The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008


Sunday Talkies

Clinton Says Obama Playing Racial Politics

By Zachary A. Goldfarb, The Talk
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton accused Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign of fanning the flames of racial politics and said that he has not yet been held to account for his record on the war in Iraq.

Several prominent African Americans have voiced concern about statements by Clinton and her husband, former president Bill Clinton, the day before the New Hampshire primary.

Sen. Clinton (N.Y.) said in a sometimes testy appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press," that the controversy is an "unfortunate story line that the Obama campaign has pushed very successfully."

Clinton had appeared to some to demean the leadership of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. during the civil rights era when she told Fox News last Monday, "Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. ... [I]t took a president to get it done."

And former president Clinton said at Dartmouth College the same day about Obama, "This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen." After some complained, Clinton said that he was referring only to Obama's Iraq record and not his candidacy.

The Clintons moved Friday to soothe ruffled feathers but, when asked Sunday about the Monday comments, Clinton pointed blame at Obama's campaign. "They've been putting out talking points. They've been telling this in a very selective way," Clinton said. "I'm glad to have the opportunity to set the facts straight."

"Dr. King didn't just give speeches," Clinton said. He understood "he had to move the political process and bring in those who were in political power. ... He wanted somebody in the White House who would act," she said.

Clinton said her husband's comments focused on the story line of Obama's campaign -- a speech he gave in 2002, as a state senator in Illinois, in which he opposed the war in Iraq. "He gave a very impassioned speech against it and consistently said that he was against the war, he would vote against the funding for the war," she said. "By 2003, that speech was off his Web site. By 2004, he was saying that he didn't really disagree with the way George Bush was conducting the war. And by 2005, 6, and 7, he was voting for $300 billion in funding for the war. The story of his campaign is really the story of that speech and his opposition to Iraq. I think it is fair to ask questions about it."

"How do you translate your words into deeds?" she added later. "I think it is fair to point out that he has no record of actually producing positive change."

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), the 2004 nominee who endorsed Obama last week, said Obama has the necessary qualities to "inspire and to be a president."

Kerry defended Obama's youth and relative inexperience, saying on ABC's "This Week," "He's older than Bill Clinton when Bill Clinton became president."

Clinton would not say whether she feels Obama has the experience to be president.

"That is up for voters to decide," she said.

Clinton also addressed her emotional display the day before the New Hampshire primary, in which her eyes appeared to well with tears and her voice broke as she described how she copes with the stresses of the campaign. Critics thought it was staged; some thought that it handed her the primary.

"It was a moment of real emotional connection," Clinton said. She said politicians are "also human beings."

Clinton said that she did not consider the troop surge to be anything more than a narrow military success and that, as president, she still planned to ask her generals to withdraw troops with 60 days.

"Part of the reason that Iraqis are doing anything is they see this election," she said. "They know that the blank check that George Bush gave them is about to be torn up."

Clinton said she has no idea whether the "vast right-wing conspiracy" she once accused of trying to destroy her husband's presidency still exists. And when asked what her biggest public adversity has ever been, she responded, "I think we all know that."

Edwards 'Running Hard' in South Carolina

John Edwards, Kerry's running mate in the 2004 election, said he didn't hear from Kerry before the Obama endorsement but was not surprised by it.

Edwards, on CNN's "Late Edition," reiterated his pledge to continue his campaign "through the convention."

"Are we running hard in South Carolina? Yes, we are running very hard here. I mean, this is the place that I was born. It is a place where I expect to do well," Edwards said. "And it is a place where I understand what is happening in people's lives in a very personal way."

Romney, Giuliani Confident of Upcoming Victories

Former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney both said they expected to win upcoming Republican primaries in critical states for them. Giuliani has staked much of his campaign on a win in Florida on Jan. 29, while Romney faces a big test on Tuesday in Michigan, where his father was governor.

Romney said he would be more confident of winning if only Republicans and independents could vote in the primary. "There will be Democrats that come in the race. Maybe some of them will vote for me, because they will remember what my dad did for Michigan and how he helped turn it around," he said.

Asked if he had to win in Florida, Giuliani replied on "Fox News Sunday," "I don't think any candidate would ever say 'have to,' " but if you want me to say it's real important ... it's real important."

Giuliani was quizzed about his position on illegal immigration: Millions of immigrants who now are illegally in the United States but have not committed a crime here would not have to leave the country before becoming citizens.

"They would have to get on the back of the line. They couldn't get ahead of anyone else. They would have to pay fines. And then at the end of the road, anyone on any of these lists would have to be able to read English, write English, speak English. There would be substantial things that had to be done," Giuliani said, and he dismissed the label "amnesty." "Amnesty is being free and clear of all penalties of any kind," Giuliani said.

Romney and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee clashed over their economic records, appearing on CBS's "Face the Nation" and CNN's "Late Edition." Huckabee portrayed Romney as an out-of-touch businessman, and Romney accused Huckabee of being a tax-hiker.

Romney said Huckabee raised taxes by $500 million as governor and called his resistance to admit that he raised taxes "disingenuous."

Huckabee said it's "almost sad to watch him make these kind of claims. He raised over half a billion dollars of fees in his own state. And he says, well, those aren't taxes."

"I hate to say poor Mitt, because a man with that much wealth is hardly poor anything," he added.

Huckabee ripped Romney's background as someone who oversaw leveraged buyouts.

"There are a lot of people who lost their jobs when his company would take over, restructure a company, lay a lot of people off. A lot of times, the CEOs and the people at the top got some pretty huge bonuses and made a lot of money. A lot of people went home without a pension and a paycheck," Huckabee said.

Romney suggested that criticism sounded to him like demagoguery.

"It has been said for a long time, you don't help the wage-earner by attacking the wage-payer. And this kind of divisive, populist approach is like he is channeling John Edwards," Romney said.

Posted at 2:09 PM ET on Jan 13, 2008  | Category:  Sunday Talkies
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in | Digg This
Previous: Clinton Takes Pride in Obama in S.C. | Next: Edwards, Obama Join Fray Over Clinton MLK Comments

Add 44 to Your Site
Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Trail. This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Trail.
Get This Widget >>


Please email us to report offensive comments.

Alert *** Alert *** Alert ***

Would you like to own a brand new high definition 60" LCD / Plasma TV with reclining chair with large cup holder for your cold beverage of your choice?

Huckabee! He is the ONLY candidate out of the presidential field willing to implement the "Fair-Tax" system.

Look at your paycheck and see how much they are taking out of your paycheck for taxes... go ahead go look at it now.

Now take the cost of a brand new 60" LCD / Plasma high def TV and reclining chair (& cup holder) and divide that number by how much taxes they are taking out.

$3,000 (TV cost, chair) / $325 tax holding each week = 8 weeks

That''s it, only 8 weeks to get this great deal!!!

But if you vote for any other candidate it will take years to save up for this! Say you put away $10 each week, well that''s 4 years!

So if you want to become poorer then vote for McCain, Romney, Thompson, Guiliani, Paul, Clinton, Obama, Edwards..... but if you want to become richer vote for Huckabee!

PS - Then after buying a new 60" high def TV in 3 weeks, let's go for a :

1. Brand new set of Ping Golf Clubs in week number 4 to 6...... then
2. Relaxing cruise to the Bahamas in week 7 - 10 then
3. Huge diamond ring for your wife or girlfriend in weeks 11 - 15 then
4. XBox 360 for your kids in week 16 - 17 then
5. Blazing fast big screen computer in week 18 - 20
6. John Deer Tractor in week 21 - 24
7. New puppies for your kids and wife in week 25 - 28
8. United Way donation in week 29 - 30
9. Brand new spiffy suit and tie in week 31 - 33
10. Ten dozen roses for your beautiful wife or girlfriend in week 34 - 35
11. Huge collector authentic train set for your kids in weeks 36 - 37
12. Large cheery oak desk for your office in weeks 38 - 40
13. Food for the hungry in your neighborhood donation in weeks 41 - 43
14. Family trip to Diseyland in weeks 44 - 49
15. Seasons pass to your favorite sports team all home games in week 50 - 52

,,,, And then there's next year's purchases and the next year after that and the next year after that and so on.

ONLY ONLY ONLY if you vote for Huckabee. He will make you and your family a lot Richer!!! No other candidate is offering to implement the Fair tax where you get 100% of your paycheck!

