Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Clinton Blocks Obama at Nearly Every Turn


At the Democratic debate last week, Barack Obama did not draw that sharp a distinction between his position on Iraq and that of his opponent Hillary Clinton. (Reuters).

This was the day Barack Obama intended to seize the initiative in the Democratic presidential race with an address highlighting the fifth anniversary of his speech opposing the Iraq war. But before he could take the stage in Chicago, Hillary Clinton sought to steal the spotlight by announcing her big third-quarter fundraising report.

The juxtaposition of the two events captured the dynamic of the Democratic race through the first nine months of the year, as the Clinton machine continues to grind down the opposition and Obama continues to look for openings to get around her.

Clinton's advisers have said for months that many of her donors would wait until it really counted to contribute. They said that when Obama raised more money for the primaries than Clinton in both the first and second quarters of the year. In the third quarter, the most difficult of the year in which to raise money, Obama once again set a very high bar -- raising at least $20 million, $19 million of that for the primaries.

Clinton has managed to block Obama at almost every turn. His effort this week to resurrect his early opposition to the war comes as Clinton appears to have neutralized Iraq as a significant obstacle to her nomination.

At the beginning of the year, Iraq appeared to be a potentially serious impediment because of her vote for the 2002 resolution authorizing President Bush to take the country to war. Obama's opposition to the war and John Edwards's decision to renounce his own vote for the 2002 resolution proved attractive counterpoints for antiwar Democrats.

Clinton also began the year reluctant to embrace a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq. Other candidates offered explicit plans. That, too, appeared to provide an opening to pull Clinton down over the early months of the campaign.

But every poll available suggests that Clinton has taken her 2002 vote off the table. Opponents of the war are more likely to favor Clinton as the Democratic nomination than any other candidate. Those looking for a way out of Iraq see her as more capable of providing an exit strategy than any of her opponents.

Obama had a moment last week in which to reframe the issue when NBC's Tim Russert threw out the opening question in the New Hampshire debate. Would he, Russert asked Obama, pledge to have all U.S. forces out of Iraq by the end of his first term as president? It was clear already that Clinton was likely to say no, given what she has said in previous interviews about the likelihood of a residual U.S. force staying in Iraq for some years to come.

Had Obama said he would get the troops out by January 2013, the Democratic race would have had a clear contrast between the two leading candidates: Clinton, who voted for the war and would keep troops in past January 2013 versus Obama, who opposed the war and would bring the troops home by that date.

Instead, Obama said he would not make that pledge. Whether that reflected a longstanding policy position or Obama's innate caution isn't clear. The effect was to muddy once again the differences between Obama and Clinton on future steps in Iraq and make Obama's effort to highlight his early opposition all the more difficult.

Obama's focus on his 2002 vote has another purpose, which is to ease fears among Democratic voters that he lacks the experience to be president. His Iowa campaign swing this week is called the "Experience and Judgment" tour, designed to make the perfectly sound argument that time spent in Washington or on the national stage does not equate to good judgment. Plenty of people who have been around Washington for decades got it wrong on Iraq, he argues, including Clinton.

Clinton is winning the "experience" primary in the Democratic campaign, by a considerable margin over Obama and the others in the race. Obama's goal cannot be to best Clinton on that attribute, but to make himself more than acceptable on the question of whether people would trust him to be the commander-in-chief.

Obama's ultimate weapon is that he represents a break from the past, that he can accomplish things Clinton cannot because he is from a different generation and is not encumbered with or scarred by the battles she and Bill Clinton have been through the past 15 years. That has been reduced in shorthand to the word "change" but it is more layered than that word implies.

But that argument is more difficult to make, takes more time and effort to do it and is complicated by the reality that Obama risks a backlash if he tries to make it by attacking the front-runner.

Obama's advisers argue that Clinton has a lower ceiling in terms of her support because of the baggage she carries. His ceiling, they argue, is considerably higher, whether in Iowa or New Hampshire or nationally. There may be truth in that argument but it is up to Obama and his advisers to find a way to prove it. Clinton's third quarter fundraising numbers offered a reminder that she will not be complacent in the face of whatever he tries.

--Dan Balz

By Washington Post editors  |  October 2, 2007; 1:00 PM ET
Categories:  A_Blog , Dan Balz's Take  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Clinton Tops Obama in Money Chase
Next: What Are Democrats Afraid Of?

Comments

Obama--the anti-war candidate...in debate in front of ALL OF YOU, said that we need to attack Pakistan--i.e., supposedly to "get" Bin Laden.

Does he realize what that would engender in Pakistan (aside from other Muslim states)..?? An overturning of the government by Muslim rebellion with them taking control of the govt AND ITS NUCLEAR ARSENAL!!

What an incompetent ass1 Anti-war? Hell no. tHE GUYB WANTS MORE CHAOS AND MORE MILITARY ACTION.

wAKE UP!

yOU MALES: (I AM, ONE) gET OVER YR HYSTERIA OF HAVING A WOMAN PRESIDENT.

She's got more smarts & cajones than any of the other possible nominees...and she knows how to work the sytstem.

Obama is a child in the wilderness,,,despite his pleas for being the Anti-war guy. Doesn't compute when he wants to EXPAND the war(s) by attacking a country to put the BOMB in the hands of a new muslim govt.

Phew! WAke Up!!

Posted by: artfulme | October 10, 2007 2:20 AM | Report abuse

The Dem's have been using black folks for years. They will never support a black man or woman for President. The KKK for years supported the Dem's. Who did Clinton appoint to high office? Not very many blacks. Some day they will wake up and realize they have been used. The Dem's have kept the black man down and blamed it on the Republicans. Wake up!!

Posted by: DeanS1 | October 8, 2007 11:43 PM | Report abuse

It's sad to see so many articulate people on this thread, basing their support for Sen Clinton solely on the fact that she's a better campaigner. As if being a good President ends at winning an election.

Sen. Obama isn't in this race because he thinks he's God's gift to the free world. He was moved to run by people who see leadership in him. (BUT, regardless of him not thinking it, since a -lot- of people in Europe, Africa, and Asia -LEUUOVE- him in a way unparalleled in any other candidate--in either party--he might just be God's gift to the free world/ diplomacy/ non-violent global conflict resolution. And, yeah, and they don't love him because he's weak, but because he possesses characteristcs they see befitting in the world leader at the helm of the world's most powerful military, in this unipolar world; a man visibly armed with a degree of distress at unnecessary death in the world.)

I find it heartening, though, in reading this thread, seeing how many people -do- see Sen. Obama for what he is, in spite of the mainstream media; a man of true courage, who spoke out against a popular war, when it was an upopular thing to do so.

Posted by: dayvphil | October 8, 2007 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Clinton is all about nostalgia for the economic times of the pre-George W. Bush era. Those times are gone and simply putting another person named Clinton back in the White House won't resurrect whatever "good times" people may recall. The country needs a break from the past, not a rerun. I often vote democrat, but I won't vote for Clinton as the lesser of a Republican candidate. I want change and Clinton does not represent that much of a change.

Posted by: upstate111 | October 8, 2007 3:59 PM | Report abuse

As a Woman a support Hilary for President I think she'll do a great job.

Posted by: vduarte | October 8, 2007 3:56 PM | Report abuse

I find none of this surprising in the least. Clinton has the backing of the Democratic Party who will ultimately decide who "their" canadidate will be in the next election. Hillary has the logistical support of the political machine (DNC) and the corporate sponsors, lobbyists, and other big money interest behind her. I found claim in another Washington Post article on this same site today claiming that most Democratic voters see Hillary as representing the best chance for change to be a real belly laugher. As a real Washington insider, she may well be the best chance the Democrats have to change the Presidency from the Hands of the GOP to the DNC; but Obama is the candidate who represents REAL change; a change from dirty politics as usual where wealth and power call the shots and and our "political" leaders focus on what is best for their party at the expense of what is best for the majority of Americans to a government that seeks to be more "representative" of the people and find new ways to tackle the tough issues that our government has refused todeal with effectively and make life better for all Americans and not just those who hold public office or those with deep pockets who help put them there.

Posted by: diksagev | October 5, 2007 5:29 PM | Report abuse

I have supported Hillary for years but even I didn't know what an impressive campaign she would run, or how confident, smart and hardworking she would be. She is blowing the others out of the water. I don't think the rookie Obama or the trial lawyer from S.C. will be able to stop Hillary Clinton, and they certainly won't be able to do it by attacking her at every opportunity; because the more they do that, the better she does.

Go Hillary!

Posted by: audart | October 4, 2007 6:18 PM | Report abuse

Here we go again!

When Hillary Rodham Clinton, the other Democrats, Republicans and the media feels threatened, this one word comes up "EXPERIENCE."

This is the 2008 Election Campaign "Code Word" "EXPERIENCE."

This is to let "them" know, "I've been around. I know how to run and manage things. You can trust me, in this case us."

This is when we have to remind them, "look what EXPERIENCE got us into."

Remember, Experience sat back and let the unthinkable happen on their watch, and now have us pretend, "it's a beautiful day in the neighborhood. I'm the one."


You want to know something?

All the Experiences are threatened by Inexperience. They will continue to upstage Inexperience at every debate and news coverage.

The Experiences will double team Inexperience. They are afraid, Inexperience just may have what it takes to win that coveted position.

Inexperience has a "fresh" message, a message of hope, while the Experiences talk about all our experiences.

So before Inexperience can answer anything, all the Experiences talk about that experience that got us in trouble in the first place.

All Inexperience should do is watch how the Experiences trip over themselves, about their Experiences.

The people will begin to remember and get a wake up call and say, "we've been there before with all those Experiences. We want a real change."

Posted by: vgw22 | October 4, 2007 2:15 AM | Report abuse


Inappropriate pride with hsu illigit connect
still in the air.
Sopranos no more, please.
where is the change?

Posted by: tabita | October 4, 2007 12:32 AM | Report abuse

Take a look at Illinois and you will see where the Chicago Democratic machine has left the rest of us downstate true Democrats. Are we better off? I don't think so. Poker parties with the guys, smoking cigars and having the "backroom" meetings is what he did here and doesn't deny it. If he happens to be the nominee, they will have a field day with his Chicago connections and he will wilt, just like when he was accused of not being black enough. Last I knew, this was the United States of America, not black, white, red, yellow or any other color. The only colors that should matter is the colors behind our American flag and what they stand for.

Hillary has garnered respect around the world and is the only viable candidate to get us back to where we need to be . . . respected.

As far as the war, all three top tier candidates could not promise to have all troups withdrawn by 2013. Combat missions? What do you call it when a convoy or base is attacked and you retaliate? I do believe that would be considered a combat mission. I also think ousting certain rebels at the request of the Iraqi government would be considered a combat mission. I guess all the others would turn a deaf ear on this? Get real. W has our preverbial teet in a wringer and it will take someone strong to get us out of this mess and Hillary is the one with the vision and experience to make it happen.

