Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

A Mudslinging Reality Check for Clinton


Clinton complained that her rivals were "throwing mud" in Las Vegas.(Reuters).

The elections are right around the corner, but only the frontrunners are allowed on television. The other candidates are being arrested and thrown in jail. For all the moaning by Democratic candidates about how mean their rivals are, it takes only a quick look at what's happening in Russia or Pakistan these days to see genuinely hardball politics.

Parliamentary elections being held in Russia this coming Sunday, in fact, stand in sharp relief to what has actually been a remarkably genteel campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination here at home, despite all the caterwauling. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) complained during a debate in Las Vegas this month that her opponents were "throwing mud" at her, while Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) complained yesterday that it was Clinton who was making "personal attacks" against him.

Time for a little reality check here. The "mud" Clinton groused about was, in fact, a series of questions about her policy positions or her experience. Obama's criticism of her vote on an Iran resolution may be overblown or distorted, but is it mud to debate an important foreign policy question? Former North Carolina senator John Edwards's assertion that she is too tied into a calcified, corrupted Washington establishment to bring about meaningful change may be tough or exaggerated but is it illegitimate to ask whether someone who has been at the center of the system for the last 15 years can genuinely reform it?

Similarly, Clinton yesterday attacked Obama for using a Senate leadership political action committee to spread money around to supporters in key early primary states in a manner that "appears to be inconsistent with the prevailing election laws." Obama's campaign responded by branding it "the latest personal attack from Hillary Clinton." What's personal about asking if another candidate broke the law in his management of campaign funds? It may be desperate coming from a frontrunner, or even hypocritical for someone whose family has been in the middle of more than one campaign scandal, but there doesn't seem to be anything all that personal about it.

Mudslinging, of course, has a long and storied history in American politics, from attacks on Thomas Jefferson for fathering children with a slave to the allegations that Andrew Jackson was a bigamist. Martin Van Buren was accused by a congressman of secretly wearing women's clothes. Rutherford B. Hayes was accused of getting drunk and shooting his mother. Grover Cleveland, accused of fathering a child out of wedlock, endured chants of "Ma, Ma, where's my Pa?" at opposition rallies -- to which supporters after his victory appended the rejoinder, "Gone to the White House, ha, ha, ha." Webster's New World Dictionary defines mudslinging as "the practice of making unscrupulous, malicious attacks against an opponent." It's common enough that author Joseph Cummins published a book last month detailing the history of mudslinging, "Anything for a Vote: Dirty Tricks, Cheap Shots and October Surprises in U.S. Presidential Campaigns." (Catch his appearance on CBS talking about the book.)

By that standard, the Democratic campaign, like the Republican nomination battle, if anything has been an awfully polite affair so far. There has been serious discussion of some of the most pressing issues facing the nation, such as Iraq and health care. There have been contrasts in the way different candidates have handled various matters that have arisen. But forget Russia, even by the standards of modern American politics, there has been no real mudslinging, at least at the public level. What little dirty campaigning has taken place -- the anonymous emails asserting that Obama is a secret Muslim or the push polls telling voters that Republican Mitt Romney is a Mormon -- has not been taking place on the public stage but below the radar screen and has yet to be tied to any campaign.

Some of the second-tier Democratic candidates, watching the skirmishing between Clinton, Obama and Edwards, have tried to capitalize by adopting a tut-tut scolding tone. "Let's stop this mudslinging," New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson harumphed at the Las Vegas debate. "Let's stop this going after each other on character, on trust. Let us debate the issues that affect the American people." That usually generates hearty applause from Democratic audiences.

Having seen real character attacks, Edwards later pointed out that this campaign hasn't had any yet. "The idea that this is mudslinging -- I mean, we're talking about substantive issues of war that are going to face the next president of the United States," he said on CBS's "Face the Nation" the following Sunday. "And I might add, having been through a general election, I mean, if anybody, including Senator Clinton, thinks this is mudslinging -- this is milquetoast compared to what we're going to see next fall. We need to have a candidate who's actually ready for that battle."