Vote 4 Mike Huckabee! His Huck-a-bus is ready to board, he is saying "All Aboard!!!" Let's jump on the Huck-a-bus NOW and increase the speed from Huck-a-Boom to Huck-a-Bam-Boom speed!

Just look at all those great things you can purchase or give to needy families if Huckabee becomes President! Huckabee is taking us to a new American spirit on Higher ground! Let's do it for the Gipper!!!

Posted by: vote4mikehuckabee | January 14, 2008 9:46 PM

I am a Hillary Clinton fan now, I hadn't made up my mind until these nasty posts of the last few days proved that most of them are from Republicans and Obama supporter. I will not vote for Obama and I know a lot of others who will not either because he IS playing the race card, it is not Hillary or Bill.

Posted by: dolsac3 | January 14, 2008 5:23 PM


Please explain how pointing out the fact that Obama refused to criticize Kerry and Edwards for voting to authorize war in Iraq -- or when he actually became a Senator, he did indeed vote for Iraq war funding -- is a "personal" attack. BTW: allegations of "swing parties" against either candidate is, in fact, a "personal" attack. See the difference?

Posted by: JakeD | January 14, 2008 9:14 AM

Oh! Did I mention that if somebody would like to dig some dirt on the clintons just like they did for Obama, you'll find plenty from swing parties in Littlerock, whitewater to Monica Lewinsky?

Posted by: rbduval | January 14, 2008 8:55 AM

I don't know if you've come to realize that every time a clinton supporter talk about Obama it's about his private life and it gets very personal with a rare brutality we've never seen so far. You can ever check on the republican side. I think even Rush Limbaugh has far more class than that. Some of you will talk about his lower IQ although the guy graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard. Hilary ALWAYS puts her gender before everything while Obama has never talked about race. She'll her surrogates to say thing but will portray herself as positive like she did with the THUG CEO NAMED JOHNSON. You can feel that all the animosity Hilary supporters have, most of them are virulent, that the forces of darkness are behind her.

Posted by: rbduval | January 14, 2008 8:49 AM

That's right, Katy7540. In 2004, Obama refused to criticize Kerry and Edwards for voting to authorize war in Iraq -- as to how he would have voted if he had been a Sentator, he said "I don't know" -- when he actually became a Senator, he did indeed vote for Iraq war funding. Those are the DOCUMENTED facts.

Posted by: JakeD | January 14, 2008 7:43 AM

Hillary Clinton in trying to disrespect Obama, blundered by her insensitive analogy against the civil rights activists, JFK, and MLK thus causing a backlash by Black leaders. So to cover her blunder she and Bill have been appearing everywhere with Black leaders accusing Senator Obama of playing racial politics. Whuut?

Senator Barack Obama's speech on the war October, 2002 has been documented. In addition his position on the war since 2002 and his votes since he has been in the Senate differ greatly from Hillary Clinton's and is also documented.

Posted by: Katy7540 | January 14, 2008 1:23 AM

I have read every single comment on this site so far. The conclusions I have come to are that some respondents simply wanted an opportunity to bash the Clintons and never would have supported them even if this controversy had not arisen. Other comments were from folks who were generally supportive of the Democratic Party and the Clintons, but were disturbed by her remarks and the subsequent blame on Obama. I tried my best to dismiss the comments of those who simply hate Hillary because she is Hillary and actually ask myself how her comments really made me feel. So far her actual comments have barely been debated while folks are posting her record and other things. This is what I really want to ask.

Are you all who heard what she said related to MLK and LBJ, really upset in that you thought she was intentionally insulting Dr. King or that she was not giving him the proper credit, Or are you really upset that instead of clarifying her remarks the following day and explaining what she really meant, she turned it around brought Obamas name in to it?

When reviewing everything I realized I was not terribly upset by her comments about Dr. King. I do not think the Clintons are racist. I understood what she was trying to say no matter how badly put. What upset me was that though the comment did not involve Obama she tried to deflect the blame as well as the negative backlash by blaming him in a way of being black and running for president. It seemed to me that if Obama talks about race then he is "playing the race card" if he does not talk about race then another candidate will find a way to bring it up and remind everyone "Hey black man running for president!" I understand the anger of people that see her blaming the backlash of her comments on Barrack Obama as being extremely annoying because it implies that we cannot think for ourselves. That we cannot be angry simply because we disagree with her comment. I think a lot of people in this election thought that Obama automatically had the black vote because black people are just supposed to vote for a black person when they come around, or that Hillary had the woman vote because women will always vote for women and Edwards should have all the white males on his side. We see that America is way more complex than that. No one wants to feel that their mind is made up simply from a title. I think that is why a lot of African Americans were angered by her blaming people's reaction to her comment on Obama playing the race card. Obama could have said absolutely nothing about her comment and people who were offended would still be offended. I do not think that Obama had to remind anyone that he is black. For her to blame her mistake of words on that fact that she thinks Obama rallied people to be upset about her comments, is what made Americans feel like she was saying anything to get elected. I do love the Clintons. I just finished reading Bill Clintons book yesterday. Giving: How each of us can change the world. I recommend it to everyone and it really does show the humanity of the Clintons. I do however support Obama and have planned to vote for him for some months now. What this recent event has done to my opinion is make me slightly nervous about voting for Hillary if Obama does not win the nominee. I am sure I will still do it since I would not choose a republican candidate, but it does shake my faith in her a little. Not her original comments about MLK and LBJ but her follow up of blaming Obama for her words.

I invite anyone to respond to my posting if they have any questions or comments. By the way my screen name was picked as a former email of mine when I liked black lights that make glow in the dark stars glow. I am only mentioning that because you would be surprised how many people have assumed my racial identity simply from my former email/AOL SN. It seems that politicians are not the only ones to assume about people and their views. Take a guess at what you think my physical characteristics are if you like.

Posted by: blacklight03 | January 14, 2008 1:01 AM

I've been blasted on this 'blog' for being a horrible' Republican" which is not true I detest GW Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc. I am an independent. At the moment, I don't know who I'm going to vote for. Many people are in this predicament judging from some of the polls near the primary dates.I blame the press in good deal. Someone pointed to an interview Sen.Clinton did with Russert which I didn't see, but really a lot of the problem is the candidates themselves. They either flip-flop or avoid a hard question. I judge on voting records mainly and only Biden and Dodd have that to any large degree They drew about 5% of the vote between them. Bill Clinton was a protege of William Fulbright. I really don't know where Obama's political ties are from. That tells me more than some canned speech or alleged 'programmed' debate? A president should have a lot of experience. I get no significant details from any of the candidates. They all seem to be hiding something. Why do they all,both parties act so cautiously? Too much press? I mean I don't care if Sen Clinton had an emotional moment. Is that worth 4 hours of coverage? I do appreciate that she had the courage to mention LBJ and the Civil Rights act of 1965. (LBJ canned the 1957 CRA as Senate Majority leader. Talk about The candidates and press try to turn everything into a simplistic, black-white, sound-bite advertisement. I hope people have the sense to see that. Life is complex. I worked for the FEDS for 16 years as a physicist. Lies,congames and propaganda are nauseating to me and they are abundant in the government. I don't trust politicians where there is scant reliable information. In the government, just about everything is political. I'm not impressed by speeches, or snide remarks in debates. Its ridiculous none of the candidates does anything but promise everything.

Posted by: KRittenmyer | January 13, 2008 11:46 PM

Thank you, jo.kleeb, for agreeing with me that Obama did not "clearly and umambiguously oppose the war" in 2004 and then later when he voted to fund said war. He was indeed on the Reid/Pelosi "team" furthering the war in Iraq, rather than impeaching Bush/Cheney or doing everything else they could to stop the war.

Posted by: JakeD | January 13, 2008 9:20 PM

Hillary Clinton won't be a great president.

For one thing, I don't believe she can be elected. There are just two many people who intensely dislike her. For another, I think the reasons why people don't like her are now on display for all to see.

I loved Bill despite his many pecadillos. I have never been able to feel any warmth toward Hillary. I worked with women like her and, believe me, they are not much fun.

I have supported Obama from the time he first announced his candidacy, but I've always said that if Clinton should win I would support her, if only to keep another Republican out of the White House.

I won't be supporting Clinton if she wins the nomination, not after what I've seen over the past week. This is disgraceful.