Although I am a staunch Hillary Clinton supporter, I will support any of the Democratic candidates for the next President of the United States of America.

Posted by: mel | October 3, 2007 9:38 PM | Report abuse

It still amazes me how anyone can still even admit to being American after your so sadly misinformed electorate could elect Bush, not once but twice. Stupid, stupid, stupid. I see the same ill informed bias creeping into the Democrat Party, probably carried over from the Republican Party members who are bailing out from their own goose-stepping party. How many are only against Clinton because of her gender? These people could be the tipping point of the next election. Perhaps the American electorate should be more vigilant against these woman bashers as your whole society depends on it. I would hate to see the strongest (but not the most intelligent) country's government decided by those social misfits who flip flop on candidates because of their race or gender.

Posted by: fishingguide | October 3, 2007 9:22 PM | Report abuse

A lot of folks see what they want to see in Obama. A visionary? An idealist? The next JFK? If you want to believe that, sure.

But the reality is, he is just another politician. As Senator from Illinois, he supported the corn lobby (ADM) by voting to continue sugar price subsidies, insuring that high-fructose corn syrup will still dominate the US market. What is good for ADM is apparently good for America.

When push comes to shove, Obama is just like the other pols - he kowtows to the lobbiest and special interest groups. And he'll say whatever his handlers say will get him a couple of percentage points in the polls. A great speach at a convention 3 years ago only goes so far.

Obama lost me when he started "talking black" in response to charges that he wasn't "black enough". So he started this urban cadence when speaking to black audiences. Pandering? You bet! Instead of taking the opportunity to denouce the idea that black people have to talk a certain way in order to be black, he just changed the way he spoke. Real backbone there!

If Obama were President, the East wing would be occipied by Mrs. Obama. Not sure I know much about her.

If Hillary is elected President, Bill Clinton is back in the White House. I liked Bill Clinton. Let's get him back!

Posted by: robertplattbell | October 3, 2007 5:43 PM | Report abuse

More of the same - blatant media bias in favor of Ms. Clinton. Hillary didn't preempt Obama's speech by releasing her numbers, she just released her numbers. I mean come on. So if Obama released his numbers at the same time Hillary gives a speech and those numbers were higher than her's he's strategically preempting her.

The Post is buying into it. I guess folks we have no credible news source. Hillary, Bill, and the Donkey Thrill have bought out the news.

Posted by: LoudKidB | October 3, 2007 5:30 PM | Report abuse

You Obama supporters are too funny. God himself could come down and tell you that Hillary is wiping the floor with your boy and you would still refute it. She is winning EVERY poll, not just a few. She won the fund raising 3Q (the only pillar on which Obama stood firmly, until now.) Obama's numbers are flat and in most cases falling. Hillary is burying him in 3 of 4 early states. He is quickly losing ground in Iowa, and in NH and SC he's running tied for 3rd. He can't even win the full support of black voters, and he can't debate his way out of a paperbag. Have any of you actually watched a debate yet? I love the bs about how he opposed the war. He had no vote! LOL. And I chuckled when I read the one post who asked on what intell did the writer base his argument, polls? LOL. Yes! 79 of them! You say let the voters speak? They are. Over and over again, in EVERY poll. Even her high negatives (which have dropped ten points in 8 months)aren't hurting her. And one final note, Obama Hussein is amazingly arrogant to compare himself to JFK. Why? Because he's skinny? I will NEVER vote for Obama. Not in 2008, 2012, 2016....infinity. You keep saying let the voters speak....they already have. Go to Hill!

Posted by: nascarandrovers | October 3, 2007 1:57 PM | Report abuse

I sincerely feel that Sen. Hillary Clinton is the right candidate to become our next president of United States. She has courage to fight for what is morrally right, in setting the course to reaffirm our greateness as a God-honoring nation and people.!!!

Posted by: akber_kassam | October 3, 2007 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Clinton is vulnerable to both Obama and Edwards on numerous fronts.

1) The cackle

2) The cackle

3) Her robotic demeanor

4) Her sense of aristocratic priviledge

5) The "naughty" Bill and FOB factor

6) Her life story: Chicago- New Haven- Little Rock- Washington- New York. What has she really done? It is not a story most Americans can relate to.

7) Her grating midwest accent.

8) Her choice of clothing: who can forget the orange suit she wore at the last debate- she blended nicely into the T.V. set background- an apt metaphor for her propensity to blur past important distinction (and no, it is not sexist to comment on her clothing choices- I would feel compelled to comment on a male candidates poor tie or shirt choice).

9. The dynasty thing- can we bear the notion of another bushclinton presidency- the thought of more of the Clinton's Little Rock mafia and beltway has-beens occupying important positions in the executive branch is down right scary...Warren Christopher...McClarty...Berger...Oh No!

Our new national nightmare is about to begin- please lord save us while there is still time.

Posted by: kolp999 | October 3, 2007 1:34 PM | Report abuse

A-Anbeck, phew, I sure am glad you didn't say that Hillary iieeived you didn't make that huge mistake. The same one that so many of the MSM keep foaming at the mouth about. It's one of the biggest lies foisted on us. Hillary's goons utter the words, the MSM run with it and now it's part of the politcial landscape. Kind of like Bush's goons say there's weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the MSM runs with it and it becomes the drumbeat for war. Never in our nation's history has the MSM been so intellectually lazy. How come not one member of the MSM has called Hillary on her lack of experience? She actually has less elected legislative experience than Obama. LESS! Not more! If a writer iscounting her years as first lady then there should be a disclaimer to the story, as asterisk somewhere, explaining that the writer is making a huge leap in reality to try to equate picking China patterns to having policy experience, or foreign policy experience, or any kind of meaningful experience - the type of which allows you to run for president. And about the "do some research on the political process" crack...you don't actually think even the RNC would create and buy air time for a racist commercial do you? Man, that is even too cynical for me. Believe me, the Repugnantcans are praying for Hillary to win the nomination. I don't think they can beat her, but they want to run against her.

Posted by: markiebee001 | October 3, 2007 12:05 PM | Report abuse

"But I assume most of you are not African American and continue to live in a fantasy world. I guess his race won't be an issue. Intead of getting angry, study politics and the issues and what the needs and wants are of the voting public."

I certainly hope you aren't suggesting that Senator Obama can't win because of his race. I am a woman, and my lack of support for Senator Clinton is certainly not because she is a woman. I am quite "studied" on politics and policy issues, and Senator Obama's views seem more visionary, pragmatic, and representative of the change I'd like to see in the world. And as to the issue of electability based on race or gender, I think it is absolutley delusional to believe that the majority of Americans are more racist than they are sexist. Racism certainly exists, but I think there is at least an awareness, not to mention, guilt. Sexism, that's not even on the radar. People don't even realize how sexist they are, and I am positive that it will show itself when they pull the lever.
I am thankful and hopeful to see that neither of the "front-runners" are old white males, and I sure do hope that those of us who also aren't old white males have enough confidence in ourselves and those who represent us to rise above and lead everyone else past their own ingrained prejudices.

Posted by: squintz | October 3, 2007 11:27 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Balz,
Do I have this right?

You write, "This was the day Barack Obama intended to seize the initiative in the Democratic presidential race with an address highlighting the fifth anniversary of his speech opposing the Iraq war. But before he could take the stage in Chicago, Hillary Clinton sought to steal the spotlight by announcing her big third-quarter fundraising report."

Who makes editorial decisions for your newspaper? It would appear that what you are saying is the Clinton campaign has the editorial authority to decide what gets published as the lead articles for your publication. In spite of actual content driven information, the P.R. team that is most savvy at diverting the message and catching attention seems to control what gets published or how it is spun. You had yet another opportunity to inform people about a potential candidate's positions on foreign policy at a time when the U.S. electorate will be needing to make decisions on which the real fate of the world may depend. Yet you choose to spin it with Mrs. Clinton's name at the forefront and reduce this to a a trivial competition for our (really the media's) attention. The "dynamic" to which you refer is only able to exist as long as our most reputable news sources keep allowing themselves to be spoon-fed easy, catchy headllines and sound-bytes manufactured by the Clinton's who truly did learn from their political opponents how to "Do unto others" as Mrs. Clinton quotes us from scripture. (Again, what appears upon deeper reflection to be a skewed interpretation of the real message.)

Posted by: mchristian | October 3, 2007 10:28 AM | Report abuse

Can someone please tell me where and what Hillary's experience "lead" over Obama is? He's got almost twice as much elected legislative experience than Hillary and, damnit, you can't count her time as first lady. If you do then you're saying Laura Bush is now qualified enough to run for the U.S. Senate in Texas. Look, my wife has been an oncologist for 20 years and I've taken some sweet trips with her to far off lands for symposiums and conferences. But even after all those "experiences" meeting people from strange cultures and talking with them about our freedoms in America, etc. am I now qualified to practice medicine? HELL NO! So why is Hillary now so experienced to lead the nation when she spent eight years picking China patterns for the official White House dinnerware? The one time she got to take the lead, on the 1993 health care bill, she got her arse handed to her by both Repugnantcans and Dems alike. And instead of taking the bill back to the shop and retooling it so it could pass, she instead took it off the road, sped away and started crying about the vast right-wing conspiracy. A true statesman, a true leader, a true conciliator would have brought the two sides together on the issue and got something done for the people. The person who could have gotten that bill passed is Barack Obama. He can bring this country back together. We, as Dems, have to be smart enough to see that and nominate him. For the nomination battle is our championship game. Whoever wins crushes the Repugnantcan candidate. It's like the NBA Finals. The Dems are the NBA Western Conference and the Repugnantcans are the Eastern Conference. Every sports fan knows that whoever emerges from the West will crush the East (San Antonio sweeps Cleveland, 2007). But if we nominate Hillary, it's like we're nominating the Denver Nuggets...pretty good but can definitely lose. We nominate Barack and it's like we're nominating the Spurs. Sorry if this analogy proves painful to Wizards fans...I hope you see my point. And my challenge stands, someone please point out to me why Hillary can claim to be more experienced than Obama.

Posted by: markiebee001 | October 3, 2007 4:43 AM | Report abuse

to all you obama supporters, if this were an egg sucking contest you'd have no peers to collapsing the egg shell as you inhaled'

Freeman gore beat himself by rejecting Cliton's help and it was offered, Clinton would and could have won third term if the constitution didn't have that little provision in it about the third term, you Raderiets voted by proxy for a republican canididate and now you micrify the front runner anyway you can,

How about marginalizing yourself's a little by adimiting you are as stupid as you sound
Perhaps your repukeagain stooge will be allowed to put his name on the ballots with the help of the RNC once again.