After all, so far, none of the other Democratic candidates has really brought up any of the obvious issues that could confront their colleagues, such as Richardson's management of the nation's nuclear laboratories as energy secretary or Edwards's work for a hedge-fund firm involved in foreclosing on Hurricane Katrina victims or Obama's land deal with a Chicago dealmaker later indicted for influence-peddling or Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich's bankruptcy of the city of Cleveland while mayor or Delaware Sen. Joe Biden's plagiarism episode that ruined his 1988 presidential run. Nor for that matter, have the Republican candidates gone after, to name an example, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani's three marriages and the children who don't like him very much, although they are beginning to raise ethical questions about former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee.

In reality, no one knows what real mudslinging looks like better than Clinton, who survived her husband's tabloid presidency with more than a little splatter. The early cry of "throwing mud," in fact, may be innoculation to ward off any discussion of things that would actually veer into territory she would rather leave undiscussed -- her husband's impeachment, disbarment and contempt citation for giving false testimony under oath about his affair with a White House intern, her own grand jury testimony that led prosecutors to draft, but never file, an indictment against her in the Whitewater case, her family's ties to such figures as Webster Hubbell, Jim and Susan McDougal, Dick Morris and others, not to mention the endless questions about the state of her marriage.

It's certainly reasonable for Democrats to worry about whether they are too focused on attacking each other instead of Republicans. That's the danger of a vigorous nomination battle. But there's a difference between negative campaigning and mudslinging. For that, the Democrats may want to put some drycleaners on retainer. And be glad they're not in Russia.

-- Peter Baker

By Washington Post editors  |  November 27, 2007; 11:34 AM ET
Categories:  A_Blog , Morning Cheat Sheet  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Bill Richardson's Lay of the Iowa Land
Next: Dodd Eligible For Public Funds

Comments

What we need is a no column on the ballot and the highest net yes wins. No longer would we have to vote for A to vote against B. And much of the mud would remain in the puddles.

Posted by: Valjean1 | November 30, 2007 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Mr Baker, you are apparently a very small man. Since you are likely to continue in this job the next year, I do hope you will find the strength to perform more professionally in the future. This does not reflect well on you.

Posted by: zukermand | November 30, 2007 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is very desperate. Hill & Bill a.k.a. Hillary's camp is showing their real side. They are better at throwing mud, rather than answering questions. Recently Hillary was asked the question of liability by the Triune. She said, "Well I'm not going to tell you.". A typical thing to expect from Hillary when she is asked any question. She does not want to tell anything about herself, but is so eager to fling mud. She is such a scorned woman, that all she cares is to fight dirty and not offer any answers. She is very bad for this country. There is no sincerety in her words. She can not be the leader of the democratic party. She can not be the leader of this country. She has to earn her respect. Which she has failed to do. No Billary in the White House.

Posted by: ChunkyMonkey1 | November 28, 2007 5:17 PM | Report abuse

The real mudslinging hasn't started. It will start when Hillary touts her experience as First Lady as being presidential experience, and someone retorts, "Yeah, Hillary, you have experience. Talk to us about TravelGate and Vince Foster. That's some pretty heavy experience."

Or, when she uses her line about fighting for the rights of working men and women all of her life, someone asks, "Were you fighting for the working men and women of America when you were on the board of Wal-Mart? How about your time at the Rose Law Firm?"

If you don't think the Republicans will ask those questions in the Fall, you are living in fantasyland.

Posted by: a.strk | November 28, 2007 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Anyone looking for some new Hillary video from an SC stop and an interesting commentary on how race is impacting that primary should try: http://goupstate.us/index.php/lanefiller/2007/11/27/hillary_and_the_black_men_of_god

Posted by: lanefiller | November 28, 2007 12:28 AM | Report abuse

tleytham
well, first of all thank you for feeling that you needed to respond to my comment.

let's just wait and see. also thanks for being a lot calmer in your response ( not as shrill as your idol edwards).