Posted by: sherirogers | January 13, 2008 9:00 PM

Folks, please! Enough of the 'Race' canard. The issue as it currently presents itself is 'Place'. I would not call the Clintonian tactics so much racist as I would call them placist. What they are really saying is that Sen. Obama has forgotten his place. After all, how dare he forget to ask permission of 'Massa Bill' and of 'Miz Hillary' before daring to exercise his God-given perogatives to run for the office of his aspirations out of his own sui generis volition?

Like all good patriarchal missionary-oriented liberals, the Clintons merely think that Sen Obama should have cleared his candadicy with them beforehand. Then, they could have told him to politely and passively wait his turn, "Trust us, Kid. We will let you know when we think that you are ready to run."

Posted by: bldlcc | January 13, 2008 8:52 PM

In response to this comment:

"Obama DIDN'T "clearly and unambiguously oppose the war in Iraq" when he deferred to Kerry on the issue in 2004. Obama DIDN'T "clearly and unambiguously oppose the war in Iraq" when he voted for funding said war. Those are simply the facts."

Obama DID clearly and umambiguously oppose the war in a RECORDED interview from 2002 (available for viewing on his website I think), prior to the start of the war. He was not in Senate at the time - but made his views perfectly clear.

When Kerry and other Dems were running in the 2004 election he was asked by the press about their decisions to support the war. He reiterated his stance, but said given he was not privy to the Senate documents (i.e. was not a Senator at that time) it would be unfair to judge them on a position he was not himself put in. In remaining neutral on this, he gave Kerry and co the space to 'speak for themselves' on this, doing nothing to damage his 'party'. That's called being part of a team people.

Posted by: JayKay2 | January 13, 2008 8:41 PM

Wow, after reading a good portion of these comments I just have to say, you Clinton haters are not even guided by common sense and you can manage to twist around the situations and words to meet your own agendas. What a bunch of piling on, nothing has changed about this country, we still have lots of stupid people who will end up getting us another Bush type president.
Take a minute and research her record and put your hate feelings aside for a moment and find out the truth.

Posted by: pshark53 | January 13, 2008 8:34 PM

Look under "Political Career" of Obama. Six years in Illinois congress, 1 paragraph, 2 sentence to describe his great achievements :-)

In the same segment, 2 years in US Senate, 2 paragraph, lot of sentence with no concrete achievements. He sould have mentioned his achievement that Senator can not any longer eat with lobbist, unless they are standing up :-)

It is amazing, what he is getting away with. Republicans and corporate media will not let this guy get away with this once they get him as nominee.

Posted by: SeedofChange | January 13, 2008 8:32 PM

svreader....... Hillary Clinton is nothing but a pissant.

Posted by: VladimirPooh | January 13, 2008 8:31 PM

Truly a Sister Souljah moment for the wife of America's first black president. This is the very same tag team from Hades that elevated playing the race card from an art form to a science. If it wasn't for the seriousness of the office they seek, this would make a great skit for SNL.

Posted by: slim2 | January 13, 2008 8:29 PM

meldupree --

Whatever you're smoking, I hope you have a prescription for it.

Haven't you seen the latest polls?

Support for Obama is dropping as more and more people wake up and realize he's an empty suit.

We need a real President, not a high-school "Prom King" like Obama or Edwards.

Hillary Clinton's going to be a GREAT President.

Posted by: svreader | January 13, 2008 8:25 PM

What Hillary seems to forget, or at least intentionally overlooks, is that lasting, positive change happens when you build bridges, bring competing interest together and unite others for the cause. She does not have the ability to do this. Anyone can look at her history, Washington experience and now her campaign, and see that she is a divisive candidate that only splits the electorate and continues the name-calling and backbiting. If she becomes president, we can look forward to four years of conspiracy theories, ranting and whatever else she cares to throw out to deflect any blame from her in her areas of ineffectiveness, such as being able to communicate effectively and build coalitions. Simply ramrodding your policy ideas down others' throats may bring temporary victories but are not the type of politics we need for the future to build a better America. My vote is going to Obama for this reason. I believe he will change the climate of Washington and stop the tide of cynicism and/or apathy that disengages many of our citizens from the political process.

Posted by: emhgooch | January 13, 2008 8:24 PM

Obviously, if even the CLINTONS are going to be labeled "racists", the GOP needs to be ready for it.

Posted by: JakeD | January 13, 2008 8:15 PM

Evasive, duplicitous, dishonest, dissembling, distortion: those words describe how Mrs. Clinton responded to Tim Russert this a.m. on the news program "Meet the Press." Here are some selected quotes from the interview transcript for anyone doubting the duplicitous nature of Hillary Clinton.
Russert: MR. RUSSERT: "Casting your vote for conviction for the authorization for use of military force against Iraq resolution. That same week Senator Obama gave a speech, and this is what he said: 'I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.'Who had the better judgment at that time?"
Hillary Clinton: "Well, Tim, let's put this in context. You didn't show my entire speech--of course, you don't have time to do that--because I made it very clear that my vote was not a vote for preemptive war...My belief was we did need to pin Saddam down, put inspectors in. But I said I was against preemptive war, I spoke out against it...But let's look at the--let's look at the...
SEN. CLINTON: Wait a minute, let me finish.
MR. RUSSERT: It's, it's import...
SEN. CLINTON: Let's look at the entire context.
MR. RUSSERT: Well, let's just...
SEN. CLINTON: Because by 2004, Tim, by the summer of 2004, Senator Obama said he wasn't sure how he would have voted.
MR. RUSSERT: But you voted for all the funding for the war.
SEN. CLINTON: I did. I never--I'm not premising my campaign on something different.
MR. RUSSERT: And then until '06 was against the timetable.SEN. CLINTON: But I did what I--my principle concern has always been doing what I thought was best for our country and what I thought was best for our troops. I'm not here saying anything different than that. I'm not giving you a story line that does not hold up...
MR. RUSSERT: But did he have better...
SEN. CLINTON: ...under the facts and the times we were in.
MR. RUSSERT: Did he have better judgment in October of 2002?
SEN. CLINTON: You know, look, judgment is not a single snapshot. Judgment is what you do across the course of your life and your career.
MR. RUSSERT: A vote for war is a very important vote.
MR. RUSSERT: You say you've been deeply involved in the eight years of the Clinton administration. One of the powers given to a president is the power of pardon. At the end of the president's second term, he granted 140 pardons, including one to Marc Rich, someone who had been convicted of tax evasion, fraud and making illegal oil deals with Iran. Were you involved in that pardon?
SEN. CLINTON: No. I didn't know anything about that.
MR. RUSSERT: No one talked to you whatsoever?
SEN. CLINTON: No. No. Unh-unh.
MR. RUSSERT: His ex-wife gave $109,000 to your campaign.
SEN. CLINTON: Well, no one talked to me about it, Tim.
MR. RUSSERT: Nobody?
MR. RUSSERT:Ruth Marcus, Washington Post: "Hillary Clinton doesn't need to play the woman-as-victim card ... using gender this way is a setback."
SEN. CLINTON: Well, you know, I don't think that either of us should use gender. I don't think this campaign is about gender, and I sure hope it's not about race....Clearly, I bring the experiences of women. As a daughter, as a mother, as a wife, as a sister. That is who I am.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me, let me ask you this way. Doris Kearns Goodwin, presidential historian, I talked to her and she's been on MEET THE PRESS, talked about the qualities in a president. And she said one of the most important is that you learn from mistakes. Looking back on your vote in October of 2002, what can you learn from that mistake, the way you'll make decisions in the future?
SEN. CLINTON: Well, I have said that obviously, I would never do again what George Bush did with that vote. He misused and abused the authority that was given to him, in my opinion...Obviously, President Bush doesn't listen to me or a lot of other people, and unfortunately, we're in the situation we are now, and we're going to have to have very careful and steady leadership to get us out with the least amount of damage.
MR. RUSSERT: ...that your campaign has talked about extensively. I want to go back to a debate back in October of 1992, when a young governor from Arkansas was talking about experience. Let's listen.
(Videotape, October 11, 1992):
Pres. CLINTON: I believe experience counts, but it's not everything.We need a new approach. The same old experience is not relevant.And you can have the right kind of experience and the wrong kind of experience. Mine is rooted in the real lives of real people, and it will bring real results if we have the courage to change.(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: That could've been written by Barack Obama.
MR. RUSSERT: Doris Kearns Goodwin said, "What's the biggest public adversity a person has ever faced?" What's yours?
SEN. CLINTON: Well, I think we all know that, we lived through it, didn't we, and it's something that was very painful and very hurtful.
MR. RUSSERT: What did you learn from it?
SEN. CLINTON: Well, you know, first of all, it is who I am as a person."
If you see that she deflects Russert's question asking her what has she learned from her biggest mistake, first, by not admitting to ever have made a mistake, and second to turning the question around to blame George Bush for not "listening" to her. Every sentence she speaks these days seems to be a lie, including the "the's," "and's" and the "is."

