Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama Slams Clinton's 'Textbook' Calculations

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama leveled a fresh round of criticism at New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton yesterday, accusing his rival for the Democratic nomination of following a campaign plan that prizes calculation over candor and that is aimed more at winning an election than uniting the country.

Obama used a speech in Spartanburg, S.C., to sharpen his differences with the Democratic front-runner and to frame the choices before the voters a year before the 2008 election. Calling Clinton "a colleague and a friend," Obama nonetheless cast her as representative of a style of politics that has been better for the politicians than the country.

Obama described Clinton as a skilled politician running a textbook campaign, but said the textbook itself is badly flawed and skewed against ordinary Americans. "It's a textbook that's all about winning elections, but says nothing about how to bring the country together to solve problems," he said.

The Illinois senator pointed to last week's debate in Philadelphia, in which he, former North Carolina senator John Edwards and Connecticut Sen. Christopher Dodd all challenged Clinton for being equivocal or engaging in political doubletalk, as emblematic of Clinton's strategy.

"As we saw in the debate last week, it encourages vague, calculated answers to suit the politics of the moment, instead of clear consistent principles about how you would lead America," he said. "It teaches you that you can promise progress for everyday people while striking a bargain with the very special interests who crowd them out."

In a telephone interview, Obama described Clinton's campaign as one that embraces the conventional wisdom of Washington, which he said argues that candidates "should be vague and avoid definitive answers in campaigns in part to make yourself a smaller target to Republican attacks ..... She has mastered that in this primary."

He called Tuesday's debate "Exhibit A" in what he was describing. "There was just an unwillingness on Senator Clinton's part to provide clear answers on pretty important issues," he said during the interview. "What I saw was an effort to position one's self so as not to offend or give Republicans any ammunition, and I understand that. But it's very hard then to make the claim that you're then going to be a significant agent of change."

Clinton's campaign has accused Obama of trading in the politics of hope for a series of negative attacks. Obama responded by saying, "I think it would be hard to argue that we are engaging in negative campaigning when we're making a basic argument about why I'd be the best candidate and show the differences that we have not just on policy but on our approach to leadership."

As Obama was campaigning in South Carolina, two of his leading supporters in Iowa released a letter calling on Clinton to expedite the release of thousands of pages of documents from her husband's presidential library bearing on her activities during his two terms in the White House.

"Throughout this campaign, you have repeatedly emphasized your experience as First Lady," wrote Tom Miller, the Iowa attorney general, and Lu Barron, the Linn County supervisor. "However, by refusing to authorize an expedited release of the records from your time in Washington, you are preventing the Iowa voters from thoroughly reviewing that experience."

Although Clinton was Obama's immediate target yesterday, his speech offered far harsher criticism of President Bush, who he said had delivered seven years of broken promises. "This catastrophic failure of leadership has led us to a moment where it's not just Democrats who are listening to what we have to say, but independents and Republicans who have never been more disillusioned with what the state of our leadership in Washington has done to this country," he said.

But in calling for Americans to turn the page on the Bush years, Obama also offered a warning to Democrats that Clinton's nomination could plunge the country back into the kind of political warfare that raged during her husband's administration.

"I am in this race because I don't want to see us spend the next year re-fighting the Washington battles of the 1990s," he said. "I don't want to pit Blue American against Red America, I want to lead a United States of America. I don't want this election to be about the past because if it's about the future, we all win."

Edwards also spent yesterday in South Carolina, the only state where he won in the 2004 primaries. He said Tuesday's debate had provided a clear choice for Democratic voters. "From my perspective, the choices are between the status quo and change, and we need change in the worst kind of way in America," he said, according to an Associated Press report.

--Dan Balz

By Post Editor  |  November 3, 2007; 3:37 PM ET
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: A Crowded Field For N.H. Primary
Next: Sharpening Critiques Over Weekend in Iowa


So a vote for Clinton = driver's license for illegal aliens, which is =?



Posted by: ordgobaltc | November 5, 2007 1:26 PM | Report abuse

There is no question that HRC is going very LBJ. She is hitting Big Labor, Big Money, Big (though very vague) Program Promises. Most important, she'd rather support a Viet Nam than let the GOP call her chicken. LBJ is not the best role model for the 21st Century.

