Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Clinton's New Hampshire Machine


The Granite State gears up for Clinton. (Reuters).

CONCORD, N.H. -- Barack Obama may be gaining in Iowa, but Hillary Clinton touched down here yesterday to issue an implicit reminder: when the race moves to New Hampshire, she'll have the Machine.

That may be an overly harsh word to describe the New Hampshire Democratic establishment -- state legislators, retired officials and lawyer-lobbyist types who tend on the whole to be as personable as most of their small-state neighbors. But there was no mistaking the show of Establishment force at the historic carriage house here where Clinton came to pick up yet another high-profile Democratic endorsement, from Susan Lynch, the wife of the state's popular governor John Lynch. Clinton was introduced by the speaker of the New Hampshire House, Terie Norelli, and the relatively small audience packed into the room included the president of the state Senate, Sylvia Larson; an influential veteran senator from Manchester, Lou D'Allesandro; and at least a dozen other state legislators from the Concord area.

Larson said the local establishment backing for Clinton is a reflection of legislators' belief that she is better prepared for presidency than her rivals. "She's the experienced, capable candidate who's ready to go to work on the first day," said Larson. "Those of us who've worked in the field all these years recognize that it takes time to make things happen, that you need that background to succeed."

Just how much weight the local poobahs' backing will carry come the Jan. 8 primary remains to be seen. Al Gore had a similar lineup of support in 1999 and 2000 and barely eked out a victory in New Hampshire over Bill Bradley. In 2004, the establishment was more splintered among the Democratic candidates.

The Clinton campaign is hoping that Susan Lynch's endorsement, for one, could pack some real punch. It will be seen in many quarters as an implicit blessing from her popular husband, who is officially remaining neutral, much as John Kerry benefited from the endorsement of then-Gov. Tom Vilsack's wife in Iowa in 2004, and as Clinton benefits in New Hampshire from the backing of power broker Billy Shaheen, husband of New Hampshire's former governor Jeanne Shaheen, who is officially remaining neutral as she prepares to run for Senate. In addition, Susan Lynch, a pediatrician, is well-liked and respected in her own right, and her word may carry some extra weight given that she has generally shied from politics.

"As a first lady, pediatrician and most importantly, a mother, I do not take my endorsement light heartedly," she said today with Clinton at her side. "But I truly believe that Hillary Clinton is the right person to lead our country."

After the event, former state representative Carol Burney said Clinton may be getting such particularly strong establishment support in New Hampshire because that establishment includes so many women leaders. "We got women running the state here," she said. "It's wonderful so many [establishment Democrats] support her because it says our New Hampshire machine is in the process of getting her elected."

Confirmation of this theory was provided a moment later when Mary Louise Hancock, a former state senator and the unofficial grand dame of New Hampshire Democrats, called Clinton to her wheelchair to give her a Susan B. Anthony coin that Hancock had won as part of a women's leadership award. The coin was a good luck charm, Hancock said, to be returned when Clinton became president. "If you've been a legislator then you understand government," Hancock said, later explaining her strong support for Clinton. "What people don't understand is that politics is about government. Because she understands government, she'll be able to run the country."

After Clinton left with the coin, Hancock was swarmed by television crews asking her to elaborate on the moment. The significance of the blessing of the 87-year-old Mrs. Hancock -- a longtime fixture of the Concord scene -- was lost on some of the Secret Service agents looking on. "Can I ask you a question?" one of them asked a reporter. "Who is she?"

--Alec MacGillis

By Washington Post editors  |  November 26, 2007; 5:20 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: McCain Stresses Maverick Roots
Next: Clinton Critiques Obama PAC

Comments

What happen to John Kerry?
He voted for the war in Iraq before he voted against it.
What will happen to Hillary?
She voted for the war in Iraq before she voted against it.
She voted for the Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization, and then said she was against it.
She accepted giving diver's License to ILLIGAL IMMIGRANTS before she was against it.
It's simple: You can eat you FAT Cake and have it back.
She is a FLIP FLOPPER and I can't wait for the Republicans to run this Ad.