That way you can show just how truullly stupid you truly are.P>S Swapland and Joe Klien are calling you> what a bunch of loser's.& WHINER's

Posted by: nightslider | October 3, 2007 1:41 AM | Report abuse

The electorate is at this point determined that the insiders of both parties need to be punished. If Billary takes the nomination, there is going to be a third party challenge. Obama is the only safe way forward.

Posted by: fzdybel | October 3, 2007 1:04 AM | Report abuse

At first, I was kind of bummed out about the fund raising figure put out by the Clinton camp today. However, after listening again to Obama's speech from 2002 regarding his opposition to the war in Iraq, my thoughts turned around. While I appreciate that the $ is important, it is not more important to me (and lots and lots of others, I'm sure) than the foresight, clarity of thought and courage to speak out AGAINST the war in such a powerful way. Really, isn't this such a critical point?? Doesn't the fact that he got it right and she got it wrong render moot the foreign policy experience issue?

Posted by: katylies1 | October 3, 2007 12:35 AM | Report abuse

DaTourist you just had to start razzin Bill (Clinton) didn't you. Well whatever his personal life was is HIS business. He was a very good president. His was a job well done. He got this country OUT of debt for the first time in years and low and behold guess what happen when the first republican came in after him......hummmmm seems I heard we owe China 300 billion and we are further in debt than we have ever been in history! Take that to the bank and see what it gets ya!

Posted by: Linda37167 | October 3, 2007 12:34 AM | Report abuse

Clinton is blocking! Clinton is winning!! We have always been at war with East Asia!!!

Posted by: fzdybel | October 3, 2007 12:26 AM | Report abuse

I agree whole heartedly with you intrepidone!

Posted by: Linda37167 | October 3, 2007 12:17 AM | Report abuse

Does it make me a bad democrat to say that the following sequence of events is to be avoided?
Democrat is elected President. Removes all troops from Iraq. Iraq descends into out-and-out civil war; mass killings, we lose all of the oil fields, ends up in an ugly 3 state partition. Democrats blamed for every ugly scene on the news and the spiking price of oil, dems lose every election for 20 years.
We all opposed the war. Staying the course is idiocy, but a quick pullout is likely to be quick points at first but a mid-term political suicide. Hillary will probably do something triangular like a partial pullout; hopefully there will be a non-apocalyptic collapse of the current useless regime and an eventual partition.

Posted by: priestd | October 2, 2007 11:55 PM | Report abuse

There's no difference between Obama and Clinton. Financially, they are backed by the same Wall St banks and corporate law firms. They have voted the same on every significant Iraq resolution. Obama is simply the empty suit put forward by Dem insiders to create an illusion that there is a serious nomination fight (and to pull in the young for unpaid gruntwork during the election). Obama will do his duty and get rewarded by becoming a "favorite" in some future election.

What is sad is that Dems are buying this nonsense. Sheep.

Posted by: yibberat | October 2, 2007 11:42 PM | Report abuse

What scares me most about this primary is not the issues or candidates, but the voters. If there is one thing that has been learned from the past excruciating eight years, is that we Americans fail to have vision. We do not live globally by any stretch. We live entirely in our own secluded universe. Whether it be utopia or miserable.

Barack is the only candidate who has the ability to see beyond the fog of our current approach to the world. Not only is he the only candidate in this race to have that vision, but he is the only candidate in the last 45 years to have the scope of vision that is neccessary to bring this country back into a global existence. Certainly it make sense to analogize Kennedy and Barack.
The question is - are there enough Americans left who have the ability to see the vast benefits to their lives by having an individual like Barack leading this country back to the world. God I hope so.......

Posted by: imfredricks | October 2, 2007 11:40 PM | Report abuse

Yet another article by the WP that convinces me not to stray out of the crossword section until the primaries are over.

This would be a boring piece of news except for how irritating it is. I agree with the those posters who detected its lack of substance. I don't need to know what presidential candidate was seen where and on what channel. I don't care how warm a welcome they received at a fundraiser dinner; if the candidate has nothing new to say, I don't want to hear it.

The WP continually editorializes by omission, like the sinners they are. This is very obvious when you read the headlines in papers from outside the US. An article concerning the ongoing escalation between Iran and the US would have been more interesting than this (unpaid?) Clinton promo.

Here's a good article, has anybody in the WP editorial staff been contributing to any of the presidential candidates or parties? I guess that would be against their policy, huh... or is it?

Just curious.

Posted by: blubblub | October 2, 2007 11:38 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton won't seriously commit herself to getting us out of Iraq, nor will Senator Obama. Both of them will be happy to raise our taxes. None of the anointed Republican candidates will move to end the war. All of them would hand the spoils of a presidential victory to their corrupt cronies. The one presidential candidate who will end the war and faithfully preserve, protect and defend our constitution is Congressman Ron Paul.

Posted by: txpenguin | October 2, 2007 11:38 PM | Report abuse

I think Obama strategy is good , now is the time to talk about, who voted for the war and why ? Who has experience to lead the country.
Obama has to put pressure on it now to bring Hilary down and He will. Now the message will be hear, people are paying attention now more than before. It's time to clarify the opinion and Obama will stand up.

Posted by: aondouan | October 2, 2007 11:27 PM | Report abuse

I just want to point out...that if THE WAR and EXPERIENCE were what you thought important....then why did you elect BUSH to TWO TERMS... please. Polls, pundits, media who knows...because when people vote...it is so depressing. People are saying Hillary backs the war...So did they when they voted for George W. once or twice. Voters have to be responsible for their votes.

Posted by: carole1carole2 | October 2, 2007 11:24 PM | Report abuse

The Clinton girl will get the "fool" nomination (fool meaning "democratic") and we will have FOUR MORE YEARS of republican wisdom.

Posted by: RIVASF1 | October 2, 2007 11:16 PM | Report abuse

I have moved between Obama and Clinton, I like his challenge, but his comment on Pakistan sent me to Clinton, questioning his experience. Now, Clinton votes with Bush against Iran. She cannot stand up against the war machine. I'm back to Obama to stay.

Personal opinion on the war: want people out, of course, not sure it is wise. Absolutely believe money is being robbed and someone needs to direct it. Clinton cannot make that move, as she always sides with the war machine. Of course, that money is probably feeding her.

Read Salon for a real picture of Blackwater.

Posted by: chammacc | October 2, 2007 11:13 PM | Report abuse

If people think Hillary can be elected, you're deluding yourself.

Remember, Bush took Bill and Hillary and beat Gore over the head with them to win the election.

Between Hillary's bad health care plan all those years ago, Hillary's support of the Iraq war, and those ugly things from the Vince Foster incident... the Republicans have such a rich, fertile ground that Hillary will lose pretty badly.

Like I said... if the democrats are masochists, they'll nominate Hillary. Obama doesn't have a chance either, but at least he's a genuine leader

But with Hillary as the nominee, it's going to be ugliest presidential campaign of all time.

Posted by: Ombudsman1 | October 2, 2007 11:03 PM | Report abuse

Im sorry to say this, but Obama really does not stand a chance up against Hillary Clinton.

The Constant Attacks Or Rather Failed Attempts On H.Clinton has back fired Costing his campaign alittle more each time. Even the Oparah Support did little for his Campaign.

As for The Republican Campaign..(my party unfortunately) with their unwillingness to stand up against Bush and rebuke his personal war and failed policies has resulted in a presidential loss long before the campaigning ever began.

Truth of the matter is, We are in great need of a third party.

Posted by: 0_freeman_0 | October 2, 2007 11:02 PM | Report abuse

The more money Hillary raises the more skeptical I am. How many corporations does she owe? It seems to me Senator Clinton will be politics as usual. Plus how many more Clintons and Bushs' do we want in the executive branch. Enough is enough.

Posted by: RMB2 | October 2, 2007 10:54 PM | Report abuse

The problem here is not Hillary Clinton, it is Barack Obama.

Our boy was right on the money when he took the position on Iraq that he did before we launched this idiotic war. As was the ex-governor of Vermont I might point out. It was more than good judgment, it was that coupled with the courage to stand on it. Right, some members of Congress knew better but wouldn't risk the political heat of voting so.

But that was then and this is now. There is no excuse for not having our troops out of Iraq by the end of the next presidential term. More importantly, what we need is a vision of American foreign policy which does not look to our military power to impose our arbitrary will upon other nations. We need a vision that offers something besides sheer arrogance, intolerance, and rightiousness. Something besides chief bully Robocop to the world. Seriously, where do we think we derive the authority we insist on exercising these days? On what basis do we invade Iran pray tell?

Hillary is no visionary. Barack may be....but I'm still waiting for it to materialize.

Posted by: simpsonth | October 2, 2007 10:45 PM | Report abuse

Bill Richardson is by far the most qualified and most electable candidate out there. He has almost no negatives and the upside of having a strong leader with experience in diplomacy (he was Pres. Clinton's UN Ambassador) and experience as governor makes him very well qualified to occupy the White House. I am happy to see his just about surpassing Edwards at this time. We need a strong Democrat to represent us in the general and Richardson is the man.

Posted by: 2greekdc | October 2, 2007 09:21 PM
----------------------------

Are you retarded ?
Richardson is a joke ! and is the first to drop out except for that idiot from the house that was bragging about sticking credit card companies with 90,000 $ in bankruptcy !No w e t backs in the white house !d u m b a s s !!

Posted by: twobadd | October 2, 2007 10:43 PM | Report abuse

I think that all that is happening with the Obama and Clinton is soon going to burn out soon enough as people start to begin to want facts and will not rely as much upon what the media makes of the debates, but will decide for themselves what the candidates stances on the issues really are. Besides I feel like most americans don't pay attention to the presidential elections until the candidate for each party has been seclected. By that time I think the debates of Obama and Clinton over the Iraq war may have been pushed slightly to the side and other issues would take presidence because you can't debate what meant to do or say forever.

Posted by: pbgodec | October 2, 2007 10:39 PM | Report abuse

To elect Mrs. Cinton is like to beat up on ourselves, or worse, to execute ourselves. Mrs. Clinton ALREADY practically authorized war with Iran, as she did with Iraqi war in fall of 2002. This woman's main supporters are the same people, who financed Bush: defence industrial complex, and oil moguls, or, more precisely, health care connected industries, like farmasutical and health insurances, instead of the latter, or together with the latter(the former should stay in place). What should one expect from her presidency? Nothing good at all for those, whom she is right now promises peace and/or universal health plan, etc.

Posted by: aepelbaum | October 2, 2007 10:35 PM | Report abuse

Oh my another Clinton suck-up from the corporate media. When Obama wins Iowa, Edwards comes in second (this will do him no good just like in 2004), and Hitlery comes in a distant third (I hope she spares us a "scream speech"), you and others of your ilk who Rove castrated will be looking for ways to prostrate yourself in front of Obama.