Posted by: twstroud | November 5, 2007 12:48 PM | Report abuse

How boring. Hillary specifically said they were NOT attacking her because she's a woman, and still you people are screeching that she played the gender card, when in fact she specifically rejected it. Sounds like more piling on, to me. And Obama and Edwards are keeping it up with day after day of negative attacks, which simply proves the point. Hillary is enduring withering attacks every day, she was bombarded throughout the debate while the others were fielding softballs about UFO's, and she has endured 15 years of smears from the GOP attack machine -- and she's still standing, and leading in all the polls. She's got mre testicular fortitude, and more class, than anyone in the race.

Posted by: HelloDollyLlama | November 5, 2007 11:45 AM | Report abuse

Let's look at this from a reasonable angle. Obama is now criticizing Clinton for using a strategy that is geared to winning. OK- what is Obama trying to do, albeit without much success.

Let's remember Walter Mondale who was totally honest with the American people. He will raise their taxes- remember Mondale who was a losing Presidential candidate? Or George McGovern who spoke from the heart? Remember him?

I think this all shows Obama's naivitee more and more. I want a tough candidate who will use everything at their disposal to beat the Republicans who will use everything at their disposal to beat us.

I have no problem with Hillary using her gender, smarts, creativity and her intelligence not to always make a specific proposal that will untimately lead to a devastating campaign commercial against her. Obama has already made too many of those comments that are usable by the Republicans in this campaign.

For an example of piling on only look at the Chris Matthews show on Sunday. A 20 minute discussion about Hillary and the nuances of her answer in a debate. Then to Obama- wow what a great dancer he was on the Ellen DeGeneres show. It's crazy!! Now that may be interpreted by some as a slam against Obama and seen as racist, but I don't believe that was the motive behind Chris Matthews. He just hates Hillary and Bill- and has the nerve as a political hack himself to try to pretend he is worth listening too.

Anyway to the context of this Trail piece- I would rather in the conduct of world affairs have someone who thinks about everything they say and recognizes that the power of the Presidency is so great that every utterance makes a difference- than have Obama or Edwards say what comes from their hearts- or more likely from their advisors pens- without that calculation on what it means in the global context.

Hillary is really the only candidate ready to be President and ready to take on the Republican machine to get there.

Posted by: peterdc | November 5, 2007 10:50 AM | Report abuse

I came across an interesting website from ABC News and PBS/Frontline on the Clinton years, (http:// It is revealing for what it exposes as key lessons in the Clinton textbook.

In a word, fascinating. I had watched the original, but like so many pieces of political reporting it settled in the dark recesses of an overcrowded mind. Stumbling upon it today was like rediscovering a once read, but long-lost book: you kind of remember the plot, but the twists and turns were missing. It is worth revisiting.

On the First Lady, Robert Reich said: She had not been elected to anything. She had not been directly or formally appointed to anything, and because she was the wife of the President, it was difficult for people to criticize her, kind of a subtle intimidation. "...others feared her wrath." It was Hillary's refusal to cooperate with the request from the Washington Post (and the rest of the press) that blew up Whitewater. "You didn't want to get on the wring side of Hillary."

David Gergen said he thought it was a mistake to have put her in charge of healthcare. It was Hillary who brought Dick Morris (longtime Republican "operative" and one-time Clinton advisor during the Arkansas years) back to the White House to employ Hegel's principles of thesis, antithesis and synthesis -- better known to the rest of us as "triangulation." George Stephanopoulous called triangulation "empty of substance" and amoral. Morris' key advice during the early years of the Clinton White House was to "stop trying to get elected for the right reasons and just get elected." Al Gore -- although he was elected as Vice President -- took a back seat to Hillary who called the shots. (Perhaps that explains why Hillary is so reluctant to release the correspondence between the former President and First Lady.)