DEMOCRATS: A word to a wise is sufficient. DUMP HER.

Posted by: ordgobaltc | November 27, 2007 1:25 PM | Report abuse

What happen to John Kerry?
He voted for the war in Iraq before he voted against it.
What will happen to Hillary?
She voted for the war in Iraq before she voted against it.
She voted for the Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization, and then said she was against it.
She accented giving diver's License to ILLIGAL IMMIGRANTS before she was against it.
It's simple: You can eat you FAT Cake and have it back.
She is a FLIP FLOPPER and I can't wait for the Republicans to run this Ad.

DEMOCRATS: A word to a wise is sufficient. DUMP HER.

Posted by: ordgobaltc | November 27, 2007 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Goodness, the democrats don't see a winner even if it bites them in the rear. I wish we had one of your top tier this time around, we would have beaten the pants off of you already and moved in the White House

Posted by: tevste | November 27, 2007 11:45 AM | Report abuse

With the theme that the increasingly desperate-sounding Clinton campaign is pushing that Obama has essentially traded money from the Hope Fund for endorsements in the early primary and caucus states, I find it supremely ironic that one of the recipients of a contribution from the Hope Fund (in the amount of $4,200) was none other than the Senate campaign of one Hillary Clinton. Given the fact that she dumped $10 million in unused money from her Senate campaign into the Presidential campaign, it's pretty clear that the Hope Fund has indirectly supported Hillary's campaign. Since these were supposedly all about getting endorsements, I wonder when Hillary will be endorsing Barack Obama. (And FWIW, some of the otherrecipients have endorsed Hillary.) By the way, here's a listing of all the House candidates who got money fromthe Hope Fund for House races: Altmire, Jason (D-PA) $7,500 Arcuri, Michael (D-NY) $5,000 Barrow, John (D-GA) $2,500 Bean, Melissa (D-IL) $15,000 Boswell, Leonard L (D-IA) $15,000 Boyda, Nancy E (D-KS) $2,500 Braley, Bruce (D-IA) $10,000 Burner, Darcy (D-WA) $2,500 Busby, Francine P (D-CA) $10,000 Carney, Chris (D-PA) $10,000 Castor, Kathy (D-FL) $1,000 Courtney, Joe (D-CT) $5,000 Cranley, John (D-OH) $5,000 Davis, Jack (D-NY) $5,000 Derby, Jill T (D-NV) $5,000 Donnelly, Joe (D-IN) $5,000 Duckworth, Tammy (D-IL) $10,000 Edwards, Chet (D-TX) $5,000 Ellison, Keith Maurice (D-MN) $2,500 Ellsworth, Brad (D-IN) $7,500 Evans, Lane (D-IL) $10,000 Farrell, Diane Goss (D-CT) $6,500 Filson, Steve N (D-CA) $2,500 Gillibrand, Kirsten E (D-NY) $2,500 Goldmark, Peter James (D-WA) $1,000 Hafen, Tessa (D-NV) $5,000 Hall, John (D-NY) $1,000 Hare, Philip G (D-IL) $5,000 Hill, Baron (D-IN) $10,000 Hodes, Paul W (D-NH) $10,000 Jackson, Jesse Jr (D-IL) $2,100 Jennings, Christine (D-FL) $2,500 Johnson, Hank (D-GA) $5,000 Kagen, Steven Leslie (D-WI) $2,500 Kellam, Phil (D-VA) $3,500 Kilroy, Mary Jo (D-OH) $5,000 Klein, Ron (D-FL) $7,000 Lampson, Nick (D-TX) $2,500 Loebsack, David (D-IA) $5,000 Lucas, Ken (D-KY) $5,000 Madrid, Patricia A (D-NM) $5,000 Maffei, Dan (D-NY) $2,500 Mahoney, Tim (D-FL) $5,000 Marshall, Jim (D-GA) $7,000 Matheson, Jim (D-UT) $2,500 McNerney, Jerry (D-CA) $5,000 Melancon, Charles J (D-LA) $5,000 Miller, Les (D-FL) $2,100 Mitchell, Harry E (D-AZ) $5,000 Murphy, Chris (D-CT) $5,000 Murphy, Lois (D-PA) $6,500 Murphy, Patrick J (D-PA) $16,326 Paccione, Angie (D-CO) $1,000 Perlmutter, Edwin G (D-CO) $5,000 Rodriguez, Ciro D (D-TX) $5,000 Salazar, John (D-CO) $5,000 Schakowsky, Jan (D-IL) $1,000 Seals, Dan (D-IL) $5,000 Sestak, Joe (D-PA) $5,000 Shea-Porter, Carol (D-NH) $7,500 Shuler, Heath (D-NC) $10,000 Space, Zachary T (D-OH) $5,000 Spratt, John M Jr (D-SC) $5,000 Spencer, Selden (D-IA) $2,500 Sulzer, Joe (D-OH) $5,000 Sutton, Betty Sue (D-OH) $5,000 Tinklenberg, Elwyn (D-MN) $2,000 Walz, Timothy J (D-MN) $3,500 Weaver, John Michael (D-KY) $1,000 Welch, Peter (D-VT) $7,500 Wetterling, Patty (D-MN) $3,500 Wilson, Charlie (D-OH) $7,000 Yarmuth, John A (D-KY) $3,500 I don't see any particular pattern of money going to early states (or even to Obama supporters). The main pattern is that a lot of these people were in very tight races (or at least races that were supposed to have been very tight).