Posted by: tbjb | October 2, 2007 10:20 PM | Report abuse

just google "clinton cocaine arkansas" or "clinton privatized prisons"

or google "amy goodman marian edleman hillary clinton july 24 2007"

SEE = Daniel Patrick Moynihan opposed the Clintons' Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act--their "welfare reform" law. When it was passed, Moynihan called it "the most brutal act of social policy since Reconstruction."

GOOGLE "WELFARE REFORM CLINTON CHILDREN"

OR

google "clinton crack cocaine prison"

No decent person would ever want a clinton as president they should be in their privatized prisons.

OR just go to my newsvine and see it all = http://danielleclarke.newsvine.com/_news/2007/10/01/996857-hillary-and-the-death-penalty-the-clinton-welfare-reform-law-mandates-a-five-year-cumulative-lifetime-cap-on-the-benefits-you-are-off-the-rolls-forever-the-safety-net-that-eleanor-roosevelt-and-her-husband-worked-so-hard-to-get-into-law-has-been-t?threadId=156777&cmt=1069745#c1069745

Posted by: DANIELLECLARKE | October 2, 2007 10:11 PM | Report abuse

Money can never block the hard working Obama people who hold events and get out on the streets and meet real people and don't spend their lives online.

If you want to know about the clintons and how they make money on the lives of children see their past history.

http://danielleclarke.newsvine.com/_news/2007/10/01/996857-hillary-and-the-death-penalty-the-clinton-welfare-reform-law-mandates-a-five-year-cumulative-lifetime-cap-on-the-benefits-you-are-off-the-rolls-forever-the-safety-net-that-eleanor-roosevelt-and-her-husband-worked-so-hard-to-get-into-law-has-been-t?threadId=156777&cmt=1066762#c1066762


If you say oh yea right etc etc well then your just like them and not worth my time and your life will get its just return.

Posted by: DANIELLECLARKE | October 2, 2007 9:59 PM | Report abuse

Once again the Post declares, "Hillary akhbar!" Silly, silly little candidates, how dare you fight the inevitable? Bow down before almighty $hillary. $he and Putin will get along great, I imagine.

Oh, by the way, there are these things called primaries and an election that have to come first. But they don't really count, or the people who vote in them.

Posted by: kargovroom | October 2, 2007 9:57 PM | Report abuse

Considering that the WaPo's sister publication Newsweek shows him in the lead in Iowa, and he's actually RAISED more money this year than HC, how exactly does she keep 'blocking' him? His message is getting out, and there are plenty of his supporters who will keep themselves open to renewing their financial commitments once the race get deeper into the 4th quarter. An Obama win in Iowa WILL change the face of the race dramatically - another win in SC a few days later is all that will be needed to send the good ship "Mrs Experience" back toward her NY Senate seat (and I gotta tell you, nothing will be faster than her decision that she's lost all interest in being one of the Senators from the Empire State).

Posted by: Marcus3 | October 2, 2007 9:53 PM | Report abuse

Senator Obama noted that, on the most critical vote of Senator Clinton's senatorial career, she WAS WRONG. And, more importantly, she did not even read the NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) even though she had 10 days to read those 90 pages.

So, in essence, Senator Clinton showed GROSS DERELICTION OF DUTY in not reading the report, which, had she done so, would have seen many caveats, as pointed out by former Senator Bob Graham of Florida, who read it and therefore could not vote for the war.

We are talking about judgment, and Hillary showed BAD JUDGMENT on her vote for the war, compounded by her not reading the report before sending other people's kids off to die or be maimed in this war of choice.

More bad judgment...she just voted FOR the Lieberman bill that calls the Iran Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, which is essentially taking the first step towards helping Bush go to war with Iran. Hillary HAS NOT learned her lesson, and continues to exhibit bad judgment for the American people.

Something else... she is also very PRO increasing the H1B visas which bring in high tech professionals who earn about $20K less than our own unemployed IT people all over this country, and the companies don't have to pay benefits, either. She is directly responsible for HELPING TO GUT THE MIDDLE CLASS.

Fellow Americans, please remember some more history. President Kennedy was advised to use nuclear weapons during the Cuban Missile Crisis, but this young, wise president told them NO, and opted for a naval blockade, thus saving us all from an all out nuclear war. Declassified documents show just how close America came to nuclear war with the Soviet Union.

President Kennedy had the wisdom and good judgment that Senator Obama has shown, going all the way back to 2002 when he gave his public anti-war speech at a rally in Chicago when he was running for U.S. Senate and could have jeopardized his Senate seat. He did it, anyway. That's called courage of his convictions and GOOD JUDGMENT.

We do not need someone in the White House who got there by playing the game via the vaunted Clinton Machine, triangulating and changing positions like a reed in the wind.

One more thing...if being first lady for 8 years in the Governor's Mansion and first lady for 8 years in the White House qualifies as relevant 'experience' to be president, then why not have Laura Bush run for president? How preposterous does that sound?

Let's wake up and pay attention, and don't rely on the mainstream media because they have already coronated Hillary, which is an extremely un-democratic thing to do in a democracy, and they do it every single day. Try reading buzzflashdotcom for real news.

Posted by: pacifica1 | October 2, 2007 9:39 PM | Report abuse

Wow, I'm reading a lot of infantile and outrageous comments here. Why are so many people angry that Hillary is in the lead? She's gotten there legitimately. It's pretty obvious that more people are polling for her and she's raised more money than anyone else this quarter. Those are just facts. If you support someone else, that's fine, but Hillary has run a terrific campaign up to now and deserves credit for it, not the cheap shots on this blog.

I don't believe her nomination is inevitable, but she is clearly the front runner and deserves respect for that. The media has certainly not annointed her as many of you suggest. I don't see anyone making fun of the way other candidates laugh or dress. Quite the contrary, I've watched Chris Matthews, for one, do all he can to discredit her for weeks now. Tim Russert did his best to trip her up at the last debate. Chris Wallace tried it. I could go on, but the point is, she's held her groung in a calm, poised, and often humorous manner. As the first female candidate for president who is actually being taken seriously, I admire her tenacity. I don't agree with all her stances on the issues, but I'll support her in the primary.

Posted by: brigittepj | October 2, 2007 9:28 PM | Report abuse

Straitjacketed by politically correct taboos about Hillary's "old stuff," Obama and Edwards and Biden and Dodd (yep, Kucinich, too!) can't beat the Ice Mammy! It's Hillary's secret weapon!

No wonder she cackles! And none dare cross the line!

Posted by: DaTourist | October 2, 2007 9:27 PM | Report abuse

Bill Richardson is by far the most qualified and most electable candidate out there. He has almost no negatives and the upside of having a strong leader with experience in diplomacy (he was Pres. Clinton's UN Ambassador) and experience as governor makes him very well qualified to occupy the White House. I am happy to see his just about surpassing Edwards at this time. We need a strong Democrat to represent us in the general and Richardson is the man.

Posted by: 2greekdc | October 2, 2007 9:21 PM | Report abuse

Well, it's as plain as the nose on your face that Obama's no match for Hillary. Just as Bush checks the Congressional Democrats at every twist and turn, so Hillary blocks Obama and Edwards and Biden and the other Democratic pygmies.

But Hillary has yet to encounter a Republican, a hardball player, who will not be bound by the Democratic taboos about what Joe Biden delicately called her "old stuff."

Posted by: DaTourist | October 2, 2007 9:17 PM | Report abuse

Phew, that's a few screenloads of meta-analysis and spin and whatnot.

Here's the actual news. ie: what Obama said today. Is it too much to ask that you report what the candidates say???

"The American people weren't just failed by a president. They were failed by much of Washington, by media that too often reported spin instead do facts, by a foreign policy elite that largely boarded the bandwagon for war, and most of all by the majority of a Congress, a coequal branch of government that voted to give the president the open-ended authority to wage war that he uses to this day. So let's be clear, without that vote there would be no war. Some now seek to rewrite history. They argue they weren't really voting for war, they were voting for inspectors or they were voting for diplomacy. But the Congress, the administration, the media, and the American People all understood what we were debating in the fall of 2002. This was a vote about whether or not to go to war. That's the truth as we all understood it then and as we need to understand it now. We need to ask those who voted for the war, 'How can you give the president a blank check and then act surprised when he cashes it?'"

It's pretty clear. The Washington Post continues to fail us in this regard. Readers should understand that they have decided for Clinton just as surely as they decided for the Iraq invasion. Why is that?

Posted by: tony848 | October 2, 2007 9:16 PM | Report abuse

You may want to do a poll where the respondents are asked, "Which of these candidates opposed the Iraq war before it began?" I suspect that a high number would say that Hillary Clinton was an opponent. That will change as Obama focuses more on this issue.

Posted by: LincolnDuncan | October 2, 2007 9:13 PM | Report abuse

Dan,

I think you're right in a sense. Sen. Clinton doesn't miss an opportunity to try and one-up Sen. Obama. For example, he was INVITED to Selma to be the keynote speaker and she BULLDOZED her way down there, showing no prior interest in attending until she found out Obama would speak.

Or, when Oprah gave a fundraiser for Obama and Clinton cut a deal with Magic to give a fundraiser for her six days later.

Sen. Clinton doesn't realize it, but she's very obvious and it's a definate turn off.

We've noticed that Sen. Clinton spends a great deal of her time reacting to what Sen. Obama does and says and following his lead.

To a lesser extent, she does the same with John Edwards. For example, who doesn't believe Sen. Clinton plagerized Edwards' healthcare plan?

We all know that she is the lazy, insecure scared student who copied somebody else's homework.

Not even cheaters appreciate that.

Posted by: ItsTimeToTurnThePage | October 2, 2007 9:09 PM | Report abuse

Here's A POLL that will never be conducted by THE WASHINGTON POST/ABC!

If Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton were both bona fide Presidential candidates in Election 2008, who would you cast your vote for?

So, ask your friends and see what they say! Better yet, ask yourself!

Posted by: DaTourist | October 2, 2007 8:55 PM | Report abuse

bringbackimus wrote:

If you remove the last name from Mrs. Clinton, you have a Carol Mosley Braun type figure, a woman of great ideas but not enough appeal from anyone to get any support.
____________________________________

DaTourist replied:

I don't remember Carol Mosley Braun as a polarizing figure, someone who repelled half the people she met. She seemed a nice black lady, with a genuine warmth, whom you'd probably trust to supervise your child.

Posted by: DaTourist | October 2, 2007 8:46 PM | Report abuse

I really wanted Hillery to be our first lady president and in most ways i think she would make a great leader as president but after she said she would keep the war going for yrs and voted iranians declared to be terrorist i no longer think we need her as president also she is trying to stay in the middle by refuseing to give straight answers.I now believe Biden would make the best president and everything he says makes good sense and he gives straight answers.

Posted by: smorrow | October 2, 2007 8:44 PM | Report abuse


Change your article to Hillary "used to" be able to block Obama as in the Denver Broncos "used to" be able to block the Colts.