Re-reading some of this is like playing a special edition of the parlor game "Clue:"

Hillary at the Rose Law Firm with the Whitewater investments. Bill with the Arkansas state troopers procuring female "talent." Bill in the Governor's mansion with Gennifer Flowers and the 12 year affair. Hillary and the FBI at the White House travel office firing longtime staffers (all re-instated and those charged with "crimes" acquitted.) Hillary and the missing legal papers from Vince Foster's office. Bill and Paula Jones at the courthouse about the sexual harassment charges (settled ultimately out of court for an undisclosed sum paid to Ms. Jones.) Hillary and the subpoena to testify before grand jury and House and Senate. Bill and Hill forced to appoint a special prosecutor (Fiske) (because Hillary refused request for documents from WashPost. Sound familiar?) Hillary and Ira Magaziner fail at secret healthcare plan. Bill and Hill and Newt with the '94 Republican election landslide. Bill and Hill propose welfare reform that Labor Sec'y Robert Reich calls "immoral" for the harsh penalties it imposes the poor and working poor. Bill and Hill shut down the government. Bill and Monica with a thong in the President's office. "I did not have sexual relations, with that woman, Monica Lewinsky." Hillary and Matt Lauer and the vast right wing conspiracy. House and Senate investigate. Special Prosecutor (Starr) expands the scope of his investigation and publishes a lurid bestseller. Bill and the grand jury testimony ("It depends on what the meaning of "is" is.") Bill and the House in the impeachment hearings and vote. Bill and the Senate and impeachment vote acquittal.

There is more, but there is also Clinton fatigue. And Hillary, in the words here of White House insiders was at the center of it all, directing -- dictating -- the actions and reactions of nearly everyone on everything.

I will take Barack Obama's freshness instead of warmed over Clinton scandal, petty politics, secrecy, maneuvering, obstruction and perjury any day.

Posted by: jade7243 | November 5, 2007 1:03 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton represents 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 -- a rare characteristic in a politician these days and obviously missing from Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: zb95 | November 4, 2007 8:47 PM | Report abuse

And another thing Mapleridge, Rupert Murdoch has donated to Hillary's campaign and she's spent a lot of face time on his new business network. How is she going to tear down this "second government" when she takes so much money from lobbyists and PACS? If you remove her $10 million that she loaned herself and the lobbyist, PAC and shakedown money from immigrant dishwashers from Chinatown, I bet she trails Obama in fundraising by a third to half. Her broad-based support is weak. Yeah, the likely voters who are older and have land lines apparently say they'll vote for her. And the number one reason they say is "experience." That tells me that they are freakin' clueless. Obama has almost twice as much elected legislative experience as Hillary. True, he didn't spend eight years picking our official White House China patterns or going on safari photo-ops with Chelsea in tow. But his experience matches up very well with Hillary's. Besides, there's the judgment issue and Obama has that huge advantage over Hillary. The Repugnantcans are shaking in their boots? Come on, they can't wait to fight Hillary again. As Obama said at the debate as he was exposing her for the empty pants suit she is, "The Republicans are comfortable fighting that fight."

Posted by: markiebee001 | November 4, 2007 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Let me get this for Hillary because Bill Clinton fed some money to South Carolina school districts? Yeah, that's a great reason. Vote for someone because you like their spouse WHO ISN'T RUNNING FOR ANYTHING!! My God some research on the policies, how they reveal themselves and their vision to the electorate, how they conduct themselves on the trail and then decide. Don't vote for someone because you think we'll instantly be transported back to the "glorious" 1990s.

Posted by: markiebee001 | November 4, 2007 12:02 PM | Report abuse

The argument is all wrong for Obama and Edwards against Clinton. When Bill Clinton was in office in Spartanburg the very place Obama attacked Hilary there are 75 new public school built while he was in office
Greenville County built 82 new schools. They rebuilt 1000 new house in the City of Spartanburg during Clintons Presdency. They appropriated 300 million dollars to USC-Upstate. We rebuilt the center of town and much of main street Federal Appropriation.

In Charleston they rebuilt the SC Port Authority at Columbus street. In Greenville they bulit a 22 million dollar library on College street.

In Rocky Mount NC they tore down 5000 house as result of Hurricane Floyd. They rebuilt a whole city near Rocky Mount as a result of Hurricane Floyd.

When Bill Clinton was in office corruption I mean the Republican Party was held in check we did the work and paid cash not borrowed from China and Japan. We the people we in control if this nation.

Make no mistake Hilary is the only candidate who can destroy the second government that Cheney has created now. Haliburton, Black Water, Exxon, and Rupert Murdock represent. You know the authors of The New American Century don't want Clinton to come in and destroy everything they have lied and stole so hard to create.