Posted by: yiannis | November 27, 2007 10:50 AM | Report abuse

Listen carefully to what Hillary says when campaigning. It's all about "beating the Republicans." Hillary doesn't talk about what she'll do as President. NO, it's all about getting elected and fighting the same old fights she and Bill fought for 8 years. How tired.

Those of us who want to accomplish something in this world before we leave it, want change. We are sick and tired of fighting. We want a government that lives up to the promise of the preamble to Constitution.

Hillary and Bill can go "beat the Republicans" all by themselves. They don't need to sit in the White House to do that.

The rest of us will vote for someone who can bring us hope and change and help us make our lives better. We don't need Hillary to do that.

I'll vote for Barack Obama.

Posted by: jade7243 | November 27, 2007 10:35 AM | Report abuse

I guess Iowans are more intelligent than New Hampshirites.

Posted by: schencks84 | November 27, 2007 9:54 AM | Report abuse

" she'll have the Machine.

That may be an overly harsh word to describe the New Hampshire Democratic establishment..."

So, have you just given up pretending to be a professional journalist covering the Clinton campaign?

Posted by: zukermand | November 27, 2007 9:33 AM | Report abuse

More than half of eligible voters have said they can't stand Hillary Clinton. Wake up and do the math Hillary-lovers!

Posted by: zb95 | November 27, 2007 2:04 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton represents much of what I despise most about politics. She is phoney, manipulative, opportunistc, scheming, deceptive, two-faced, and simply the wrong person to lead this country and the world now. Barack Obama is the right man for the job. He has vision and understanding and profound good judgement and is honest and straightforward -- rare characteristics in a politician these days.

Posted by: zb95 | November 27, 2007 2:00 AM | Report abuse

Hillary's big claim is that she can beat the Republicans. However, the latest Zogby poll shows her trailing to all 5 top GOP candidates while Obama leads them all. This is just the beginning of the big downward slide for Hillary and her campaign. It is time to face reality. Hillary cannot win in Nov 08.