Posted by: thedefendant | January 13, 2008 8:15 PM

Geezus, it's amazing what lengths Clinton bashers will go to. Nothing racist was said about anyone. This is a low, cheap shot at the Clintons. Why is it ok for Senator Clinton to endure sexist, nasty attacks but when Senator Obama's record is brought to light, it must be racist? Get off the Kool Aid

Posted by: wodiej61 | January 13, 2008 8:09 PM

svreader, wow man you are drinking that Clinton punch by the gallon. Lay off the sauce, man! Reading too many lines from HRC's little red book of lies causes brain damage. (oh I forgot, your case has been diagnosed as terminal. Hope the Universal Healthcare Plan works out for you.)

Seriously, how can you type your pages to say HRC is a great Senator is beyond my understanding. HRC plays the race-baiting and gender card and then puts out a disinformation campaign on Obama. I'm going to get the woman a backhoe so we can see how low can she go.

But svreader, be afraid! Be very afraid because HRC is losing support; people are seeing HRC and Slick Willie for the phonies they really are. People are seeing them as tools of corporate America and not servants of the US citizen. HRC and Slickie Boy Willie are limo-liberal who don't give a scat about you, me or anyone else. Oh they care about their ability to use and abuse, but when they are done with you, you are tossed like day-old trash or a one-night stand at a cheap motel (Bill should know).

People (and I'm not just talking about Black people) will either vote GOP or they will BOYCOTT HILLARY should she become the nominee. Bet on that, o noble parrot of HRC. Bet on it!

Posted by: meldupree | January 13, 2008 8:00 PM

It is Obama and the African/American community along with others who are disparaging the contributions of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Most who are spouting off have parents who were not even glims in your grandfathers eyes. You spouting fairy tales like the one taught when I was in grade school. "George Washington would never tell a lie." Frankly you don't what your whining and shouting about!

Without Dr. King, there would have been no civil rights legislation, but without Lyndon Johnson none would exist either. History was very kind to American. Without the two of them together it is likely most of the United States would be radioactive waste land today. That is really how important Dr. King is!

Dr. King preaching and speaking kept the African/American community from engaging in mass insurrection. (They had plenty of reasons and not the wimpy whines used today.) This bought time for Lynden Johnson to pressure Congress to pass both civil rights legislation and anti-poverty legislation.

This was the 1960's. The US and the Soviets had already been to the brink of world ending nuclear war over the Cuban missile crisis. What do you think the Soviets would have done if a massive insurrection involving millions of people had happened in the United States? Using the opportunity the Soviets would have launched an all out thermonuclear attack. They had war plans to cover such an event.

So Obama, younger balck leaders, older ignorant black leaders spouting fairy tales, and younger leftists stop denigrating Dr. King for your own sorry politicial ambitions! Your using his name to beat up on the Clintons in the same way TV preachers use Jesus to scam money!

Shame on you!

Posted by: wj_phillips | January 13, 2008 7:49 PM

George W. Bush lied to Congress, to the American people, and to world leaders when he and Cheney were looking for an excuse to invade Iraq.

The Bush Administration failed to tell Congress what they really knew about Iraq, and they failed to disclose information that would have given Congress reason NOT to support the invasion.

Republicans, Barack Obama and those supporting Obama seem unable to understand that a lot of Congressional Democrats voted FOR the invasion because, as Colon Powell learned the hard way, Bush pushed and pushed arguments he knew were not true.

To now try to fault any Senator of either party who voted for the invasion without knowing the facts at the time is simply wrong. We all have good hindsight.

I have been against the invasion, occupation, and kangaroo hanging of Saddam from the beginning. But if I had been a member of Congress, with responsibility for the safety and welfare of the nation and my constituents, I may very well have voted for the invasion based on the information that was made available to Congress, and later shown to be dead wrong.

I'm not yet sure who I will support in November, but I know it will not be Obama. All of us should have learned from Bush that words and promises mean nothing. Obama talks a good talk, but he has no record of performance, and little experience. He should be spending his time trying to learn how to be a U.S. Senator, not campaigning for something he does not yet understand.

Posted by: maxbyte | January 13, 2008 7:45 PM

This "race" issue which the Clinton's are accused of is an outrage. The history of the CLintons is many things, not all good. But they have proven their "color
blindness" over the years.

Posted by: rofe | January 13, 2008 7:41 PM

I am a white liberal democrat who will vote for Mr. Obama if he is on the ballot this November. If he is not, I will write in his name.

Ms Clinton is playing the race card, not Mr. Obama. The experience thing coupled with references to drug use is nothing more than attempt to cast Mr. Obama as inadequate and inexperienced because he is black. That's racist.

Pity and sad. Here we have a historical moment in American politics with the possibilty of a black person or a woman becoming President of the United. If Ms Clinton really appreciated this she, and her advisors and supportors, would stay away from the racial smears.

Posted by: pbarnett52 | January 13, 2008 7:35 PM

Looks like the Hilary camp has been taking notes from the Carl Rove playbook. They are trying to 'Swift Boat' Obama. Attacking him where his strengths are (his position on the Iraq war and his ability to inspire hope). I hope that the American people don't fall for this AGAIN.

And why is it that they find a way to blame all of their mistakes on someone else? She makes the King blunder and then points the finger at Obama for "racializing the election"

Give me a break!

Posted by: songeisking | January 13, 2008 7:35 PM

The Clintons as racists..? Now that's a bold move on the part of Obama. Sad part is Americans will probably believe it. Johnny Cochran would be thrilled.

Posted by: johnfilm | January 13, 2008 7:33 PM

If you take away all these Republican "Clinton-hater" posts, you see that most Democrats are NOT fooled by Obama and HIS playing the race card. Hillary Clinton was working with Civil rights leaders in 1964 when she met with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. She actually switched from her family's Republican ties to register as a Democrat because of her beliefs in Civil rights for blacks. Bill Clinton has actually been called "THE FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT" because of his determination to further the equality of African Americans. Go on...Google this and see for yourself! BEST CANDIDATE FOR THE JOB IS HILLARY CLINTON!

Posted by: nurseratchet | January 13, 2008 7:30 PM

Rose law firm billing records. Rape of Juanita. Sexual molestation of White House interns. Failed the DC bar exam and then hid it until she knew it would be revealed. Lying, abuse of power, perjury, pardoning of family members. How can anyone take the Clintons seriously?

Posted by: Phil5 | January 13, 2008 7:29 PM

"I think it is fair to point out that he has no record of actually producing positive change."

Its funny Hillary brings that up because she also has no record of actually producing anything. She certainly didn't deliver any change for her Upstate NY constituents. She didn't deliver a change in the way the American health care system works. What exactly is it that Hillary thinks are her accomplishments other than fleecing voters in NY? Having the most questionable fund raisers? Its good to actually see some media outlets calling her on this stuff. She was escaping without scrutiny for way too long.

Posted by: BurtReynolds | January 13, 2008 7:27 PM

PS. Obama and Edwards should get talking. Obama clearly has a better shot at the primary and Edwards has strong things in his favour for electability.

Edwards should pull from the primary, agree to be Obama's running mate, consolidate their votes under one mantle (two for the price of one) and take this to a victory. At the moment, they are probably harming each other by both running more than anything.

Posted by: JayKay2 | January 13, 2008 7:21 PM

I find it an interesting reversion to the old-time, Clinton-controlled media that this ridiculous article spent all its space regurgitating Hillary's talking points. Never is there a mention of Obama's measured, intelligent and logical response to her maniacal spin. Thank God for the comment section where one can read a quote from that gives Obama's answer to her spinning-head drool.

Posted by: aehtorod | January 13, 2008 7:19 PM

Ummmm, is it just me, or does it seem like Obama is not playing racial politics but Clinton and co are sure as heck wanting him to play racial politics to the point that they just plainly start accusing him of it?

And then why eh? Cos they already had written some stuff they wanted to use against him on this score - so they are trying to 'create' the environment to do that?