Posted by: decider1 | November 27, 2007 8:08 PM | Report abuse

and to the other hillary cheerleader raymond fernandez above - hillary is the closest thing to being GWB in the entire race - starting with her pro-war vote and going right on to nafta and taking money/turning a blind eye to the chinese - I personally think bush has made a lot of mistakes but still gets more criticism than he deserves but be that as it may, if you dislike BUSH, you definitely should NOT vote for Hillary - does anyone really want the USA to go BUSH/CLINTON/BUSH/CLINTON ?? that's crazy - a vote for Hillary is a vote for negative politics and gridlock - a vote for hillary is a vote for politics as usual and partisanship and divisiveness - those are facts not opinion - Hillary has always gone negative as bad or worse than anyone right up until she takes her "glass house" on the campaign trail and suddenly she is against "mudslinging" which she has dished out but suddenly can't take (the opposite of what you want in a leader) - well of course, she wants to hide her record now - it is just another game to get elected to her - (I'm surprised Obama and Edwards bought into that con as long as they have) - Hillary has flipflopped on everything from nafta - to illegal immigrant driver's licenses to her ultimate flipflop - one of the world's worst negative campaigning candidates is now against mudslinging and even so full of her own lies as to have the Hillary staff start mudslinging about mudslinging (calling her rivals "swift-boaters" for bringing up legitimate campaign issues - NAUSEATING -- PLEASE, JUST GO AWAY HILLARY , YOU WILL HURT YOUR PARTY AND YOUR COUNTRY IF YOU DON'T) -- AND p.s., just in case anyone else so conveniently "forgot" (like this HC cheeleader raymond did) Hillary is (or was) a trial lawyer SAME AS EDWARDS (except she wasn't as successful as Edwards at her day job) - talk about a ridiculous comparison - also do not forget Edwards got over 50 million votes for VP - Hillary will be fairly lucky to get close to that and far luckier still to beat any republican challenger (that is admittedly an opinion but probably correct) - and lastly to grandpa 85 (probably a 47 year old female) - comparing hillary to franklin d. roosevelt - puuuull-leeze - not on ANY level - she does NOT even compare well to eleanor (who was an honest woman of character and values unlike HC)

Posted by: tleytham | November 27, 2007 7:18 PM | Report abuse

and to the other hillary cheerleader raymond fernandez above - hillary is the closest thing to being GWB in the entire race - starting with her pro-war vote and going right on to nafta and taking money/turning a blind eye to the chinese - I personally think bush has made a lot of mistakes but still gets more criticism than he deserves but be that as it may, if you dislike BUSH, you definitely should NOT vote for Hillary - does anyone really want the USA to go BUSH/CLINTON/BUSH/CLINTON ?? that's crazy - a vote for Hillary is a vote for negative politics and gridlock - a vote for hillary is a vote for politics as usual and partisanship and divisiveness - those are facts not opinion - Hillary has always gone negative as bad or worse than anyone right up until she takes her "glass house" on the campaign trail and suddenly she is against "mudslinging" which she has dished out but suddenly can't take (the opposite of what you want in a leader) - well of course, she wants to hide her record now - it is just another game to get elected to her - (I'm surprised Obama and Edwards bought into that con as long as they have) - Hillary has flipflopped on everything from nafta - to illegal immigrant driver's licenses to her ultimate flipflop - one of the world's worst negative campaigning candidates is now against mudslinging and even so full of her own lies as to have the Hillary staff start mudslinging about mudslinging (calling her rivals "swift-boaters" for bringing up legitimate campaign issues - NAUSEATING -- PLEASE, JUST GO AWAY HILLARY , YOU WILL HURT YOUR PARTY AND YOUR COUNTRY IF YOU DON'T) -- AND p.s., just in case anyone else so conveniently "forgot" (like this HC cheeleader raymond did) Hillary is (or was) a trial lawyer SAME AS EDWARDS (except she wasn't as successful as Edwards at her day job) - talk about a ridiculous comparison - also do not forget Edwards got over 50 million votes for VP - Hillary will be fairly lucky to get close to that and far luckier still to beat any republican challenger (that is admittedly an opinion but probably correct) - and lastly to grandpa 85 (probably a 47 year old female) - comparing hillary to franklin d. roosevelt - puuuull-leeze - not on ANY level - she does NOT even compare well to eleanor (who was an honest woman of character and values unlike HC)

Posted by: tleytham | November 27, 2007 7:18 PM | Report abuse

Mudslinging season is only just getting started. There is plenty more mud to be thrown at Hillary and she knows it. For a candidate with such a negative image there is no possible way she can win a general election. As of this moment it appears unclear if she's even capable of winning the democratic nomination.