Posted by: zb95 | November 27, 2007 1:57 AM | Report abuse

NY pOost; Oct. 21"...That's the debate at the center of a spat between Sens. John McCain and Hillary Clinton. The dustup began when Clinton said recently that she felt torture ought to be legal if the suspect had knowledge of "'an imminent threat to millions of Americans.'"

In other words "a little torture" is OK. Is this the Hillary "condemnatron of torutre" posted by "newagent99"? Perhaps what is meant is what level of torture is acceptable. It is obvious that a president can not know everything. That's why POTUS selects a cabinet and all the other schedule C positions/advisors (a task W has been signifincantly bad at--"You're doing a good job, Brownie.") The presidents sets the vision, direction and philosophy for the country. With
Hillary we know that we will have the Democratic equavallent of Dick cheney.

Posted by: jkrice63 | November 27, 2007 1:19 AM | Report abuse

Establishment cronies circling the wagons may dazzle the press and the washington insiders but, it does little for the voters. Especially if they are democrats.
All it does is reinforce the notion that Clinton is strictly an insider and establishment figure full of the tired and failed thinking of yesterday. that she is really just the same old thing and policies. definitely not change.
As for voters, this just makes them turn away or shrug their shoulders and look elsewhere.
But, I can see the governor's wife endorsing Hillary. Since hillary thinks as the wife of a president, she has the same resume as her husband. So why bother with the real governor when his wife can play pretend as well.

Posted by: vwcat | November 27, 2007 12:29 AM | Report abuse

I believe that Edwards is going to be the nominee. Hillary is going down, and will take Obama with her.

Edwards wins because he does not carry the burden of people being afraid he cannot win because of gender and racial prejudice.

Posted by: river845 | November 26, 2007 11:06 PM
__________________________________________

Doesn't carry the burden? He's a slip and slide ambulance chaser lier er lawyer, what could be worse than that.

Posted by: ekim53 | November 27, 2007 12:22 AM | Report abuse

***The Republicans can use all that White Water and Rose Law Firm stuff, ***

You mean all that stuff that when Ken Starr was asked what he had found after spending millions during his "investigation" he answered: "Nothing"?

You mean all that stuff? Yeah, that would be real smart of the Repubs to bring that up and draw down on their heads a sh!train of ridicule for running an expensive and absolutely inept witch hunt...by all means, Repubs...go to it...bwahahahah..
_________________________________________

SUCH SHORT MEMORIES
There were 33 Whitewater convictions plus additional indictments, her former law partners in the Rose Law Firm either in jail, or resigned in disgrace, actually far worse than the hyped up issues that led to the Nixon impeachment.
Then of course when Hillary was interviewed by federal investigators, the smartest women in the world could barely remember her name. Everything else she answered with a "I don't seem to recall".
Then it took her 2 years to find the requested Rose Firm billing records which golly gosh just showed up somewhere around her desk. It's interesting you should use "Witch" hunt when referring to Hillary.
I hope this refreshed your memories, or do you not want to recall, just like Hillary.

Posted by: ekim53 | November 27, 2007 12:13 AM | Report abuse

The collosal ignorance of politicians that align themselves with the anti-democracy candidate amazes me.

Hillary is about financial gain from her position.


That is it!

Posted by: im_timmaaay | November 27, 2007 12:04 AM | Report abuse

Even though many may like the policies that Senator Clinton proposes, they should also consider her record , just as Senator Clinton insists.
.
The last Clinton Administration, when faced with the fact that protection rackets where torturing people with poison and radiation, chose to avoid its responsibilities to incarcerate the criminals and protect the citizenry.
.
Instead, they made a deal with the criminal gang stalker protection rackets to leave them alone and to consequently abandon the citizenry.
.
Do we want a President who sells out the citizenry for votes?
.
Do we want a President who sends a "crime does pay" message to society?
.
Would you vote for a President who has signed nonagression deals with the KKK or the Nazi party? Gangs that torture with poison and radiation are much like the KKK and Nazi Party.
.
We do not need a sellout President. We need a principled leader President.
.
If you are one of the few who do not know what the above refers to, do a web search for "gang stalking" to see the tip of the dirtberg. Please do it before you decide to reply to my post.
.