But no more...it happened after her weekend media spree. Her incessant and psychotic laugher daunted most voters. Do we want a crazy woman in the White House? Nope. Let's choose a gentleman, a person who is business like, suave and civil.

That brown-eyed handsome man coming around third is Barrick Obama.

Posted by: jabailo | October 2, 2007 8:42 PM | Report abuse

How about some in depth comparative analysis of the candidates and commentary on why one may be better than the other? The mainstream media, both print and tv, seems enamored with polls and how much money has been raised. Polls take no talent to report and money raised is only of interest to the media who are really the ones who end up with it.

Posted by: alrago | October 2, 2007 8:37 PM | Report abuse

Currently, with Hillary's nomination hanging over the Democrats like the Sword of Damocles, Dems behave like two kinds of people in a boat about to plunge over Niagara!

Some stand up with their eyes open and their hands over their heads!

Some curl up in a fetal positon and close their eyes!

Folks on shore watch in a kind of helpless horror, unable to turn away, yet unable to save the Democrats.

Posted by: DaTourist | October 2, 2007 8:31 PM | Report abuse

would the media care about Mrs. Clinton if she had never been first lady?

It seems that if you were once married to the president, or a son of a president you are granted ten times more coverage than any of your contenders.

I don't remember much of the 2000 primaries with Bush, but I am willing to bet he received all the spotlight during that time as well.

If you remove the last name from GW Bush, he has nothing. He is a man who appears to be rather slow-witted and would receive spotlight only for the wacky made-up words he said in debates. He would have been portrayed as a joke candidate.

If you remove the last name from Mrs. Clinton, you have a Carol Mosley Braun type figure, a woman of great ideas but not enough appeal from anyone to get any support.

The names Bush and Clinton have been the focus of news media for the past 27 years (1980-2007).

The news media wants to milk these names as long as possible and my guess is if Hillary does get elected, we can expect another relative from one of these two clans to claim all the news focus in 2016.

Posted by: nonrev13 | October 2, 2007 8:27 PM | Report abuse

After the 1st quarter fundraising numbers were released, I believe either Balz or Chris C. stated that the real test of the candidate's respective strengh would be the fundraising numbers of the 2nd quarter. So Obama comes in on top for the 2nd quarter, but I don't hear much about Obama's high numbers and his good campaign. Now that the Queen has come in first in the third quarter, its all about the Queens inevitability and strong campaign. I am on the Obama internet donor base list, and I did not even receive an e-mail asking for a donation until around 2 weeks ago. The Huffington Post posted a blog today about how Patrick Healy and the NY Times tried to pull the wool over readers' eyes in a report about the Queen's third quarter numbers and quoted someone about the Queen's superiority to Obama's campaign. Later, the quote was attributed to someone in the Queen's camp. Is there any doubt the Clinton's have some MSM reporters in on the fix to get her the nomination?

Posted by: bringbackimus | October 2, 2007 8:19 PM | Report abuse

Folks in Arkansas wouldn't trust Ol' Bill alone with a ripe watermelon, much less an underage girl, but folks kind of liked the reprobate.

Does anybody in Arkansas, or anywhere else, really like Hillary?

Posted by: DaTourist | October 2, 2007 8:09 PM | Report abuse

You can blame Ol' Bill for everything from Mogadishu to Ms. Lewinsky, but you can't blame Ol' Bill because Al Gore, John Kerry, and Hillary have personalities frozen in rigor mortis!

No, sirree! You sho'ly cannot!

Posted by: DaTourist | October 2, 2007 8:02 PM | Report abuse

When the Ice Mammy puts on her black leather corset, cackles and waves her riding crop at Ol' Bill, I betcha I know someone who doesn't laugh!

Would you laugh?

Would Obammy trade Michelle for Hillary?

Would Ol' Bill trade the Ice Mammy for Monica's double whammy?

What do you think?

Posted by: DaTourist | October 2, 2007 7:57 PM | Report abuse

Obama has trapped himself. He has always insisted he wanted to "change the tone in Washington," and offer a high-minded call to idealism rather than get down in dirty gutter politics.

Sorry, Obama, that's a pipe dream.

Presidential politics has been dirty gutter politics ever since the days of Thomas Jefferson. It's a real prize to be won and you have to be prepared to do whatever it takes to win it.

Hillary is doing whatever it takes, and leaving Obama flat-footed.

The Republicans could nominate Rudy Giuliani, who has earned a reputation as a brass-knuckles infighter who goes after his opponents with all the ruthlessness he can muster.

Obama wouldn't stand a chance against that kind of attack machine.

So far, his idealistic stances have kept him from going after Hillary. If he can't knock Hillary down, he won't be able to knock the Republican candidate down either. (Unless the Republicans nominated a relatively nice guy like Romney, which I doubt.)

There's a real disconnect among the Obama supporters--they despise the Republicans and yet they're supporting Obama who is unlikely to try to destroy or smear any Republicans. He hasn't even been able to destroy or smear Hillary.

Posted by: sinz52 | October 2, 2007 7:57 PM | Report abuse

Clinton-Obama reminds me a bit of Sarkozy-Royal. Clinton/Sarkozy: competent, ruthless, scary to many people. Obama/Royal: running chiefly on their personality, rather than the issues, and on people's fear/dislike of their opponent. And we know who won the Sarkozy-Royal contest.

Posted by: lydgate | October 2, 2007 7:54 PM | Report abuse

Experience can lead to cynicism... which can lead to institutional paralysis. It seems to me that America has adopted a "Culture of Can't."

Americans CAN'T defeat the terrorists AND retain our principles. Americans CAN'T provide even the most basic health care to our people WITHOUT scrapping 200+ years of capitalist tradition. Americans CAN'T write a fair immigration policy WITHOUT selling-out our working class.

Who wants an experienced politician when the "experienced" politicians are the first to say, "It can't be done!"

Posted by: ratpacker | October 2, 2007 03:13 PM
-------------------------------------------

That's the truth and is exactly why hillaroid won't give any specifics to any of her real views, at the first debate she said you can't forecast to others what
you really think ! Just think of the American people as the ones that she can't tell her views to in advance except her 3 point circle around a question ! She learned that from bad billy mr. Impeached ! There both liars !

Posted by: twobadd | October 2, 2007 7:45 PM | Report abuse

Campaign manevering? Hillary wins. Character, vision, and leadership? Obama, hands down. What is more important in a President?

Posted by: trace1 | October 2, 2007 7:45 PM | Report abuse

Am I the only person who thinks the debates between Obammy and the Ice Mammy am kinda shammy?

Who dat say dat? Who dat? Who dat?

Posted by: DaTourist | October 2, 2007 7:44 PM | Report abuse

A more accurate way to put it would be "Clinton TRIES to block Obama."

Today, she did not succeed. Obama's foreign policy speech got plenty of coverage, thank you very much, and anyone with a pea-sized brain can see through Hillary's rather childish attempt to spring a surprise.

One thing Clinton CANNOT block is herself. The weekend before last, when she appeared on all the Sunday talk shows, I remember thinking "this is not good for Hillary; the more people see of her the more they dislike her."

Sure enough, stories about her "cackle" exploded, as did the Late Night jokes.

And it wasn't the cackle itself - it was the fakeness that it displayed.

Posted by: Lioness1 | October 2, 2007 7:41 PM | Report abuse

Obammy knows better than to bring up the Ice Mammy's "old stuff," like Joe Biden!

Did you see the zero-at-the-bone look the Ice Mammy gave Biden?

Obammy would rather mess with a Voodoo Queen than the Ice Mammy! Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

Posted by: DaTourist | October 2, 2007 7:39 PM | Report abuse

To paraphrase Dennis Green, why do you just f@*cking crown her already?!?!??! I am so sick of hearing about Clinton being the invincible candidate. It's clear the media are hedging their bets and continue to write this dribble. You people in the media are more interested in the horse race than in the substance of the race itself. It's that kind of garbage that lets a guy like George Bush get elected twice. The media have abdicated their role as the watchdog of government for the sake of their profits. What a bunch of wh0res.

Posted by: VeloStrummer | October 2, 2007 7:37 PM | Report abuse

Thing could be worse for Obammy!

When Hillary gets the Dem nomination at the convention, Obammy will still be married to Michelle, and Hillary will still be locked into her ARRANGEMENT with Ol' Bill, in which they make nice in public, and live together like porcupines in private.

Would Obammy trade? Surely, Obammy's not that crazy.

Posted by: DaTourist | October 2, 2007 7:34 PM | Report abuse

So far, with several rounds to go, the Ice Queen has weaved and bobbed and deflected the Black Nerd's pitiful and sissified punches!

Obama stings like a...housefly...

Buzz!

Posted by: DaTourist | October 2, 2007 7:28 PM | Report abuse

I'm sorry but I still don't know where all this experience is that hilarioud is supposed to have ? Could it be her ability to run around a question ? or her ability to know when bill is ling under oath ? or how she learned how to give out 400 pardons to all her associates of white water and all the amnesties to illegals her hubby gave out ? or is it her failed health care that nobody was on board with ?
Or is it all the stuff that they took last time they where in the white house ? or her ability to be a hostess of a sanctuary state ? Or is it her ability to take special interest money at will ?
So please tell me if this is some of her so called experience ?
Because if it is than we would be much better off with obama with no experience !

Posted by: twobadd | October 2, 2007 7:21 PM | Report abuse

If "experience" really mattered, the polls dont seem to indicate this.

Posted by: xira | October 2, 2007 6:34 PM | Report abuse

Obama made a very good point when he pointed out hillary is part of the system and that she has experience "working the system," but the "system" is the problem. Obama has an excellent track record, and is someone who can bring change, we don't need more of the same. It is a new century, we need new thinking. Obama can bring a new approach and will work to bring about consensus between the parties. I don't think anyone expects that from hillary. Obama 08.

Posted by: theroadmaster | October 2, 2007 6:26 PM | Report abuse

Everytime I read or hear about H Clinton "experience" it reminds me of Bush trying to establish a case for war with Iraq. Obama is right Clinton represents the past nothing new nothing original. "I WILL NOT VOTE FOR THAT WOMAN"!

Posted by: kewlair | October 2, 2007 6:13 PM | Report abuse

I did not want to comment, but feel I should. After reading most of the comments, I realize why Americans are intellectually challenged and too often incompetent and naive. Please study the political process. Please understand that a President without support from enough members of Congress is just as inept and feable as the average American is in passing and implementing policy.

I like Senator Obama. I'm African American and I am proud that he is a representative of my race. However, he chose the wrong time to run. I don of any politicians who are not calculating. Its a part of the game. Whetehr its John Edwards, who reminds me of a used car salesman,Senator Clinton who is too cautious, or Senator Obama,who lacks some political depth.

I am voting for Senator Clinton. I have listened to her for years. She is very smart, something that has been missing the last 8 years. This is to take nothing away form the other contenders in the democratic field.