Obama used TWO examples against the comment of 'false hope' - King and Kennedy - a white man and a black man - that was balanced and deliberately so, it was uniting. The real problem here is that Clinton tried to twist what he said into being an insult and in doing so ended up being insulting herself.

Now she is getting some backlash, this is all Obama's fault? That's just insulting again - it's like saying 'you people can't think for yourselves - it's either me or Obama thinking for you'.

Let's face it - she went low and dirty and desperate and she doesn't take responsibility for her actions. Is that the leader you want for your country at this critical juncture?

I'm all for a woman president - but not this one.

Posted by: JayKay2 | January 13, 2008 7:18 PM

Posted by: JakeD | January 13, 2008 7:09 PM

The more Clinton attacks Obama, the more she proves she is just what this country does NOT need! I used to be a huge fan of Bill Clinton, but this is all getting really old. Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton? Is this some sort of bannana republic? It's time for a change!

Posted by: stswork | January 13, 2008 7:08 PM


I don't believe that Hillary ever claimed to have personally met Dr. King -- she did personally see him speak in either April or June of 1962 ; )

Posted by: JakeD | January 13, 2008 7:07 PM


I believe Obama's remarks about the Iraq war at the 2004 Convention, deferring to John Kerry, and his subsequent votes for the funding of said war are the issues, rather than simply his updating that website ; )

Posted by: JakeD | January 13, 2008 7:03 PM

Blacks vs Blacks. I don't remember seeing Senator Obama fighting for civil rights. He was elected by the voters of Illinois but can't seem to make it to vote on any bills to help the voters. He is campaigning hard but finds time to work with Connie Rice on helping Africa. He can't help the voters of his State but he can help Africa. Bill Clintons years in office helped all American mainly African Americans that's proven not a hope or change. Now Obama says he's going to give money to help New Jeresy homeowners in trouble, well what about the rest of the States. Is this just for a vote only bases. Hillary has fought for Americans for over 35 years.

To bad Senator Obama didn't get a chance to meet Dr. King like Hillary did in 1962.

Posted by: qqbDEyZW | January 13, 2008 7:02 PM

HRC and her campaign are working themselves out of one of their biggest claims: that Obama would be beaten down by the GOP in a general election. If Clinton uses HER "southern strategy" and fails, then she would inoculate Obama against the GOP. Interesting that she would choose to make things get ugly NOW, and risk alienating the very voters the Democrats need to win in November. Either way, the GOP has to be doing cartwheels in celebration.

Posted by: steveboyington | January 13, 2008 7:02 PM

The Clintons started this issue with their comments attacking barack , instead of sticking to their own message of hope , and all because the polls were saying barack was winning and they panicked , and the polls were wrong , so what does that say about someone that will atack someone over a poll thats wrong ??????
This is the same mis information that got us into the war isnt it ???? So will Hillary make the right decisions if the Information is being mis-interpreted , this attack on barack is no sign she has the experience to make the right decisions .

Posted by: ajironworks | January 13, 2008 6:58 PM

I used to appreciate the Clinton's, but no more. I will not vote for hillary if she is the nominee,and I have voted for every
Democratic Presidential candidate since 1972.

Nor do I find the arguments regarding Obama's lack of a lengthy legislative track record to be particularly menaingful. JFK did not distinguish himself in the Senate, rather he distinguished himself through strong perosnal efficacy, a willingness to listen to competing points of view, and by articulating a vision that encouraged Americans to transcend themseeles. Obama does the same, which is why he is taken seriously.

Now, as to records, I consdier Hillary and her lengthy public service career. What do we have?

1. A health care debacle in 1992 that helped to usher in a Republican congress and which, at the end of day, left health consumers with even less leverage and the insurance industry stronger than ever.

2. Unnecessary stonewalling over Whitewater that ultimately plyed to ken Starr's advantage.

3. Whenever Bubba got in trouble, it was because of a vast right wing conspiracy.

4. Her vote on the Iraq war.

And her beef about Obama: He dared to update a website. Heavens.

The Clintons and their excesses have greatly harmed this country, because they made "W" possible, and perhaps inevitable. I shudder to think what will happen if they return to power. I don't want a re-do. They couldn't get it right the first time; let's move on.

Posted by: harnesscb | January 13, 2008 6:56 PM

Senator Clinton was GREAT on Meet the Press this morning.

She looked Presidential, she really knew her stuff, her answers were clear, insightful and got right to the point.

In short, she showed yet again why she's the best choice out there.

Hillary Clinton is going to be a GREAT President.

Posted by: svreader | January 13, 2008 6:54 PM

To said it right. Obama is goingto change what? Well, I am not really sure what it is because so far I don't know what he have done in the past. As far Leiberman, I am scared to soemone like him. Since he did not get what he want, he sided Republican and ran as independent. Sometimes you need to have something that you stood for. Leiberman was a democrat and he made them believe he will fight for what democrats stanood for but he went to another side for help and comfort. Obama? I am still wondering until now what he is trying to do. All I know Obama made good speeches, I would say great speeches. We voting a President who can do the job not to vote a candidate who like to talk. Actions are loouder than words. We need soemeone who has the experience. Period.

Posted by: lianette_steele | January 13, 2008 6:53 PM


Tim Russert asked Hillary about that Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy and she just laughed it off, saying that she has not paid any attention to it for 10 years now . . .

Posted by: JakeD | January 13, 2008 6:50 PM

I watched Russert this morning with Ms. Unavoidable and have just watched Cris Wallace take Herr Rudy over the coals. What a couple of phonies! (Not the interviewers!) Ms. Unavoidable tried to blame her's and Mr. Wonderful's racist and/or stupid remarks on Obama; talk about cheek! Henceforth Mr. Wonderful should best keep both his mouth and pants shut. Nothing can be done about her, of course; she's the candidate. (No?) On Herr Rudy, his putative "Mr. Noo Yawk" and "Mr. 9/11" personae are ludicrous. Was he really prepared for 9/11 or was he a joke with his political future rescued by Bin Laden? Is a "crime-fighter" one who pushes criminals from one neighborhood to another? Anyone in NY or NYC happy with the tax situation there? If this weren't enough, then there's Bloomberg.... Too many Noo Yawkers! Give us a break already!

Posted by: filoporquequilo | January 13, 2008 6:46 PM

As nancyellen879 says "The very sight of her, or the very sound of her voice, sends huge numbers of people screaming in the opposite direction. She can never bring people together no matter how hard she tries. The most troubling thing to me about her continued candidacy is that she appears to be putting her own ego above the well-being of the country. . ." I'm really not sure of why anyone is surprised about this. You see, NancyEllen, these tactics obviously work (see Bush v. McCain, and Bush v. Gore), so of course the Clintons are employing them. I have spent the last 8 year unable to listen to the President of my country speak (radio, TV, anywhere) - if HRC becomes president, that is how I will spend the next 8 years. Frankly, if that does happen (and there are a lot of naive, easily-manipulated people who could just give her the nominations, along with the behind-the-scene shananigans like trying to change the Nevada caucus b/c she knows that Obama fares better in the caucus setting than she does - somehow that system seemed to serve the Nevadans quite well until this year), but if that does happen, I will become the most embittered American ever (after working as a federal public servant for 30 years). If this country elects a Clinton after 2 terms of Bush, I suppose we deserve what we get --- which will be different policies, certainly, but the same paranoia (remember the "Right Wing Conspiracy" that took Bill Clinton down? not his own sexual mischief? not his lying to the American people? like others have said repeatedly, it's never their fault). I am happy to vent these emotions with you fellow bloggers, but I'm am cynical about Obama being able to help us save ourselves from ourselves.

Posted by: jrsweld | January 13, 2008 6:45 PM

Obama DIDN'T "clearly and unambiguously oppose the war in Iraq" when he deferred to Kerry on the issue in 2004. Obama DIDN'T "clearly and unambiguously oppose the war in Iraq" when he voted for funding said war. Those are simply the facts.

Posted by: JakeD | January 13, 2008 6:43 PM

Truscott1 says
Conservatives believe in equality--equal right and equal worth. The divide that liberals have created is due to their black phobia--and they have insulated themselves FROM blacks with money that never changes a thing.
Spare me the revisionist conservative orthodoxy!
Conservatives are not pure and they share as much responsibility for "black phobia" as you attribute to liberals.
After all it was conservatives who devised that immoral southern strategy in the sixties to further polarize the country instead of bringing everyone together during the horrendous tragedies of 68.
Conservative are no better than liberals and if they can use race to keep power they will do so.