Posted by: avraamjack | November 26, 2007 11:41 PM | Report abuse

I believe that Edwards is going to be the nominee. Hillary is going down, and will take Obama with her.

Edwards wins because he does not carry the burden of people being afraid he cannot win because of gender and racial prejudice.

Posted by: river845 | November 26, 2007 11:06 PM | Report abuse

The Governor of New Hampshire's wife?

Are you kidding?

How about the Governor's barber's girlfriend?

New Hampshire? I think I've heard of that place before. Where is it again?

Posted by: InHarmsWay | November 26, 2007 10:50 PM | Report abuse

whoa....a governor's wife gives an endorsement...that's really gonna sway some votes.

Posted by: vancouver1999 | November 26, 2007 10:32 PM | Report abuse

If you guys believe that the GOP (and i am a moderate republican) is not going to be able to attack Barack Obama, you are seriously naive. By the time the GOP finishes with Obama, his negative would be around 50%. Didn't you see what they did to Representative Harold Ford, Jr. in Tennessee? It would the same but at a national level with even uglier and dirtier whisper campaign against B.O. They would use his book to attack him on every social issue. And please remember that B.O. base (mostly young students, i.e mostly young people) statistically do not turn out to vote (young people are less reliable to turn out to vote than married and older people). So, it looks to me that Obama's support is just like Howard Dean's in 2004. The question is: are the democrats going to attack each other so much that whoever wins will be weaken and ineffective in the general election?

Posted by: tevste | November 26, 2007 10:28 PM | Report abuse

***The Republicans can use all that White Water and Rose Law Firm stuff, ***

You mean all that stuff that when Ken Starr was asked what he had found after spending millions during his "investigation" he answered: "Nothing"?

You mean all that stuff? Yeah, that would be real smart of the Repubs to bring that up and draw down on their heads a sh!train of ridicule for running an expensive and absolutely inept witch hunt...by all means, Repubs...go to it...bwahahahah...

Posted by: Jerryvov | November 26, 2007 9:47 PM | Report abuse

***Oh shoot-Just vote for Mitt!***

Sure, vote for The Mittster...or a trained chameleon...oh, wait, they're the same thing...my bad.

Posted by: Jerryvov | November 26, 2007 9:42 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is the Republicans' dream candidate because she carries more baggage than any other candidate. The Republicans can use all that White Water and Rose Law Firm stuff, and add all the stuff they have on Bill. Even Democrats find a third term for Bill unacceptable. But now that Oprah has endorsed Obama, his chance have much improved.

Posted by: dunnhaupt | November 26, 2007 9:39 PM | Report abuse

A big win in Iowa will propel Obama to a win in NH. It has happened before and will happen again. Hillary coerced endorsemets will mean nothing.

Posted by: zb95 | November 26, 2007 9:26 PM | Report abuse

"She's the experienced, capable candidate...."

Senator Clinton needs to minimize the perception that she's cherry picking events from her years in the White House. To do so she might, for instance, explain how she counseled her husband on leaving Somalia after one of our Black Hawk helicopters went down, and on ignoring the Rwanda genocide of 1994.