Most of you seem so angry that Senator Clinton could possibly be the nominee. I would say calm down and breath a little. And since so many of you dsiagree with the media about Clinton's inevitability, please explain to me why you then agree with the media when they say that Republicans cant wait to run against her.

The fact is that she is a tough, smart, strong candidate who the Republicans really dont want to run against. They would love to run against Senator Obama. You think the swift boat ads were tough, just imagine whats to come if Senator Obama gets the nomination.

But I assume most of you are not African American and continue to live in a fantasy world. I guess his race won't be an issue. Intead of getting angry, study politics and the issues and what the needs and wants are of the voting public.

Until then, stop being so angry and go and volunteer for the candiate you support. Politics has been same game for so many years. The only difference today is that people are so angry and don't always think rationally.

Posted by: a-anbeck | October 2, 2007 6:12 PM | Report abuse

This won't stop because she is a dynamo AND....Obama is not. Clinton will win the party nomination, no doubt about it.

Posted by: lindafranke1952 | October 2, 2007 5:52 PM | Report abuse

I'm sorry, kevin, but just as Lincoln would never win today, the sad truth of the television age is that Kucinich is too goofy-looking to win a primary, let alone election, even with fair coverage. He's like Adlai Stevenson with a bad hairpiece.

Posted by: priestd | October 2, 2007 5:49 PM | Report abuse

I have my own issues with the editorial page of the Post. And I am looking at Clinton and Obama as two very hardworking candidates with some overlap and some distinctive differences. I neithet love or hate them. They are doing what they do and want my vote. Fine by me. Now I don't have much use for Dowd (both Maureen and the Bush fella) and, frankly, I was surprised by Frank Rich's put down of Mrs Clinton. But I have found Dan Balz to be a very competent journalist and, unlike Chris Matthews or Arianna Huffington, singularly free of agenda driven commentary. I may disagree with his analysis and conclusion from time to time but I would not question his conclusions as partisan-driven.

Posted by: alan_bennett720 | October 2, 2007 5:48 PM | Report abuse

As soon as he wakes up, Fred Thompson is going to sweep the field and become our next president. Remember you heard it here.

Posted by: truthman | October 2, 2007 5:40 PM | Report abuse

Who cares about either Clinton or Obama?

Both are members of the Military Industrial Congressional K Street Complex.

WE THE PEOPLE want out of Iraq. Yet both of these two war monger want to stay for at least another four years!

The truth is, the MSM is blocks honest and accurate coverage of the presidential candidates.

If they actually did cover ALL of the presidential candidates, then Kucinich would be ahead of the Democrats and Paul would be ahead of the Republicans.

The powers that be have already picked Clinton, Obama and Edwards. They don't care which one becomes president because they own all three.

Meanwhile, the stupid TV watching, brain dead sheeple allow themselves to be herded off to the slaughter at the polls, again!

Posted by: kevinschmidt | October 2, 2007 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Dan Balz - Take (his column to the dump).
Lie #1 - Opponents of the war are more likely to favor Clinton as the Democratic nomination than any other candidate.
Lie #2 - Those looking for a way out of Iraq see her as more capable of providing an exit strategy than any of her opponents.
Lie # 3- Clinton is winning the "experience" primary in the Democratic campaign, by a considerable margin over Obama and the others in the race.
Balz you're oooooooooouuuuuuuuuttttttt!
If I was your boss, Balz, I'd fire you for this putting out these lies!
READERS, if you think Balz should be fired, say so here.
FYI: Richardson/Dodd to Win in 2008.

Posted by: lockmallup | October 2, 2007 5:32 PM | Report abuse

to sidmore: I fail to see how a smarter Hillary would've stopped the war. None of those votes came down to one person. It's easy for Obama to say he was against the war all along while giving speeches to a wildly anti-war constituency. Hillary had to deal with the same garbage that every female who would be a leader in modern society has to: the slightest sign of "feminine frailty" and they are toast. All of Hillary's negatives are already on the table. Obama has more upside. He also has more downside. The people in the heartland who hate Hillary's guts aren't going to vote for a black anti-war candidate either. Obama is a blank slate now, but as voters get to know him I think he will be macerated by smear campaigns, where Hillary is more or less immovable and unflappable.

Posted by: priestd | October 2, 2007 5:28 PM | Report abuse

freespeak,

People like you are exactly who Clinton is counting on. Please tell me how a woman who was TOO STUPID to keep us OUT OF THIS WAR will have the solutions to END THIS WAR. There is one thing I will never tolerate in a president I vote for and that is stupidity. Unfortunately, Clinton has truckloads of it.

Posted by: sidmore-TM | October 2, 2007 5:23 PM | Report abuse

No matter what happens between now and election time, it is my opinion that the American (legal) voter will be faced with the following issues:In the democrats they see a picture of continuing the occupation of Iraq ad infenitum, regardless of what they say now. They see a choice between a black, a woman and a white successful , photogenic, intelligent and easy on the eyesman in Edwards. I grant you that both the black and the woman posses the same attributes, however,the scale has always tilted to the White Male. So, you hold your nose and vote for the least evil. On the Republican side, we have a former mayor who capitalized and continues to do so today, on an American tragedy. His record before that, and his dealings afterwards both in the political, social and economic fields are pathetic to say the least.You have a decorated war veteran from a famous military family who staked his honor with his association with the famous crooks of the Keating Five.How soon we forget! A man who after seeing first hand the horrors of war and its consequences, sees nothing wrong in Mr. Bushes war policies. Is this a man that at his late stage of life(73) you want him to be your President? I don't think so!Poor senators Huckabe and Brownback, the press and the media have already written you off, even though you may be the right people for the august office of the President. It leaves us with Mr. Romney. A son of a famous industrialist and benefactor who honored his father's legacy in his own right. Married to his HS sweatheart, raised a beautiful and successful family, showed what he is made of during his tenure at the Olymbics, went on to become a governor of the most liberal state Massachussetts, and instead of resting on his well earned and deserved laurels, he is willing to give back to his country by serving as its President. I am sure that most republicans and a lot of independents and even democrats will not have to hold their noses before voting for him.
I have been a democrat most of my 80 years, and a republican, to vote for some canditates I thought they were better than the democrats. This time I shall not hold my nose and will vote for the better canditate regardles of his political affiliation.
An old and hopefully wise PhD.

Posted by: kyprios928 | October 2, 2007 5:15 PM | Report abuse

I wouldn't vote for Obama if he was the only man in the race. He is too inexperienced. I prefer Joe Biden, but I know he can't get the nomination but he is the best and smartest candidate when it comes to Foreign Policy. I would vote for George Bush before I vote for Obama. He is too pro-illegal immigrant to suit me.

Posted by: Lavrat2000 | October 2, 2007 5:14 PM | Report abuse

I'm a registered Democrat, and let me tell you I will vote for *anybody but Hillary*. She typifies so much that is wrong with our political system today. Machine politics as usual....no thanks.

She couldn't stand up to evil (c'mon folks we all know the invasion of Iraq was just plain wrong) when it counted, and still can't even admit it was a mistake.

Three things would result from a Clinton nomination: Mass disaffection from the Democratic party (maybe to the greens?); re-energization of the Republican party (they hate her even more than I do); A Republican presidential win in 2008.

I simply refuse to perpetuate the political status quo, because right now it stinks of graft, corruption and corporate influence, on *both* sides of the aisle!

Posted by: Diogenes1 | October 2, 2007 5:11 PM | Report abuse

As a registered Democrat in NYS I am certainly NOT voting for her. Is Dan Balz on her payroll? Thank heavens Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd have the Dragon Lady Clinton's number even if Balz doesn't.

Posted by: Nancianne | October 2, 2007 5:10 PM | Report abuse

It's the media that chooses to make HIllary beating Obama by $3million in primary money one quarter as a big deal. They tweak narratives and expectations to make Hillary look great when it is remarkable that a newcomer like Obama has raised more primary cash overall than the vaunted Clinton machine over the entire year. They shout news that is good for her and whisper news that is good for Obama, and then they cynically blame Obama for not getting his message out or moving the polls. They did a similar thing with Gore in 2000. It's subtle but it is pervasive. I think the Media spins things for Hillary because they know that they know she is good for business. Hyperpartisanship, scandals, wars all sell papers and drive ratings. Consensus and progress do not. The interests of the media and the country are at cross-purposes. Let's hope the media doesn't get the years of division and rancor they cynically hope for.

Posted by: RKARKA | October 2, 2007 4:53 PM | Report abuse

The Clinton's advantage is that when the Repulicans went for the kill in the 90's both with Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky, they ( ironically) were helping the Clintons. They can't pull any dirt on Hillary or Bill that have not been out there. They can't surprise us anymore. They have no ammuniton left. They dragged those 2 people through the mud, the had a feast, they tortured them, they humiliated them. Now who has the last laugh... If they were smarter and less greedy, they would have saved Whitewater for now.

Posted by: mikal.roc | October 2, 2007 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Im tired of this experience issue between Barack and Hillary.None none of them has been a president before, so why cant we take them on issues? does experience count? my guess is no given Cheney who was in Ford administration decades ago and we still doubt his experience. Who can represent America to to the rest of the world? that is the issue.

Posted by: toniwire | October 2, 2007 4:44 PM | Report abuse

I wonder what the Clinton camp will have to say when the other contenders start to bring up the reverse coattails effect she will have across the country.

She has decided that she wants to be the first female presidential nominee and potentially president. If it didn't have such a negative effect on the policies that we all on the progressive side would like to maintain and achieve I'd say more power to her. Her main problem is that the only people that she really inspires are those who oppose her and that will make life harder for everyone down ballot from her.

Hillary Clinton could remain in the Senate and develop a leadership position comparable, if not exceeding, that of Edward Kennedy. She could help America forward for the next generation. Instead she wants to go down in history as the first woman President. It's a great ambition, but her selfishness is not worth the damage it will do to progress in government and society.

Posted by: ThomasFiore | October 2, 2007 4:40 PM | Report abuse

REALITIES:
1. MSM is dying for Clinton slip so they can turn this into horserace which sells papers/airtime. Ditto Republicans.
2. Clinton won't oblige so msm are reduced to bloviating about her laugh and neckline. Ditto Republicans.
3. Obama and other candidates are not going to start civil war in Democratic party by major attack on Clinton or her spouse who is only two term dem president since FDR. Republicans visibly disappointed.
4. All democratic opponents of Clinton are trapped by impossibility of starting civil war and fact that you really can't get a pin between their positions.
5. Clinton really is turning in a stellar performance on the campaign trail. Much of the above would be irrelevant if she was obviously underperforming. Instead the reverse is true. She absolutely exudes poise, competence, intelligence, and being well informed on the issues.
6. She's a shoo in for the nominations. The Republicans who are deep disarray and operating in a political landscape that is very unsympathetic to them are beside themselves with rage but can do nothing to stop her.
7. She seems very likely to win the presidency.

