so inclined. Getting out and mixing and mingling with all the campaigns is a good way to make some headway in a primary especially if you are "a relative unknown," as the pundits liek to say.

This week of busy activities between now and next Tuesday's voting should be one of the more exciting chapters in modern Tar Heel polticla history, so candidates, reporters and voters alike all ought to make the most of this opportunity to chase the wind-swept sails of passing history.

David McKnight

Re: Easley to endorse Clinton

This announcement should illustrate the division within the NC Democratic Party. The "good ole boy" system that Easley leads is not aware of the true wishes of the party's core. Yet, come May 6, Bev Perdue will win the Primary, because she too is part of this "good ole boy" group. Should be an even better four more years.

Re: Ugh (Sour grapes).

Once again the State of North Carolina will be ignored when it comes to who it votes for in the Presidential Election Primaries. Perhaps there really is a reason why NC votes so late in the Primary as the rest of the country may make more sense and have an idea of what is going on. Edwards? are you freaking kidding me, the guy is an idiot. Easley, once again the man has his head in the sand like an Ostrich. The reality is it doesn't matter who gets elected this year they are 4 and out. McCain is too old to run again, and the fact that either party is only going to work to discredit the other during this transition period that it really won't matter, it wil be a wasted 4 years with us the tax payer picking up the tab. As a Republican, I actually hope that Hillary or Obama wins because it will be the last Democrat we will see in office for a while because it will expose that they are both inept.

Sour grapes?

Maybe. I was on the fence until Hillary's scorched earth campaign ignited recently. And now the thought that serious leaders would endorse a woman who has shown the strength of her character by arguing that she would "obliterate Iran" is just about the saddest thing I can think of.

My reference to his not giving a damn refers specifically to his comments about being a super-delegate, where he said his vote in the Democratic convention wouldn't be influenced by what Democrats in North Carolina wanted. But then you knew that, right?

So yeah. Sour grapes that we have a governor who's so misguided.

Re: Ugh (Sour grapes).

Sour grapes would have been a better title.

And the people of North Carolina haven't said who they want to be either the Democratic nominee for president or who they want over all. If you're suggesting that Gov. Easley endorse whoever is leading in the polls, shouldn't he endorse Sen. McCain?


If I had any inclination to vote for Hillary "We'll Obliterate Iran" Clinton, this possible endorsement by Easley would put and end to that.

Coming from a governor who has (1) slapped his hands over his ears for a couple of years on the mental health debacle, (2) directed his staff to purge emails from their IT systems to keep information from the press, and (3) said (as a super-delegate) he doesn't actually give a dang who the people of North Carolina want for president ... well, an endorsement from Mike Easley seems like advice worth ignoring.

Cars View All
Find a Car
Jobs View All
Find a Job
Homes View All
Find a Home

Want to post a comment?

In order to join the conversation, you must be a member of Click here to register or to log in.