Posted by: FirstMouse | November 26, 2007 9:00 PM | Report abuse

well, tevste, the gop don't want Clinton to win the nomination , they want Obama... who they don't attack,but that will start if he gets the nomination.

there isn't a weaking canidate that BO in the whole field

Posted by: newagent99 | November 26, 2007 8:58 PM | Report abuse

gotta love the lies here.. someone that believes an iowa caucas is the same as a primary... NH counts, Iowa only keeps the top 3 in play.

and hsnh... you don't know that Clinton condemned torture before Barak spoke of it?
you probably believe he voted against invading iraq (he didn't .. and he's voted for every war funding bill, and against every troop withdrawl... and he supported labeling the Iran rev. guards terrorists, that is until he once againt didn't vote. Then he didn't join in Supporting Clintons law banning Bush from invading Iran.... he's politics over antiwar... a real scumbag elite private High School , liar.

he's another "cult of personality" , just like bushboy

Posted by: newagent99 | November 26, 2007 8:57 PM | Report abuse

I am a moderate Republican, and i honestly believe that the coverage Senator Clinton has been getting in the written and audiovisual media/press is atrocious. CNN, FOX, ABC, NBC, CBS, The New York Times, Washington Post, and several other newspapers and blogs have run one negative story after the other. It looks to me that the only candidate who is being investigated by the press/media is Hillary Clinton. What about the other candidates? Is the press going to repeat the 2000 campaign and the awful and unfair coverage VP Gore got? No wonder after all this negative coverage, her numbers have began to dip a little bit.

Posted by: tevste | November 26, 2007 8:52 PM | Report abuse

Barak Obama and John Edwards are not worried about pleasing the Republican minded voters and do not try to portray themselves as CENTRISTS. They have clearly articulated their positions and how they differ with her on policy issues--the Iraq War, the Neocon driven resolution on Iran and so forth.

Has Hillary Clinton ever condemned torture? Hillary Clinton must denounce the Neocons before many of us--democrats-- can vote for her.

I like both Edwards and Obama.

Posted by: hsnkhwj | November 26, 2007 8:46 PM | Report abuse

Barak Obama and John Edwards are not worried about pleasing the Republican minded voters and do not try to portray themselves as CENTRISTS. They have clearly articulated their positions and how they differ with her on policy issues--the Iraq War, the Neocon driven resolution on Iran and so forth.

Has Hillary Clinton ever condemned torture? Hillary Clinton must denounce the Neocons before many of us--democrats can vote for her.

I like both Edwards and Obama.

Posted by: hsnkhwj | November 26, 2007 8:43 PM | Report abuse

Billary will make Great Presidents again because-

Umm


Well,


Uhhh,


let's see....

I know, becuase....


Oh shoot-Just vote for Mitt!

Posted by: rat-the | November 26, 2007 8:37 PM | Report abuse

The vile comments from supporters of Hillary's opponents is a reflection of their candidate; not Hillary. Senator Clinton arrived in the Senate, learned the rules of the Senate from the ground up, and worked in a bipartisan manner on matters that required bipartisan cooperation; that is issues that are good for America.

Contrast Sen. Obama, who took the oath of office running for President, failed miserably at learning anything other than his drive for the presidency. The Audacity of Hope? I think not. It is pure audacity that we should trust his lack of experience at such a volatile time in our history. Instead of disparaging Hillary's experience, perhaps he could spend time explaining to America why we should trust him; what is it exactly, in his experience, qualifies him for the Presidency. I understand its a difficult sell, attacking Hillary's credentials makes better press and inflames his supporters.

Did anyone catch the GOPs response to Obama's gaff comparing his elementary school years overseas as foreign policy? Goggle it. And if that isn't enough, did anyone catch Michelle Obama's comments in an interview on MSNBC? "With polls showing African-Americans have yet to give overwhelming support to White House hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), his wife Michelle said "black America will wake up and get it"" Where is the outrage from his supporters? Can you imagine the uproar if Bill Clinton, or any of the candidate's spouses, had made such a comment about white or hispanic people?

Barrack Obama, and his supporters, are insulting the intelligence of level headed Americans. The reason he and his supporters are bashing Hillary is that he cannot win on his own.

Hillary's best response is to let Barrack destroy himself, oh yes, along with his supporters; they're doing a fine job.