Posted by: johnbsmrk | October 2, 2007 4:39 PM | Report abuse

My main problem with Clinton (besides the fact that we really don't need another conservative in the White House) is the crazy political dynasty stuff that is polluting our democracy. Enough is enough.

Posted by: sequoiaqueneaux | October 2, 2007 4:39 PM | Report abuse

To sGreen1: I am anti-war and I support Hillary; so now you know of one. Stop saying you don't.

I agree with bghgh wholeheartedly; I am for Hillary in part despite our differences on some issues because I am tired of my party nominating nice guys who are hapless campaigners and therefore lose to a Republican whose only competence is at campaigning. Hillary is our best chance to keep another Republican out of the oval office and to make a course correction on a host of issues, including but not exclusively this misbegotten war.

Posted by: intrepidone38 | October 2, 2007 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Has any candidate proven to you that they are more qualified to lead our country. It seems to me that both candidates have smeared each other to make us believe that one is better than the other with no real right or wrong, just opinions on how to move forward. Who do you consider has more experience and better judgment? ------ />
.
http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=621

.

Posted by: PollM | October 2, 2007 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Although folks are understandably upset at the MSM pro-Hillary bias (Post and NYT the worst), do not miss the gist of this story. Obama has yet to go after Hillary. Perhaps he is waiting, or maybe he feels he is above this attack mentality, or maybe he is angling for VP spot. Whatever it is, the MSM hate it because it makes their jobs harder. Perhaps they could write about the candidates' views on issues, but in fairness to reporters, the leaders refuse to take detailed positions on anything.

Posted by: merganser | October 2, 2007 4:35 PM | Report abuse

out here in the west there is a full scale revolt among dems against a Hillary-led ticket. we will see legions of democrats abandoning their party come election time. I know that's what I'm going to do if she's my only choice.

Posted by: buhjesus | October 2, 2007 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Let wait for primaries, i guess the media have been biased on who is leading in 2008 polls. They cant explain Obama's money lead neither his big multitude. The other day he was in NewYork, the media reported about 24000 people in attendance but casted doubt whether these will be voter.
Media!! media!!

Posted by: toniwire | October 2, 2007 4:32 PM | Report abuse

re: "She has admitted to another six years of this war."

NO Democrats have "admitted" to another six years of this war.

Clinton, Obama, and Edwards would not promise to be out five years from now, not knowing what things are going to look like even a year from now.

If you want a candidate to PROMISE to be out of Iraq no matter what they inherit from GWB, you are supporting Kucinich or Richardson.
Fine men.

But please don't say Clinton "admitted" to another six years in Iraq.
Her exact words were, "It is my goal to be out of Iraq in 2012."

Posted by: freespeak | October 2, 2007 4:31 PM | Report abuse

You folks at the post are so consumed with defending the existing political establishment and this article is such a good example. It will be a great thng for the country to have a President that shakes things up, including the media. It's too bad organizations like the WP have moved so far from reporting as and instead have become tools of the political cartel/establishment.

Posted by: matthewac | October 2, 2007 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Dan Balz is a jerk, this focus on money is exactly what f's up our elections to begin with. WE DON'T CARE WHO RAISED THE MOST MONEY DAN! I vote in NH, and I don't give a crap about whether Clinton has the most dough, of course she does, she's a shill for the most wealthy lobby in America. Guess who?

Posted by: AIPACiswar | October 2, 2007 4:10 PM | Report abuse

I still don't think that Hillary would be the best candidate. Sure, everyone thinks that she represents the perfect woman, but I don't think that she does. All she does, is show up to the senate meetings, and vote. What about the real people that are really serving the country in Iraq. Besides, what would we call Bill anyway, First Man?

Posted by: rugbygrl55 | October 2, 2007 4:05 PM | Report abuse

HOW ABOUT BEING TOUGH ON HILLARY. IS $ NOW MORE IMPORTANT THAT SOUND JUDGEMENT??

BALZ/KORNBLUT (2/11/07): "Obama's sharpest difference with both Clinton and Edwards is his early opposition to the Iraq war; they voted for the 2002 resolution authorizing President Bush to invade Iraq. Edwards has since apologized for his vote, and Clinton has said she would not have voted that way had she known then what she knows now." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/10/AR2007021001544.html
OBAMA HAD THE JUDGEMENT TO SEE IRAQ FOR WHAT IT IS, an 800 billion dollar quagmire. It is amazing he has raised as much as he has with all of the Clinton's connections in the beltway.

Posted by: StevenAK | October 2, 2007 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Clinton will not end this war. She has admitted to another six years of this war. She thinks the voters are too stupid to know and she is correct. Obama is the only candidate that will end this war and the voters are being sold a line about his inexperience. A vote for Clinton is a vote for PERPETUAL WAR. She really is Bush/Cheney Light. Wake up and have the courage to vote for change before Clinton is explaining to voters why she didn't end this war as president and why you should give her another four years to end a war she has not intentions of ending.

Posted by: sidmore-TM | October 2, 2007 4:02 PM | Report abuse

HSU LOVES YA, BABY? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

Posted by: sawargos | October 2, 2007 3:50 PM | Report abuse

As Hillary's election becomes more of an inevitable coronation, the media will do everything necessary to be on the winning side. And they want to be on her side early - mostly out of fear. For the media it is just a business decision.

Posted by: andrewp111 | October 2, 2007 3:50 PM | Report abuse

What is disturbing is that none of Hillary Clinton's strategic success can be attributed to Hillary Clinton. I am an Obama supporter and I admit the timing of her fundraising announcement was clever and politically savvy. But I do not believe for one minute any of this was her idea or that she is the brains behind the strategy of her campaign. And, that is my problem with her candidacy. I do not know where she ends and Bill Clinton begins, and I am not willing to gamble. Bill Clinton will not be in the oval office. Most importantly, he shouldn't be.

I think HRC is a smart, disciplined, cautious technician, someone anyone would like on the team. Should she lead the team? No. In my opinion, this country needs a strong resolute leader capable of leading his or her adversaries along with supporters - that's just not Hillary Clinton (nor any of the republican frontrunners who refused to attend the debates focused on minority issues).

Posted by: dpack | October 2, 2007 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Kucinich is our only hope. It doesn't take much critical thinking to realize the rest are all fascists

Posted by: PrinceofSobry | October 2, 2007 3:41 PM | Report abuse

The more cynical politics Ms. Clinton plays, the more attractive a candidate Rudy Guliani looks. Hillary Clinton's cowardice and cynicism has somehow been morphed into a candidate that Democrats think can win an election.

As an independent and a liberal, up until recently, I have to say that Hillary Clinton more than any other candidate in my lifetime helped me see, better, what a power-hungry and cynical lot that liberals and Democrats can be. And leave me wanting nothing to do with her or them.

Ben Sutherland
http://benfrankln.blogspot.com/

Posted by: benfrankln | October 2, 2007 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Sometimes the media does pick on silly things about Clinton, but all-in-all I do see a bias towards her. Consider, for example, how many sources are reporting on her *finally* raising slightly more money than her Obama for the primary. Should that really be a bigger story than the portion of her funds that comes from big-spenders and lobbyists compared to Obama? 70% of her donations have been the maximum for a primary of $2,300. Does that constitute a grassroots movement? Why doesn't she release her total number of contributors? Obama's got 350,000 - why isn't that a story? Or the fact that he doesn't accept money from federal lobbyists? And finally, with all this in mind - do the Clinton supporters really think that the coverage has been unbiased?

Posted by: pmessall | October 2, 2007 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Ms. Inevitable's cynicism and cackle are going to knock her out, not to mention Oprah's endorsement of B. O. He's got it!

Posted by: filoporquequilo | October 2, 2007 3:32 PM | Report abuse

This clearly was written before he delivered his speech at DePaul University today. I'd like to see how she triangulates or media blitzes are way out of this one (without a media assist).

Posted by: kj_593 | October 2, 2007 3:32 PM | Report abuse

While I think Hilary would make a fine president, I am for Obama.

As for his "inexperience", Bill Clinton had no foreign policy experience when he was elected president and it didn't hinder him. Bush had little experience period other than campaigning (for Poppy and for himself...and he was good at that) when he became president. Texas, though a large state, is one that is run mostly by the legislature. I had no idea about this until I moved there (just before the Bush-Gore election). Bush's track record hinted at what we got when he became our president so it should have been no surprise.

I think Obama DOES have experience that is valid, and it not only includes his childhood experience of living overseas, but also his Harvard accomplishments (including head of Harvard Law Review), his decision to go work in community service as opposed to working for a prestigious law firm which he could have, and finally his work in the state senate and also the Senate of the US.

While I agree that the press (and probably there is some manipulation in there by the powers that be) in driving what the story is, Obama is going to have to break out of being careful. Campaigning is an art and a difficult one to master, and the Clintons are masters at it. The skills that it takes to be a good campaigner do not translate necessarily into a good leader (example: Bush Deux).....as I said, I think Hilary would be fine, but I am ready for our country to move forward and I think it is time right now for us to be past the Clinton/Bush years. I feel like the baby boomers of their era (Obama is at the tail end of BB) have messed up our country in a lot of ways and it is time for someone with a fresh vision. Obama is smart enough to hire a good team around him. No president can possibly have all of the skills/experience to handle every problem that he/she faces. The most important task is to surround himself/herself with the smartest most capable team.

I think one reason that the Republicans (and press who aren't as liberal as we are being made to lead...at least the owners) are making such a big deal about Hilary is that if Obama wins the nomination, they are dead. No chance in heck of their winning. They have a Hilary Script already. They don't have an Obama one.

Posted by: bklynny | October 2, 2007 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Cancel my request for a copy of the Clinton Cackle. Found and installed on my cell. Metro riders watch out!!!!

Posted by: Tupac_Goldstein | October 2, 2007 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Last quarter when Obama set an all-time record in fundraising, it surprisingly went unnoticed like a dead fly. Everybody (from the times to the post)stated the numbers without any interpretation just like there were meaningless. All of sudden, Hillary becomes the goddess of all candidates because she raised a bigger amount. This article appeared 1837 times on the net with sometime some alterations (news recycling). If Obama's had the same attention the last quarter, her highness Hillary would have been history today. Those people in the media can make you worship Hitler and hate Jesus if they want you to (If you're not smart enough of course).

Posted by: gnazaire | October 2, 2007 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton didn't just vote for the war; she was second only to Joe Lieberman among Senate Democrats in helping the administration to rhetorically connect Saddam and Iraq to the general anti-terrorist hysteria during the lead-up to war.

It's beyond me why anyone would think that the best way for the Democrats to follow possibly the worst administration in American history is to offer voters a candidate who fully supported that administration's single most disastrous mistake.