Andrew Prieditis

Posted by: test3 | November 27, 2007 7:11 PM | Report abuse

the first comment is supposedly from "newsagent99" who is really hillary "agent" number 99,999 - LOL - but seriously, many of these hillary cheerleaders are are so utterly predictable and pop up on practically all of the blogs and it seems they never speak to the facts - they simply and mindlessly defend hillary and ignore every legitimate world crisis and every legitimate election issue - they probably know all too well they can't get over 50 million votes without BOTH cheating AND distorting the facts but Hillary is so power hungry that she and her minions plan to do EXACTLY that - from "agent" number one (bill "the sexual harassing cigar guy" clinton - of course, his ridiculously extreme forms of on the job sexual harassment are always perfectly OK with the double-standard feminists simply because he is pro-choice) right up to "agent" number 999,999 (barbara "let's all vote for x-chromosomes instead of character" streisand) - they will throw mud and pretend they didn't - attack bush when he isn't running for anything and pull off every other double standard imaginable - POWER for the sake of POWER is all the clintons were ever about and all they will ever be about - I'm a moderate independent but I'd rather have OBAMA or CONDALEEZA for president - anyone but the nauseating HC - at least you know they TRY to stand for something -- NOT like the GUTLESS POWER HUNGRY CLINTONS - go ahead and nominate her IF you want congress to swing back to the republicans

Posted by: tleytham | November 27, 2007 6:43 PM | Report abuse

File this story under "So What?"
It's not like either one of these losers could win a general election. All these two can do is give the Republicans 4 more years in the White House. And why not really? Pelosi and Reed have made sure the Republicans will get Congress back in '08.

Posted by: eco-pharm | November 27, 2007 6:30 PM | Report abuse

Edwards with his shrill attacks on Hillary on national TV (for which he was booed)and Obama with his all out attempt to discredit Hillary to catch up with her in the polls -- tell me that is not ambition and politics. Edwards the lawyer who collected millions on malpractice lawsuits , one of the problems that caused a skyrocketing of healthcare, accusing Hillary of being basically all that's weong with America, is like the pot calling the stove black. And Obama -- he simply let his ambitions allow him lose touch with reality.
To beat the Republicans first you have to know the rules of the game and win the game. The you can change the rules. Otherwise democrats will be just like little crying babies and end with a president just like dubya for 8 more years. Get real! Listen to Hillary and think! Go Hillary!

Posted by: decider1 | November 27, 2007 6:11 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton had all of the Whitehouse experience that she now claims qualifies her to be president when she cast a vote to allow the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Despite the experiece, she got it wrong then. Why are we to believe she'll do any better in the future?

If we are attacked during Clinton administration 2, will she be pressured into making a rash decision by the same so-called-patriots that got us into Iraq? I for one don't want to find us in a war in some other foreign country because our president can't stand up to public opinion.

Posted by: swatenginguy | November 27, 2007 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Hillary touts her experience in foreign affairs. However, I have to ask why she is not proficient in a second/foreign language such as Spanish or French? In making her visits to foreign countries, she was already an adult, a ready-made person already set in her "American" ways of perceiving and interpreting things. Obama's life abroad during his childhood years were fundamental, formative years. Linguistic theory states that a person becomes fully rooted in his/here native language & culture at around ages 12 or 13. Any second language learned and even fully mastered after that stage in life reflects itself as such. Bill Richardson has that type of experience. He was born in California and weeks after his birth, he was brought to Mexico City where he grew up until the age of 13. He attended school in Spanish like any other Mexican youngster, and was surrounded by Mexican society and the Spanish language 24/7, except for the contact with his American father. At age 13, he was sent to a private school in Massachusetts. The rest is history. Those first 13 years in Mexico are a fundamental component of his capacity in foreign affairs. He is both bilingual and bicultural. Therefore, Richardson's perception and interpretation of foreign affairs, along with his high level experience as a US diplomat are unmatched. Hillary is nowhere in this context. Obama in this context? I don't know, but I would like to know more. I personally would like to have Richardson as my candidate, but if he doesn't get the nod, then my compelling second choice is Obama. If Obama becomes the official candidate for the democrats, has anyone ever considered an Obama-Richardson ticket? That packs a foreign affairs power packed punch that the Republicans could never match. However, if Hillary becomes the candidate, I will vote for her. Furthermore, the American people have to understand that being a leader should not automatically limit their vision and understanding to a strictly American outcome. Living outside of one's own native country, speaking the language of that country, and being immersed in the society of my adopted country is exceptionally enlightening and enriching. Having taught English as a second/foreign language, being married to my adopted country's most darling native daughter, and being a foreign born to a son who was born and being raised in my adopted land, undergoing psychoanalysis in the language of my adopted country, and now translating all types of financial, tax, & accounting documents from this country's language into my native language of English for close to 19 years. This has been nothing less than incredible. I also know the emotions of being an immigrant to a foreign land and learning how to assimilate in their terms, without dumping the American "me" in the trash can. I left my native Los Angeles at age 23 in February 1966. I personally have foreign experience, but I am just a citizen.
American Expatriate translator/teacher
Mexico City, Mexico