Posted by: sbundley | January 13, 2008 6:42 PM

Sometimes it is so obvious every now and then that Obama will do everything he can to fiind any issues that he can think of to cover up his unexeperience. Now Obama is accusing Hillary of be racist. Well, it understable why Obama has to act that way. What else cvan he really have to show that he has done anyway. It is so nice to have all those sweet talks, eloquent speeches and other sort. But believe me we the people of the United States are tired suffering under this administration. We cannot afford again to have someone without experience to run our beloved country. Are we going to have the advisers decide how our country should or must be run? Oh no. We are smart voters now. We are intelligent voters now. WE will vote someone that has the experience, knowledge, determination and conviction to lead our country. By far, Hillary is the one. There are just too many things to clean up under this administration. We suffered and still suffering, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. We love our country and it is about time to rebuild it. Viva America! Viva people of the United States! Viva Hillary! Whatever happened in New Hmapshire, that's just the begining. Whatever happened in Iowa, just combination of Obama being hot news when Oprah campaigned for him, and boosting that Obama is black. That's not the case in New Hampshire. They did not vote because of race or gender. They voted for the best qualified candidate. They did not even think twice to vote for Hillary. I know for sure that when the people of New Hmapshire found out the results in Iowa, of course they got nervous because they cannot afford for someone who does not have the experience to lead our country. Remember Magic Johnson......he is right, to be good or if not, to be best athlete, you need to practice many times until you mastered the game. You need to compete many times to improve your games and become more experience. Just imagine leading a country. To be a president is a huge job, it is not just a big corporation to run. I guess to be president to a big corporation, you have to have that experience to have business successful. To be President of the United States of America, lord, this is not a game. This is real. Our lives are at stake. Our country is at stake. Hillary has the experience, commitment, determination, conviction to real real change. Hillary has shown to her opponents that she can take all the pressures from them. Hillary showed them that being a woman is great because she is not intimidated to them being all men. But I guess they were the one who got intimidated because they were all over her. I mean going after her. Sometimes, it is nice to be a woman. Men going after you whatever reasons it might be. Of course, what can I say, Hillary is a very intelligent woman. She does not have to prove that. Actions are louder than words. If a candidate is desperate, that candidate will do whatever it takes to destroy the other candidate. Destroy to me means putting down that candidate for anything. Fortunately, Hillary has been there before that's why she can take the hit, the pressure. That's onething I like in Hillary. Hillary is tough at the right time. Though being a woman, she is delicate too. Like when a woman interviewed her in New Hampshire. When Hillary said about how she felt about what was happened and how she can do it? She immediately criticized her that Hillary went back to her political gesture. Maybe, this woman wanted Hillary to show that she is weak. to be s President, you cannot be weak. You need to make that judgment and take that responsibility. Well, that's the woman's decision to vote for Obama just because Hillary changed her gesture. What a very low explanation. We need a President that is tough and take responsibilties on actions he/she made. All I can say, Hillary is the one. We've seen her. The best qualified candidate so far. Viva America! Viva Hillary!

Posted by: lianette_steele | January 13, 2008 6:42 PM

There is no question that I have long been a fan of the Clintons. But it is very interesting to see how they behave in the face of a formidable challenger -- of the likes that the haven't confronted before. Their spots are even more apparent now. While Hillary is a very smart person, who otherwise has the experience to be President -- unfortunately, she has shown that she doesn't have the temperament, warmth, or the empathy required to perform the job effectively. During the Meet The Press interview, I was just waiting for Tim Russert to ask whether Hillary believed that there existed any black person alive today capable and qualified to be President. Along with most voters, I will not support Hillary's candidacy for the Presidency.

Posted by: dajesq3 | January 13, 2008 6:36 PM

Hillary Clinton is a Great Senator and will be a GREAT President.

Posted by: svreader | January 13, 2008 6:35 PM

The Clintons have been extraordinarily competent at handling the smear tactics of the right and demonstrating the folly of the right's agenda. Barak has demonstrated good judgment on a consistent basis, ultimately that's more important than experience, as any president is going to have to face problems for which experience doesn't provide any guidance.

Posted by: e9999999 | January 13, 2008 6:34 PM

Hillary Clinton is a Great Senator and will be a GREAT President.

Posted by: svreader | January 13, 2008 6:34 PM

Hillary Clinton is a very hard, corrosive, manipulative, vindictive woman. She can not be elected President of the United States because.... well..... people just don't like her. Do any of you folks remember the people that Hillary was hanging out with when Bill Clinton was first elected President? People like Lani Guanier, Ira Magaziner .... and Bill Lee. These people are nothing but frigging racists and Socialists, hellbent on destroying the United States culturally and economically. If Hillary is elected, she will hire people like Guanier, Magaziner, and Lee. Now THAT is downright scarey! Further, Hillary wants to legalize the 20,000,000 ILLEGAL Hispanics who are now in the United States. These ILLEGALS should be deported just as quickly as it can be done. Hillary Clinton is the anti-Christ.

Posted by: VladimirPooh | January 13, 2008 6:25 PM

The Clinton's have no right to accuse anyone of anything!!! Talk about nonsense!! Here is a look at what they brought us for eight years:

The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court

The Clinton's think that the Rep. are dumb, if she wins they are going to chew her up and spit her out. Game over!

Posted by: rcamp1 | January 13, 2008 6:25 PM

So, according to Giuliani, "And then at the end of the road, anyone on any of these lists would have to be able to read English, write English, speak English."

What a can of worms that'll be.

The next thing you know, someone'll be after US citizens to comply, and, heaven forefend, even US presidents!

Posted by: box175 | January 13, 2008 6:24 PM

***Tears in Heaven?***

Liberals have had it their way for years--trying to define race as a conservative shorfalling in America. All of the rented 'First Black President' allusions were illusions--Bill paid the 'rainbow' crowd off with our money. Now they get to see how the Clintons really regard race--as a wedge issue. They are used to the wedge on their side, but in an instant they have turned it around.

Anyone with an open mind could see it for what it is:

**Hillary's comment about Ghandi as a gas station attendant.

**Her unbelieveable assertion that LBJ was responsible for the 1964 Civil Rights Act as opposed to the marchers and activists.
I could almost feel MLK's 'tears in Heaven'

**Think about her concession speech in Iowa, and her lilly white entourage--Bill, TerryMcAuliff, Albright and Wesley Clark--like a vanilla snow cone.

Conservatives believe in equality--equal right and equal worth. The divide that liberals have created is due to their black phobia--and they have insulated themselves FROM blacks with money that never changes a thing.

If Hillary was different than my analysis would suggest, we wouldn't be hearing that she is the single most qualified person in the country to be president.

**Does she believe there are no blacks more qualified then she?

**Does she maintain there are no Hispanics more qualified than she

**Women? Lesbians or gays? Asians? Handicapped?

She plays to these demographics, yet only if she is the deliverer of their mother's milk--public money.

I address Hillary in song with 'Hillaryous,' a song I wrote as part of 12 musical slaps to The Left. I'm just a cop, but I know bad mojo when I see it. I pray for the day when race gets out ahead of politics. Hear it @

Posted by: Truscott1 | January 13, 2008 6:18 PM

Winning TV spot for Obama:

Go to today's Meet the Press tape.

A. Show excerpt of Obama's speech on Iraq in 2002;
B. Show Ms. Clinton's speech in support of military action to disarm Sadam Hussein;
C. Show Tim Russet asking Hillary who of the two showed better judgement.

Posted by: vanagunas | January 13, 2008 6:16 PM

These pages are rapidly becoming the typographical equivalent of the battlefields of France in WWI trench warefare.
All sides understand that there are people out there that love, and that hate, each of the major candidates.

We've all heard all the character attacks before.

How about some discussion of policy issues?

Posted by: svreader | January 13, 2008 6:06 PM

I hope Obama is ready for the Slickwillie Boating he is about to get.

He should come back with a devastating counterpunch which does indeed draw out the "differences": the Clinton's bad faith, their dishonesty and arrogance-- the cash for pardons--Marc Rich.

I still am amazed that the Clinton's have the ego and arrogance to run again, and why they still have so many supporters.

Compared to Little George, Clinton's Presidency was stellar. But compared to a non- deviant, Clinton was uninspired and mediocre at best. At worse, he set the tone for dishonesty and cynicism that in some respects enabled this current crowd to say and do whatever they want.... "because they can". As Slick Willie said regarding why he had his intern give him oral sex, "because he could" .