While Hillary was helping the country rush to war, this is what Obama was saying (five years ago today):

"I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne."

Sounds like someone with experience, judgment, and, most importantly, a moral sense that transcends all political calculation.

Posted by: jmcgrath1 | October 2, 2007 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Experience can lead to cynicism... which can lead to institutional paralysis. It seems to me that America has adopted a "Culture of Can't."

Americans CAN'T defeat the terrorists AND retain our principles. Americans CAN'T provide even the most basic health care to our people WITHOUT scrapping 200+ years of capitalist tradition. Americans CAN'T write a fair immigration policy WITHOUT selling-out our working class.

Who wants an experienced politician when the "experienced" politicians are the first to say, "It can't be done!"

Posted by: ratpacker | October 2, 2007 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Really? The media bias argument again? Was anyone reading the news or watching the pundits talk about Hillary's "cackle" and questioning her resolve just yesterday? I bet all the Obama supporters didn't mind that media covering the story. Guess what? Same media.

I support Senator Clinton and think this fundraising cycle is critical because, as the journalist suggests, the third quarter is always the most sluggish. For Senator Clinton to pull an upset in this quarter is newsworthy for a host of reasons...one of which indicates that Obama's lagging poll numbers are driving resources in the Senator's direction.

Posted by: jesuscastillon | October 2, 2007 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Ever since Ted White's "The Making of the President 1960", the media has been more interested in reporting about campaign strategies and tactics than on what kind of president a candidate would make. They seem to approach the Presidential contest as the they do sporting events.

Does a newspaper that provides the best information about who is going to win earn greater reward than one that provides voters with the best information on which to judge the candidates?

I wish that we could ban the public dissemination of all presidential polls.

Posted by: btm11 | October 2, 2007 3:03 PM | Report abuse

you didn't read the commentary, most of you wouldn't know what to think. I like how Obama supporters are so drawn to stories that they think are bashing Obama. This isn't supportive of Hillary, it's just stating fact. And yea, the polls say that Hillary is winning the experience card. Apparently most of you commentators aren't keeping up. For shame!

Posted by: crzytwnman | October 2, 2007 02:49 PM

Yea a poll of 500 reflects the opinions of 300 million Americans. Right.

Posted by: TennGurl | October 2, 2007 3:00 PM | Report abuse

I too am tired of all the commentary and can't wait for the voters to speak. These campaigns are entirely too long.

But the fact is that voters are speaking. They are speaking when they answer pollsters and they are speaking when they donate money. And the Obama supporters can only accept that when their candidate does OK.

It is interesting how many people are donating to Clinton not only for the primary but they see her as the candidate. She will have a huge warchest built up when she begins the campaign.

This quarter she raised more money. Give her that credit. Many of us who are Clinton supporters gave credit to Obama in the first two quarters when he out-raised her.

It is clear that Hillary is the frontrunner. Does that mean this is over- no way!!! There is a long way to go until February 5th when I do believe it will all be over. But if you look at polls- endorsements- just in the last few days Ron Dellums, Anthonty Brown, and William Gray, along with the former sec'y of the Army all endorsed Hillary- you do get the feeling that things are moving in Hillary's direction.

There is still time for Obama but I believe that if he is going to rely on statements like having web based fireside chats to carry him over the top- thet just won't work and will only reinforce his lack of experience and ability to focus on what is really important.

Franklin Roosevelt didn't do his fireside chats to get imput from constituents he did them to help keep people informed. I want to know who will be Barack Obams's national security advisors and hope he doesn't say the people on move-on.org.

Let's keep all these chats civil and let's agree it is not over till its over.

Posted by: peterdc | October 2, 2007 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Oops! I meant things get a lot tougher in the general elections ( not the primaries."

Posted by: bghgh | October 2, 2007 2:58 PM | Report abuse

The way we know that Hillary Clinton is more experienced is by the fact that she "blocks Obama at nearly every turn". She learned that by helping run 2 of her husband's elections and 2 of her own.
Obama has less experience and keeps getting surprised by Hillary's campaign moves. He will be smarter if he runs in the future.
And don't forget. When the Democrats elect a nominee that person has a much larger battle ahead -- the one with the Republican party, and they play a lot dirtier than Hillary does.
There is good reason for the top vote getter to be the candidate for President. The battle just gets tougher in the primaries.
I think highly of both Obama and Edwards, but if they keep getting blocked by Hillary -- then, by definition, she is the best candidate.
She certainly represents Democrats a whole lot better than Rudi Guiliani, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson.

Posted by: bghgh | October 2, 2007 2:55 PM | Report abuse

In Missouri, all I have to do is look at bumper stickers, none of which have Clinton '08 on them.

Posted by: nat22784 | October 2, 2007 2:55 PM | Report abuse

WP may say Clinton's ahead but I'm sure not voting for her.

Posted by: forcewinder | October 2, 2007 2:52 PM | Report abuse

thebobbob,

Couldn't have said it better myself. A former first lady married to an ex president considered the most popular person in the Democratic Party (on the planet according to Hillary Clinton) and she still only outraises him by a few million. Moreover, she does it accepting federal PAC money. It never ceases to amaze me how Dan and Chris continues to lower the bar for her.

Posted by: NMP1 | October 2, 2007 2:50 PM | Report abuse

SGreen1, learn how to spell Hillary and we'll talk.

Posted by: crzytwnman | October 2, 2007 2:50 PM | Report abuse

If you didn't read the commentary, most of you wouldn't know what to think. I like how Obama supporters are so drawn to stories that they think are bashing Obama. This isn't supportive of Hillary, it's just stating fact. And yea, the polls say that Hillary is winning the experience card. Apparently most of you commentators aren't keeping up. For shame!

Posted by: crzytwnman | October 2, 2007 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Dan Balz's (Washington Post) bias cannot go unnoticed in the following untenable conclusion: "Opponents of the war are more likely to favor Clinton as the Democratic nomination than any other candidate. Those looking for a way out of Iraq see her as more capable of providing an exit strategy than any of her opponents." What are you guys doing here? Reporting or supporting a candidate? I have not come across a single person who opposes the war supports Hilary. Hilary has said she will never take a war and nuclear options off the table. Hilary will never apologize for authorizing the war and for creating this mess we are into. because she will give continuity to Bush legacy as she will not pull out our troops from Iraq even by the end of her term(s) were she to get elected. Why would a war opponent support a war monger who is more like Bush in most respects?

Posted by: SGreen1 | October 2, 2007 2:47 PM | Report abuse

LoudounVoter... what?! lol Your husband is nuts!

Posted by: crzytwnman | October 2, 2007 2:46 PM | Report abuse

egengle I love the comment about "Obama representing what we aspire to be".

And a good way to distract us from our aspirations is to throw the question of experience (and underlying fear of "too little" experience) into the mix

The first seven years of the Bush administration did not lack for experience. George had an incredibly seasoned team.

None of the guys on Rushmore had much in the way of experience especially Washington and Lincoln.

What counts is leadership. Some proof of this is in the book "1776". Experience would have said we could never beat the the British in a fight. We have our country today due to Washington's sheer courage, will, and leadership. He had no experience as a president nor a general.

In my opinion re: leadership there is only Obama

Posted by: dwilcox | October 2, 2007 2:43 PM | Report abuse

I'm sick of this kind of commentary. I can't wait til voters get a chance to weigh in. Everything will change once we start to see primary results.

Posted by: none987 | October 2, 2007 2:22 PM | Report abuse

heard, not head! Sorry!

Posted by: egengle | October 2, 2007 2:11 PM | Report abuse

my husband noted that Obama is about what we aspire to be and Clinton is about a mere change in parties. I have head lots of people mention "Kennedy" in comparisons. And it is long, but worth reading the text of Obama's speech at DePauw U--it is after the intro in this piece:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1007/6121.html

Posted by: egengle | October 2, 2007 2:10 PM | Report abuse

"More importantly, is there something we can learn from them that will help us make a good decision in 2008?"

bsimon, look at those four guys and then look at the current president. whatever you can learn from them will have zero effect on how most people vote for president.

Posted by: Spectator2 | October 2, 2007 2:06 PM | Report abuse

"Right in the middle, Mr Balz writes "Clinton is winning the "experience" primary in the Democratic campaign, by a considerable margin over Obama and the others in the race."

Bsimon it means Mr. Balz and the rest of the media wolf pack decided that she is winning. If one member of the Washington/ NYC/LA/Chicago media says it golly it must be true. We ignorant hillbilly outsiders from flyover states do not count. Have you noticed that the New York Times and Post stories are almost the same? There goes that pack mentality again.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/the-clinton-surprise/

Posted by: TennGurl | October 2, 2007 1:55 PM | Report abuse

What is sad is that this kind of piece is more detailed than most of what we get from the media, yet its still remarkably empty of any actual reporting. What we essentially get is more reporting on poll numbers and what the campaigns are saying about each other.

Where's the substance?

Right in the middle, Mr Balz writes "Clinton is winning the "experience" primary in the Democratic campaign, by a considerable margin over Obama and the others in the race." On what is this based? Polls? Has anyone yet bothered to ask what kind of experience should qualify one for the presidency? If so, I haven't seen it. Is 'experience' more relevant than leadership? Better yet, what characteristics of the presidents we admire should we look for in the next president? What made the greats 'the greats'? Start with Rushmore - why are those the most respected presidents of our country? More importantly, is there something we can learn from them that will help us make a good decision in 2008?

Posted by: bsimon | October 2, 2007 1:34 PM | Report abuse

L love the post but the media decides the story, not Clinton. She just doesn't let you interview her husband if she doesn't like the way the stories are written. No wonder you guys are so pro-Clinton. You folks in the media are so scared. The media wants the Clinton story so bad they throw away all sense of fairness.
Unfortunately, the media are like sheep they just follow. The media attacks on que like a pack of wild dogs.

You guys should be outraged by the GQ article. I am. I don't care what side of the isle you are on. Where did freedom of the press go? I guess that's politics. It's winner takes all, right. Forget about the public's right to know and that journalistic integrity thing. Anyway, she, like Bush (post 9/11 and pre Iraq War) has got you guys by the you know what and we little people just have to suck it up.

Posted by: TennGurl | October 2, 2007 1:25 PM | Report abuse

So Hillary, who has been in the business for 30 years comes in a bit over Obama, who no one ever heard of two years ago, and once again she's portrayed as the invincible and inevitable winner. Keep in mind, the Republicans can't raise funds because the entire country is so sick and tired of their ineptitude, incompetence and simplistic bumper sticker sloganeering. With the exception of Romney (where does he get his hair cut and how much does he pay????), who spends his own money, they're in serious trouble. Any Dem would be better.
Obama supporters are on the ground in large numbers and are going to make a difference in the primaries. This is not the Howard Dean group. Get out and listen to the voters, no the pundits.

Posted by: thebobbob | October 2, 2007 1:24 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company