Hilary is the hope of our nation right now Obama and Edwards can't go where she can and do what she can. Republican know this and they are shaking in there boots.

Hilary in 08 our time.

Posted by: mapleridgegc | November 4, 2007 11:40 AM | Report abuse

>1 Iran:
The problem is not as easy as Hilary's rivals may like to think. Hope you haven't forgotten what Iran did to American hostages and currently Iran is directly contributing to Americans deaths in Iraq as of today.>

Uh huh. So you're no doubt also remember what America did to Iran in the '50s, when we worked with the Brits to depose a democratically elected government in favor of the Shah. Why? Because British Petroleum wanted to make sure that their very favorable contract terms for selling Iranian oil weren't changed in any way. And you probably remember when American companies were giving Saddam the tools to open chemical warfare against the Iranians back when he invaded their country, right?

Get a clue. Until the US is willing and ready to acknowledge that we've been the perpetrators on occasion, rather than always the victim, we don't have a chance of bringing the rest of the world to our philosophical side. Obama is willing to do that by turning the proverbial page. Clinton's cold-war mentality (America inherently good, others inherently bad) will do nothing to change the course we're on now.

She's already shown that she has a limited imagination and is afraid to do anything really radical (like, oh, say, divorcing an emotionally abusive husband and standing on her own). Obama's argument calls for people to be brave enough to DO something radical and vote for intelligence and complexity rather than simplistic positions, but some in this country are, apparently, either too limited in heart or too limited in mind to heed the call. More's the pity.

Posted by: splooie | November 4, 2007 10:05 AM | Report abuse

"People in Iowa and New Hampshire who are looking you in the eye and not just watching you on television, they want to know what you're made of.

"They want to know if you really stand for something; if you are willing to take on this system that doesn't work; whether your ideas for health care, ending the war are real; and whether they can trust you.

"They actually want you to say the same thing, although it may be boring sometimes to them, as you say everywhere else in America.

"They want you to believe in what you say so that they know when the crunch comes, they can count on you to fight for what it is you actually believe in."

--John Edwards to Bill Maher, October, 2007

Posted by: JoCr | November 4, 2007 9:46 AM | Report abuse

There is no doubt that Clinton, Obama, and Edwards care deeply about America and, for politicians, are people of integrity. All three are capable of obfuscation and downright deception. There are no Saints in this group and frankly we don't want a Saint.
Unfortunately, for Obama and Edwards to have any chance of winning the Democratic primary, they have to do what they are doing. For Clinton to win, she must fight back. Whoever the winner of the primary is this will be a cakewalk compared to fighting the Republicans in the general election. The withering GOP and 527 attacks will be scathing, dishonest, and sometimes downright evil. So, contrary to what some think, the primary is good training for the more intense conflict against an extremely effective GOP character destruction machine. While pretending to do what is best for the country, whoever the Democratic nominee is, the GOP will unleash relentless effective guerilla attacks on him or her and will continue those attacks when he or she becomes President.
Frankly, contrary to many others, I think the lessons learned from the torment the Clintons endured while Bill Clinton was President will make Hillary a very effective adversary for the GOP and its nominee. Those same lessons will serve her and the United States well as President.
While not as effective as Hillary, John Edwards might do well against the GOP both in the General election and the Presidency; too much is at stake to find out.

Posted by: rigel1 | November 4, 2007 6:18 AM | Report abuse

people should examint their knee jerk reactions to alleged clinton negatives, fed by main stream media and GOP rabble rousers. it's the same old myth & thunder & lightning preaching of the conservatives for the last 15yrs.
in this time, bill clinton led the country in good times, bush led the country to disaster, H. clinton served admirably as a ny senator. now she is once again being demonized because she is the democratic candidate most people trust. i hope to never, ever see another bush-lite in the WHouse. and i will never vote for obama. i will look at edwards first as an alternative, but i don't see the strenght in him that i do hillary clinton. WE MUST NOT vote for personalities. VOTE for what's good for AMERICA!!!

Posted by: mikel1 | November 4, 2007 5:59 AM | Report abuse

How refreshing to read intelligent and well-thought out remarks. Despite the media's attempts to blur the line voters are paying attention. The press underestimates the voters' ability to differentiate between posturing differences on positions and personal attacks.