The impeachment was bull, but the Clintons raced to the bottom... "I did not have sex with that women"... "depends on the definition of what the word "is" is, the right wing conspiracy... lying to a grand jury, having sex with a young intern under his employ... a stained dress as evidence, DNA tests.

Whitewater showed that she destroy documents and used her and his influence for corrupt purposes. Remember the small investment that magically turned into a fortune?

And did I mention MARC RICH and cash for Pardons?

I can't understand why so many are still so enamored. Don't we deserve a chance at something better?

Posted by: ben2 | January 13, 2008 6:05 PM

Bill and Hillary Clinton are the biggest liars in politics today. For Hillary to go out there and say Obama is the one fanning the flames of racial politics is just disgusting to hear. Obama as not once said anything about race in this election. I know Hillary will say and do anything to get elected but this is just going to far. If this woman wins the nomination I will switch parties to become an independent, I will never vote for this woman if you had a gun pressed up against my head.

Posted by: lumi21us | January 13, 2008 6:02 PM

I wonder how long the media is going to continue to give Hillary a free pass on this. Since losing Iowa she and her husband have consistently employed dirty tactics to attack Sen. Obama while his camp has taken the high road and generally refused to respond in kind. He has repeatedly stated that all the candidates are patriots while Hillary has invoked the failed terrorist attack in France to imply that the nation may be more vulnerable to terrorist attack if Obama is elected. These are Rovian tactics.

We saw it again today on Meet The Press. Rather than simply respond directly to or apologize for the alarming pattern of subtle racially motivated attacks hurled at Sen. Obama (speculating an implied drug dealing past may be exploited by the Republicans, Andrew Cuomo's Shuckin'& Jivin' remark, Pres. Clinton referring to Sen. Obama as a 'kid', Clinton folks stating that voting for Obama would be akin to supporting a 'hip Black friend', condescendingly referring to Sen. Obama as a good speaker), she instead decided to insist that the Obama campaign is responsible for all of this.

Hillary's implication that the outrage the African American community has voiced regarding the racially charged remarks of her campaign is some sort of manifestation of an Obama campaign strategy is almost just as insulting as her recent comments. It is as if the Clinton campaign believes African Americans are not able to think for themselves and can only take cues and do what they're told rather than think independently.

Whatever happened to personal accountability? Just apologize for the gaffs and move forward. No matter who you prefer in this race I think we can all agree that Americans are tired of leaders who refuse to accept responsibility for their actions. Hillary's recent posturing and stubbornness to admit wrongdoing is eerily similar to that of George W. Bush. No wonder Karl Rove seems to be endorsing her candidacy.

Posted by: justmcarter | January 13, 2008 5:50 PM

Clinton's repeated comments downplaying Martin Luther King and elevating President Johnson are not so much about race but her top-down view of political and social change. Obama got his first experience as a community organizer, and he brings that experience to his calls for bottom-up change. Clinton started out working on Capitol Hill as a Young Republican and she sees Washington politics as the venue for change. It is a very big difference between the candidates.

Posted by: bdmail | January 13, 2008 5:49 PM

I was very impressed with Senator Clinton's answers on meet the press.

The difference between Senators Clinton and Obama answers on meet the press is like day and night.

When Obama appeared opposite Huckabee he was a disaster. Huckabee seemed relaxed and real, Obama seemed exremely tired and just kept on repeating his empty slogans.

If it had been a debate rather than seperate appearances Obama would have gotten creamed.

The idea of "Obama" is much better than the reality.

Obama wouldn't stand a chance against the Republican attack machine.

They'd eat him alive.

Posted by: svreader | January 13, 2008 5:36 PM

I am already tired of the talk between the Obama and Clinton suporters. Noone is saying anything that is positive, only garbage and negative words. Everyone is looking beyond the words to find something to support their views. I am not listening anymore. I'll wait until all of you have had your say and the one the establishment democratic party wants names as their nominee. Until then spin your wheels.

Posted by: smilema | January 13, 2008 5:34 PM

Clinton's behavior on MTP this morning was shameful. Clinton and Obama are on the same fundamental team, and Clinton smeared and slimed him in a most unpresidential way. Senior Democrats need to stand up and say that this kind of behavior is not how Democrats should campaign against each other. Her, and her husband's, comments over the last week or two have been borderline racist in their viciousness and dismissiveness towards a fine leader. I've tried to support HRC, but I'm finding it harder and harder to justify any support for her under the circumstances.

Posted by: andrewbellinger | January 13, 2008 5:32 PM

Hillary! It's your record on Iraq we are horrified by. You're flagrant in the way you always (always!) attribute your shortcomings to your opponents--your deceptions are outrageous. Where's your reality? How ludicrous for you to accuse Obama of playing the race card---your credibility shrinks everyday. I'm so glad I didn't vote for you!

Posted by: Mruns | January 13, 2008 5:19 PM

1. Are the Clintons appealing to latent white racism? No way. Way too stupid for them.

2. Is Obama playing the race card? No way. It would kill his whole campaign.

3. Is HRC trying to bait Obama into playing the race card? Maybe.

4. Is Obama rattling HRC into appearing to bait Obama into playing the race card? Could be. If so, he's pretty shrewd and she's pretty inept. Bill Clinton would never get "thrown" like that.

Bottom line: Obama appears to be the more masterful politician -- not only the orator of hope and renewal but the superior political tactician. But that was supposed to be HRC's strength -- part of the "experience edge" she supposedly had.

Who is more likely to win the general election and actually get something done on the long standing, still unrealized Democratic Agenda which all three major candidates share? That is the question for any Democrat.

Posted by: mnjam | January 13, 2008 5:16 PM

Hillary Clinton's assertion that Lyndon Johnson, or any other Washington politician, is more responsible for the Civil Rights Act than Martin Luther King Jr. and those he lead during the Civil Rights Movement is the ONLY "Fairy Tale" in this campaign.

. . . And the next time that Bill Clinton or his wife conspire to use half truths and outright lies to distort Senator Obama's statements, positions, or his record as a Senator (tactics that George W Bush used so well to slander John Kerry in 2004); they could at least have the decency to preface their misleading attack with the words, "Once upon a time . . . "

Posted by: diksagev | January 13, 2008 5:14 PM

Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Arizona governor connect on immigrants

Illegal immigration - and Congress' failure to fix it - is one of the big issues in Bloomberg's noncampaign for President. "You enforce the laws with every company and say, 'You can't employ undocumented,'" Bloomberg said Friday. "And that will get a lot fewer people coming across the borders."

That's exactly what Napolitano did in Arizona.

Starting Jan. 1, any business caught employing illegal immigrants in the state loses its business license for 10 days. Do it again, and the company loses its license outright.

Napolitano reluctantly signed the tough sanctions after blaming Congress for not coming up with a national solution. Arizona is the country's largest entry point for illegal immigrants.

Posted by: buzzm1 | January 13, 2008 5:14 PM

Hilary's 3 major cards are -

Gender card
Race Card
Sympathy card

Posted by: JonB1 | January 13, 2008 5:05 PM

I also notice in the article the Quotes by Hillary were in response to Russert on MTP when he was trying to put words in her mouth, and distort what she actually said. Make no mistake folks, The Media are no friends of the Clintons.

Posted by: lylepink | January 13, 2008 5:03 PM

I listened carefully to Hilary Clinton's
answers to questions posed by Tim Rusert
this morning, watching body language as
well. Count me as a woman long sickened by
hate tirades against this accomplished
compassionate public servant with a decades
old history of caring for the needs and
hopes of the little people, everyday Amer-
icans facing recession's icy hand with no
health insurance,losing homes and jobs
sent overseas by greedy entrapreneurs.Seems to me the "change"
Americans seek might be for the happier
times of Bill Clinton's presidency, supported in large measure by his brilliant
life partner.She can return us to those
peaceful life affirming years ahead as President of our United States.

Posted by: maidmarion7 | January 13, 2008 5:02 PM

Forget about the name calling and attacking each other between HRC and Obama camps, let talk about issues, and be specific. We have a country to run and govern,Bush has left us with a big mess;the irag war,a recession,a divided society,a broken reputation in the internaional society,record deficit,corruption,disfuctional medicare and medicaid,broken soccial security system,47 millioms people uninsured,failed immigraiton policy, job loss, failed eduction sytem,and etc,I can not even count that far. I want to hear solutions and fix-ups, not bickering or flowering words.