Posted by: RickCadena | November 27, 2007 4:49 PM | Report abuse

I plan on voting for Hillary Clinton. I need help living in America as it's gotten so unfriendly with hard times. Here is a little poem from 1932 that shares the same thoughts as me:Theme Song For 1932
Hoover (Bush) is my shepherd: I am in want. He maketh me to lie down on park benches: He leadeth me beside still factories. He disturbeth my soul; He leadeth me in paths of destruction for his party's sake. Yea, though I walk through the Valley of the Shadow of Depression, I anticipate no recovery, for thou art with me. Thy politicians and thy diplomatists, they frighten me. Thou preparest a
reduction of my salary in the presence of my enemies. Thou annointest my income with taxes, my expense runneth over. Surely, unemployment and poverty will follow me all the days of the republican regime, And I shall dwell in a mortgaged house forever. by J. R. Ferguson, Los Angeles, Cal. Hillary can be our new FDR and save us. With Hillary as President I will have a President I can Love instead of one I think of as an enemy who is against me and hates me and has done nothing but prove it.
I'm tired of mean old rich white men bossing me like I'm a useless good for nothing. I'm tired of it!

Posted by: grandad85 | November 27, 2007 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Baker,

That was a very clever pivot in your concluding remarks, which gave you the opportunity to spread the cheapest, dirtiest kind of rumors and gossip about Hillary Clinton's professional and personal life.

Putting your obvious chauvinism aside, I'm not sure what your job title is at Wapo, but the only question I can think of to ask you in terms of professional journalism is this: "Have you no shame?"

Posted by: ichief | November 27, 2007 3:25 PM | Report abuse

"What's personal about asking if another candidate broke the law in his management of campaign funds? It may be desperate coming from a frontrunner, or even hypocritical for someone whose family has been in the middle of more than one campaign scandal, but there doesn't seem to be anything all that personal about it."


What is personal about it is that it was not illegal. The information came from the FEC itself, which saw no need to investigate.

Obama distributed the leftover funds from his HopePAC to other democratic candidates (INCLUDING CLINTON HERSELF) when the PAC was closed. Unlike Clinton when she closed her HillPAC, he did not put the funds into his own campaign funds.

This was mudslinging from the Clinton campaign, pure and simple. And given that they KNEW nothing was wrong with it, it shows the hypocrisy of Clinton's campaign.

Posted by: kurtrk | November 27, 2007 3:22 PM | Report abuse

If you want US to be a great country again, Hillary is the only choice. We can not put a great country in the hand of inexperienced person in the future.

Posted by: dxinjian | November 27, 2007 3:17 PM | Report abuse

l hope Hilary looses. she is becoming too desperate for me, whatever happen to the hilary of inevitability?

Please clear the way for president Barack Obama!!!!

Posted by: nkgilb | November 27, 2007 2:52 PM | Report abuse

The opponents of Hillary will use anything they can to stop her in the primaries simply because they know they cannot beat her in the General. This applies to dems and repubs alike. I see so many "So-Called" Ds claiming they would not vote in the General if she is the nominee, another tactic being used by her opponents that is well known by those of us who have supported Hillary from the start. This is gaining support for Hillary from many that are looking at this as the most important election in most of our lifetimes.