Hillary Clinton's habit of equivocating and triangulating on any given question makes it difficult to know where she stands especially on controversial issues. No one is going to agree with a candidate 100%, but at the very least I expect a direct answer. It goes to character, honesty and courage. If I do not agree it does not necessarily translate into a no vote.

Furthermore the politics of hope does not translate into lofty speeches nor should Obama avoid pointing out their differences.

One cannot help notice the stark contrast in campaign-styles:

No doubt effective intelligent well-rehearsed speeches, but her non-answers and certain camera angles betray a calculated confidence.

Without losing his statesmanesque-quality his ease exudes a natural confidence that inspires trust.

Obama is highly intelligent and street-wise. he uses reasoned logic and common sense. The fact that he lived overseas affords him a more nuanced and compelling world view. A balanced approach to world issues illustrate his openness to innovative creative solutions.

Obama's experience as a community leader, a state senator for 7 years, a civil rights lawyer, a law professor and now a US senator combined with the aforementioned credentials qualify him as a potential US President -- [certainly more than Bush brought to the WH].

Obama's success sponsoring legislation across the aisle proves he is serious about uniting the country. Obama's defining signature on issues ranging from good government, ethics reform and transparent government with a host of other ideas appeal to all Americans. He seems to strive to do the best for everyone while minimizing partisan politics.

While I have yet to decide, there is something about Obama that I instinctively trust, however, just the opposite applies to Clinton.

Posted by: serena1313 | November 4, 2007 4:58 AM | Report abuse

Oh please, the Obama supporters are so naive and desperate. What a bunch of crybabies.

What I find interesting is that Hillary is the only one who is doing a positive campaign and talking about what she what policies and program she want to focus on when she becomes president.

I'm so interested in her plan for rural America.

I just what to know how these candidates are going to solve the problems this country has...and then let me think about it and pick the who I want as president.

My problem with Obama is his inexperience and his "I" syndrome.

Posted by: carbynew | November 4, 2007 2:28 AM | Report abuse

I'm tired of hearing about Clinton and Obama. Corporations own the media. Edwards is opposed to corporate control of representative democracy. So corporate media ignores or buries anything about Edwards. But he's the one with the clear policies that will bring real change from what we're stuck with now. And he's the one who is independent of lobbyists and pacs.

Posted by: juliewolves | November 4, 2007 2:21 AM | Report abuse

"Slams" is a poor word choice for what Obama did in his speech today. I was there. He praised Hillary as a friend and colleague, acknowledged that she had run a "textbook campaign," and then merely offered his assessment of the "textbook." "Offering a different opinion" is a much more accurate description of his words and tone, but I guess such benign words don't carry the senationalized connotatiton that journalists seem compelled to use today.

Posted by: showie.1 | November 4, 2007 12:59 AM | Report abuse

By the latest poll numbers it seems to me that Barack's did not benefit.

In your opinion will Barack Obama's tactics of attacking Hillary Clinton help or backfire?

Posted by: PollM | November 3, 2007 10:45 PM | Report abuse

This is the Politics of hope is it. Obama is flaming out so he starts making what are essentially personal attacks. The media are delighted of course because it gives them something to talk about. They all might want to consider that in the two polls that have been taken since Clinton was supposed to have crashed and burned Clinton has increased her lead in both of them, Obama has slipped in both, Edwards has slipped in one and soared to 12% in the other. This is over. Obama and Edwards aren't willing to admit it yet that's all.

Posted by: johnbsmrk | November 3, 2007 10:44 PM | Report abuse

So Barak Obama, ever the gentleman, ventures to criticize Hillary's idol -- herself. And instead of admitting where she may be open to critizen and addressing the least faux pas, Clinton goes off to complain about sexism, rallying her Welsley alumni and complaining about piling on tactics. This is not the reaction of a candidate with presidential temperament and a statesman's maturity, but a flawed character with a marked immature streak. Her reticience to admit a mistake, even one as simple as mispeaking on the campaign trail, lies in her idealized, narcissistic view of herself, that she can do no wrong. This comes together with her hubristic self image of being the smartest person in any setting she finds herself. Assuming she is a fraction as smart as she deems herself, it is amazing how tone-deaf she sometimes seems to her own utterances. The recent debate came none too soon for the public to get an insight into Clinton's character and shift their support before any coronation. But how many primary voters are aware of the debate and its fallout?