Posted by: billbridgesmaccom | November 26, 2007 8:16 PM | Report abuse

Why are the papers focusing only on Clinton and Obama? Other candidates like Kucinich and Dodd have also put a lot of time into New Hampshire, and gotten very positive responses. As a native New Hampshire-ite now living in DC, I miss learning about ALL the candidates in the primary. It's time the media took on the responsibilty of providing complete information - voters shouldn't be limited in who they hear about.

Posted by: soulouta | November 26, 2007 8:05 PM | Report abuse

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll

http://www.votenic.com

The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Weekly Tuesday Evening.

Posted by: votenic | November 26, 2007 7:41 PM | Report abuse

Sen. Clinton is a smart, shrewd, assertive leader, and the flip side of those qualities makes her calculating, manipulative, and self-interested. I plan to vote for someone who comes closest to telling us what direction we ought to head for, and not what direction the wind has been blowing for decades.

Posted by: ted_fitts1 | November 26, 2007 7:27 PM | Report abuse

If by the Election Day Hilary is leading Obama with less than 10% point in NH, she will be toast. The reason being that Obama has more support among Independents and Republicans that will be casting their votes. The possibility of Obama winning Iowa is very bright due to strong organization. Obama's team spent the whole summer building the organization that will play pivotal part during the Caucasus in Iowa. It that were to happen, the bounce will make Independents to vote Democrats and Obama is well positioned to reap such benefits. Having Party Establishment behind a candidate during the primaries is a part of many strands that will win election but cannot do it by itself alone.

The truth is, Hilary's campaign is in a serious trouble at the moment. The strategies for her election are anchored in the belief of inevitability, strength and experience. Because Hilary is beginning to challenge Obama in a more direct way means that the air of inevitability is out the window. There are limited empirical data to support Hilary's claim to strength. Her strength is that she took on Republicans and won. But that is not true if we look critically at that claim. For instance, Democrats lost control of two chambers of Congress in Washington and many other states, including governors because of many scandals. What about President Clinton's impeachment, debarment from law practice, put in the public views many details of her husband's infidelities. Hilary won senate seat in a Democratic enclave of New York. Finally, Hilary's experience per being First Lady is being ridiculed by Obama with reason. First Lady is not an elective office, does not have defined responsibilities or accountability. To believe that being a First Lady makes one more qualified to become president is credulous and requires leap of faith.

Posted by: jckckc | November 26, 2007 7:09 PM | Report abuse

Voters are tired of "establishment" candidates and politicians. They're the ones who either mis-led us into the Iraq fiasco or failed to stop it. The "establishment has fossilized into two rock-hard camps that can't get over the 60's. Hilary is a great Senator, she should stay in the Senate where she can have a real impact.

Posted by: thebobbob | November 26, 2007 7:07 PM | Report abuse

The only thing that matters is Iowa, if she finishes third in Iowa, she should just pack up and go home. If Obama wins Iowa, then he will win NH with the independent swing. None of the endorsements in NH really matter.

Posted by: sjxylib | November 26, 2007 6:44 PM | Report abuse

hillary is an OPAQUE LAWYER of the gloria steinem era and has PROVEN herself to be UNELECTABLE in the general election. I don't care who shills for her.. she'll NEVER BE BILL CLINTON, NOR HAVE HIS BRAINS AND SAVVY.

Her hair-splitting speeches are crafted in fear. Her obfuscating the true meaning of her statements and her desires for policy are why this independent voter will NEVER, EVER, NEVER-IN-A-Million YEARS vote for her. Since 1/2 the democrats HATE HER and the republicans can't wait to mobilize against her she is a guaranteed LOSER!

No wonder the republicans WANT her to win the primary!

GO OBAMA!

Posted by: onestring | November 26, 2007 6:41 PM | Report abuse

well why shouldn"t call her team the MACHINE as all of the newspapers call them that!i don"t understand why the newspapers attack her, my word if she does get elected, are they still going to be on her back side all of the time?

Posted by: elliottpearl | November 26, 2007 5:41 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company