Posted by: lylepink | November 27, 2007 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Let me get this straight. This article is about mudslinging in the DEMOCRATIC race for president but the article's title is about a mudslinging reality check for Clinton. I guess "A mudslinging reality check for presidential candidates" would have been a little too accurate (or might not have sucked in all those "Hillary haters").

Posted by: goldenspiral | November 27, 2007 2:41 PM | Report abuse

The NO column and the highest net yes wins I suggest needs to be added to the discussion. Many say they will not vote for A or B regardless of who else is running. They know who they don't want in office more than who they do so they should be able to cast a vote that says that. It would provide a more honest reflection of voter sentiment as well as provide beneficial information to all, winners, losers and the public as well. Winners, especially, would know if they won with support or by default and adjust their programs accordingly rather than claiming a mandate. The traditional ability of being able to blackball applicants needs to be spread to the ballots and polls for political office.

Posted by: Valjean1 | November 27, 2007 2:40 PM | Report abuse

And if one convinces me the other is unworthy I should be able to vote against them without having to vote for the other. A NO column and the highest net yes wins would let me do that. Maybe it would help reduce the mud and replace it with light. Why do we have to say we want parsnips to say we don't want broccoli?

Posted by: Valjean1 | November 27, 2007 2:27 PM | Report abuse

When it mattered, Hilary gave in to Bush . Everyone knew the Bushies would use the vote as a green-light to attack Iraq. Everyone knew there was no "clear and present" or immediate threat. Everyone knew that if they voted against it they would be targeted by the Republican 'wrapped in the flag' false patriots. Now Hilary says that she knows, from her vast experience, how to stand up to the Right-Wing Conspiracy but, when it mattered, she didn't. That's not tough leadership. She's a good Senator, she should stay in the Senate.

Posted by: thebobbob | November 27, 2007 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Actually, the writer is incorrect in saying that the "mud" Clinton complained about during the debate in Las Vegas was about her policy positions and experience.

It was a direct response to Edwards' accusation that she was accepting money from lobbyists -- which to some of us is tantamount to accepting bribes. So, yes, it was real mud.

Posted by: prettierthanyou | November 27, 2007 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Questioning a person's character is an ad hominem attack. And that's exactly what Edwards and, lately, Obama have been doing to Clinton. Claiming that she can't be trusted, i.e., that she is a lying, deceitful person, is the essence of the attack strategy that Edwards and Obama have been employing. And, to her credit, Hillary has not been replying in kind.

When the campaign started I leaned towards Obama but now I'm definitely for Clinton. Edwards and Obama have engaged in out-in-out mudslinging, and the public knows it. Clinton will win the nomination handily, despite the wails of Obama, Edwards and their hysterical supporters.

Posted by: camstanton | November 27, 2007 1:31 PM | Report abuse

I don't think gender factor should even be mention in such a crucial election like this 2008 presidential bid. We are in a cross road in our history were intellectualism counts and not gender. I belief that those who are propagating this factor of gender, are the uneducated, and this is the only way for them to express themselves. We as Americans should understand the real reason for change and change is not found in repetition but in innovation. New faces are welcome to Washington to bring new ideas not those who are ready to give ILLIGAL IMMIGRANTS driver's license. This is not a "Celebrity show" were people just blindly follow others for their amusement. We expect real policy change in Washington this time around and we need some one that can deliver that change. Hillary is not ready. She FLIP FLOP on policy just like John Kerry (for example: She voted for the war before she voted against it.)[I guess we all remember this ad from the Republicans]

Posted by: ordgobaltc | November 27, 2007 1:02 PM | Report abuse

hillary is correct to categorize edwards' accusations as "mud" because edwards himself has failed to address his own tactical shifts. when you accuse someone of failing to take a stance when you yourself have taken more than one position on a topic, that is definitely throwing mud.

as far as obama is concerned, he paints hillary's iran senate vote as bush's excuse to go to war with iran. yet, obama was too busy campaigning to show up for this crucial vote? whether or not you agree with hillary, she was there and took a position. where was obama on this important vote?

Posted by: jtorres138 | November 27, 2007 12:53 PM | Report abuse

yeah, yeah, we know, HRC is suppose to take the mud that Barak throws at her, cause she's female, while Barak is "special"

since you're so baised , why not just admit you support Barak and get it over with

Posted by: newagent99 | November 27, 2007 12:10 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company