Posted by: RicDemian1 | November 3, 2007 10:02 PM | Report abuse

Obama IS going negative, and so is Edwards. It is their only shot at dislodging Hillary, since they can't seem to make any compelling positive case for their own candidacies. She will win, and their efforts will be for naught.

Posted by: pjfahey | November 3, 2007 10:02 PM | Report abuse

licaholy : You just did a disservice to your fellow citizens by describing them as "herd"...just a comment...
Posted by: DB082442 | November 3, 2007 08:21 PM

Did I? Am I wrong?

Posted by: licaholy | November 3, 2007 9:20 PM | Report abuse

Obama should now change his name to Osama. He is quite a sore looser now. He has no new ideaa to articulate, no conviction to show Americans how to get out of the messes Bush created. What he has left is the bitterness of a sore looser just like Oaama. I'm so sorry for all people who gave him the money and all ben waisted.

Posted by: knguyen | November 3, 2007 8:55 PM | Report abuse

licaholy : You just did a disservice to your fellow citizens by describing them as "herd"...just a comment...

"Posted by: licaholy | November 3, 2007 08:11 PM

The biggest probelm he has is that at any given moment 70% of society is in what is called 'the herd state' meaning they go with whats known and whats popular."

Posted by: DB082442 | November 3, 2007 8:21 PM | Report abuse

Obama is dead on and we would be fortunate to have a man of his depth and knowledge be our next President. The biggest probelm he has is that at any given moment 70% of society is in what is called 'the herd state' meaning they go with whats known and whats popular. He is asking people to dig deeper within themselves and he is asking people to change and to evolve beyond what we have known. That is his toughest challenge. Will his inspiration be enough to overcome the herd? The Clintons , the Gulianis of the world? We see Obama making groundbreaking speeches and we hear from the Clinton and Guliani camps the most base and common of responses "the polls, abandon the politics of hope, naieve.." They appeal to the lamest of all fears the most common of all people, the most unoriginal of all mankind which unfortunately is the majority of people on this planet.
Its hard to stand alone, but those who can change the world.

Posted by: licaholy | November 3, 2007 8:11 PM | Report abuse

I remember early last spring reading an article about obama's campaign and his advisors, ect. In it they said they had a strategy but, were also telling a story. You build it up. The campaign worked to keep Obama from peaking too early and to hold him back until the fall.
He has been weaving things together to tie Bush and Clinton together. the era and the politics of greed and cronies and dishonesty, ect.
Obama is on a roll now.

Posted by: vwcat | November 3, 2007 7:55 PM | Report abuse

For following reasons I am Hillary Clinton Supporter in preference to Obama, Edwards and others:

1 Iran:
The problem is not as easy as Hilary's rivals may like to think. Hope you haven't forgotten what Iran did to American hostages and currently Iran is directly contributing to Americans deaths in Iraq as of today.

2. Illegal Immigration [ New York ] Governor's decision to grant drivers licence to illegal aliens. Seem's like Obama and Edwards etc are all for it.
Obviously Hilary is not sure although in theory she supports a general legalization.
It is very complex issue and I don't think any one can provide a straight forward anwer.

3. Personally I am weary of certain nations [ not flatly prejudiced but weary --I have read history and I still don't understand why violence and terrorism should be linked with one particular religion--is it in DNA ?..I don't know ...]

If Obama is nominated I may have to vote for the Republicans...

No offense meant to any one ...

Posted by: DB082442 | November 3, 2007 7:48 PM | Report abuse

I am so happy to be able to finally be FOR a candidate instead of AGAINST one. Obama has done the right thing by taking the offensive against Hillary, pointing out his differences and highlighting her weaknesses. Mrs. Clinton seems to just represent more of the same big money and politics as usual that has plagued America for years and left the regular folks like us out of the picture. Keep it up Obama!

Posted by: bburgis | November 3, 2007 6:46 PM | Report abuse

The proof is in the FACTS that Mr. Obama IS Winning the Presidential Race:

1. Mr. Obama continuosly draws huge crowds. Mr. Obama has the largest crowd turn out of ANY other candidate.

2. Mr. Obama has riased more money - in total, than ANY other candidate.

3. Mr. Obama has laid out his positions on where he stands on issues clearly and concisely.

4. Mr. Obama has more Internet support -- MySpace, Facebook, etc...

5. Mr. Obama's web site receives more people to it.

6. Mr. Obama has the largest on the ground grassroots campaign.

Okay, now based on those FACT - whose winning? Mr. Obama is winning the race for the Presidency.

You can NOT judge who is winning based on polls, those polls can be manipulated.

Facts are facts, and speak wonders!

President Obama -- We Love You!

Obama 2008, Obama 2012

Posted by: AndreaT1 | November 3, 2007 6:21 PM | Report abuse

Obama is one to talk. He tries to pretend like he has no schtick, when he knows goddman well his whole campaign is about getting a black president in office. It's all about "winning" for Obama too, so he shouldn't be talking. Instead of calling other candidates out, why not talk about actual issues?

Posted by: kogejoe | November 3, 2007 6:20 PM | Report abuse

I watched Obama's speech, and all he did was point out the differences between himself and Hillary. He did not "attack" her, or call her "irresponsible and naive" like she did, rather he made the case why HE is the candidate of change.

All this whining from Camp Hillary about being victims is very unattractive. If Hillary feels Obama is misrepresenting her positions on the issues, then she should point that out and tell us what her positions are...oops, that's right...she takes both sides on every issue.

Posted by: naijaman | November 3, 2007 6:17 PM | Report abuse

In this speech Senator Obama, succinctly and inspiringly made the "turn the page" argument. To make the argument that voters should "turn the page" you must have two reference points: turn the page from what and why, and turn to what and why.

He clearly defines what we are turning the page from (the past), without the partisan vitriol we've become accustomed to, but more importantly in my opinion lays out what are we turning the page to (the future).

Senator Obama has clearly and distinctly answered the question every candidate must: why vote for me and not someone else. He has sharply drawn the distinctions between Senator Clinton and himself in the primary, as well as his Republican opponent in the general election.

Posted by: efadams_53 | November 3, 2007 5:57 PM | Report abuse

I thought Hillary is the one whose fought the Right wing machine and won. How is she going to fight them, by playing the blame game? Girl friend, that is not going to work. Women in cooperate America do not play the blame game, they compete with the guys. So girl, please stop making hard working women look weak.

Posted by: jkq | November 3, 2007 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton tried, tired, flawed, failed.
Time barred, time out, BTW happy 60th birthday Hilary

Posted by: FebM | November 3, 2007 5:39 PM | Report abuse

This is the first time in her political career that Hillary has been challenged on her duplicity..who can forget her "lobbyists are people too"..Obama demonstrates courage in getting to the heart of why she doesn't deserve our vote. And to the heart of why he deserves ours..

Posted by: maelisa | November 3, 2007 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Obama is all talk no walk- He would not be ready on day one. He has changed his campaign because he is losing -he doesn't have a better message just trying to throw dirt and see if anything sticks-
Unfortunately the Democrats are doing it to themselves -makes it easier for Republicans- If he is so great why can't he just get ahead on the merits of his credentials? No Clinton attack machine has been working against him-he needs to put some experience under his belt not just appearances on Oprah.

Posted by: BB60 | November 3, 2007 5:32 PM | Report abuse

The Clinton's have always bemoaned what they call "the politics of personal attack." It is no surprise that they are already accusing Obama of "going negative."

This strategy has worked in the past. I suspect that it will become increasingly ineffective during the 2008 campaign. The American people have awakened to the real possibility that the character of leaders may indeed be more important than their policy stands.

Over the course of the last 30 years voters have witnessed an increasing number of elected government officials fall short of even the lowest moral standards.

Politician have been shameless in not even caring to mask their self-serving actions and attitudes.

What we are seeing played out in the primary is the birth of a new kind of voter. The people will no longer fall for the substitution of gamesmanship for quality leadership.

Obama will defeat Hillary- the Clinton war-room approach to power and politics will be defeated because they are fighting the last war. Obama, the insurgent candidate, will not be defeated by Hillary's conventional forces.

Posted by: kolp999 | November 3, 2007 4:41 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company