Posted by: johnycheng1 | January 13, 2008 5:01 PM

Hillary to African America: You need white people like me to give you change; now step back in line.

Blacks are not going to rally around this woman against Obama. People are going to look now and see a white woman from suburban Illinois without a single civil rights credential worth mentioning dissing MLK and a black presidential candidate in the same breath for being unable to bring change without clever white people. Oh, sorry, she's married to Clinton, the welfare-reformer and Defender of Black Folk.

And wait a second, didnt she slap the gender card on the table already? If Obama uttered something about about putting a minority in the White House the Clinton attack machine would erupt like Krakatoa.

And LBJ?! Maybe the one time she was in a black person's house who was not a millionaire bundler she failed to note there was no LBJ picture next to the painting of MLK.

Posted by: wharwood | January 13, 2008 4:56 PM

dyck21005 & justmyvoice: Your comments stand out to me as being the most accurate. The "Hillary Haters" comments are coming almost exclusively from Obama supporters, from what I have seen over the past months. Other sites are the same. A lot can be said for youtube, and editing would be the most accurate, The folks are very, vert good.

Posted by: lylepink | January 13, 2008 4:55 PM

Mrs. Clinton has been playing the gender card constantly throughout this campaign. She always talks about how it's important to break the glass ceiling for women, and how by just electing any woman, there will be change.

Now that the voting is going to the South, where large numbers of African Americans are voting, she says she hopes Senator Obama won't appeal to identity politics.

Mrs. Clinton talking out of both sides of her mouth, and her smear attacks against MLK, etc, really anger me as a life long Democrat. If by some miracle she wins the nomination, I will not be giving her my time, money and vote.

Posted by: dk98103 | January 13, 2008 4:51 PM

As David Geffen observed, not only do the Clintons lie but they lie with the greatest of ease. He was right!

Posted by: jam754 | January 13, 2008 4:49 PM

Indeed, the Clintax Maffia is devisive, especially in how they cover up zipper boys sexual molestations. Consider this: The Clintons will tell any lie, betray any friend, to gain and keep power. Power for power's sake is what drives this corrupt, EVIL couple. Read this quote from the young jewish intern who was seduced and soiled by the President of the United States in the Oval Office on the Great Seal of the United States.

"After Clinton's autobiography My Life appeared in 2004, Lewinsky said in an interview with the British tabloid Daily Mail:"

"He could have made it right with the book, but he hasn't. He is a revisionist of history. He has lied. (...) I really didn't expect him to go into detail about our relationship (...) But if he had and he'd done it honestly, I wouldn't have minded.... I did, though, at least expect him to correct the false statements he made when he was trying to protect the Presidency. Instead, he talked about it as though I had laid it all out there for the taking. I was the buffet and he just couldn't resist the dessert. (...) That's not how it was. This was a mutual relationship, mutual on all levels, right from the way it started and all the way through. ... I don't accept that he had to completely desecrate my character."

A man of honor would have taken full responsibility for the moletation of a young woman only a few years out of childhood. There was more than a 20 years age difference, an infinite gap in power, yet this blow job obtained under color of authority is blamed on the young woman.

Posted by: whetsell | January 13, 2008 4:46 PM

Bill was our first Black President. Why do we need some guy named Obama? Re-elect the Clintons.

Posted by: Tupac_Goldstein | January 13, 2008 4:46 PM

Let me get this straight.
Clinton's surrogates get caught flaming racial tensions and she fires or distances herself from them.
Clinton loses Iowa and black voters begin to shift to Obama, because now they believe he has a chance to win and the Clintons and her surrogates open worry about this and begin their attacks on Obama and MLK and that's Obama' fault.
New Hampshire looks like it may be a loss for Clinton and Bill goes ballistic and make comments he later has to clarify, because "they are being taken out of context"
Clinton has the nerve to say Obama is not being held accountable for his statements regarding Iraq when she refuses to explain her Iraq vote or her statements made in support of this war.
The Clinton's are the most divisive team in Democratic politics. It's doesn't matter if it's black on white or white on white the Clinton's will find a way to smear you and then blame you for their attacks.
Hillary's accusations against Obama are nothing more than an appeal to those who feel Obama has no business running let alone being successful at it.
It is fair for the Clintons to attack Obama's record or where he stands on the issues, but that's not what they are doing. The Clinton's are in trouble and the last person they thought would give them a difficult race is Obama.
This article and many others is the perfect example of why Hillary will never be president and if she is the democratic nominee she is going to get her clock cleaned.

Posted by: sbundley | January 13, 2008 4:45 PM

What Hilary said about MLK is really disturbing. She tried to downplay MLK's role, now she wants to hug African-Americans. No.

The Clinton's are so DIVISIVE. They try to turn people against each other; white vs black, men vs women, rep vs dem, poor vs rich. This people will stop at nothing in their lust for power.

Its time to stop the Bush-Clinton dynasty. Its time for change. What next? Jeb Bush & Chelsea Clinton.

The Clintons are UGLY.

Posted by: JonB1 | January 13, 2008 4:44 PM

You gotta hand it to Hillary -- her supporters are willing to say anything (no matter how false) to destroy another Democrat. That's what the Democratic Party really needs: angry, vindictive leadership out to get ANYONE who stands in their way. That's how we'll stop the madness of the last 8 years! We'll be exactly the same!

I'll tell you one thing: if Hillary wins the nomination, I'm not voting. I will not support that woman or her husband. I have no respect for either of them and the nasty campaign they're running. I've been a faithful Democratic voter my entire life, but I will not dignify Mrs. Clinton's campaign tactics with my vote.

And for all you folks who keep bringing up experience: Mrs. Clinton is a second-term Senator. She's got a few years in the Senate on Barack; however, he's a former state legislator. He's got plenty of experience working in communities for change. Hillary likes to talk about "35 years of experience." Let's see -- in 1982, she was First Lady of Arkansas. For the next 9 years, she was First Lady of Arkansas. Then she was First Lady of the United States. Neither is an elected position, and neither has any official duties. Her only real policy experience before she came to the Senate was her FAILED health care plan (which set back reform for over a decade). In the Senate, she's shown her flair for leadership by voting for the Iraq war and voting for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment.

But you know, those 7 years in the Senate really give her experience. And I'm sure organizing the White House Easter Egg Roll is almost as difficult as making foreign policy.

I wasn't trying to get angry at Hillary. I've told folks repeatedly I'd vote for her in the general even though she was far from my first choice. Today's appearance on Meet the Press changed all that.

So stop distorting the record, Hillary sockpuppets. Recognize the truth -- your candidate has no more "experience" than any other. The only thing her and Bill seem to have above any other candidates is sleaziness.

Posted by: jjhare | January 13, 2008 4:36 PM

Choskasof, Clintons FORGED election's results in NH. It is the crime. I think (I hope), it could be proven). Believe me, even if it is proven, Mrs. Clinton would not ever volutarily step out of the race and out of senate. She doesn't have any feeling or any bone in her body, which could be connected with honesty, integrity, or any other noble virtues. And she is fully unsuitable for the presidential position.

Posted by: aepelbaum | January 13, 2008 4:35 PM

The Clintons are playing the race card by saying Obama is playing the race card.

THe Clintons are relying on racists, sexists and dummies to win the nomination. Yuk! they make me sick. As well as anyone that supports them.

And if this doesn't work, she will cry again.

Posted by: JonB1 | January 13, 2008 4:32 PM

It isn't Obama who is playing the race card. HRC is the one who made the comment that it took Johnson, not MLK, to pass the Civil Right legislation. The implication of this comment is crystal clear.

On the other hand, it is HRC and her team who are playing up the gender card.

For a brief moment after the Iowa caucus we seemed poised to move beyond identity-based politics. Thanks to the Clinton's we've been pulled right back into the muck.

Count me as one of the many people who simply will not vote for her in the general election. (I won't cast a vote for the Republicans.) I simply can't and won't support someone who wants to be President because she thinks it is her turn.

Even Huckabee - as crazy as his policies are - seems to care far more about America than the Clintons who, as we all know, only care about themselves.

Lest we forget, it was Bill who refused to resign his office after he sexually harassed a much younger female employee. If he had an ounce of shame he would have resigned, and if HRC had an ounce of self-respect she would have left him.

But as the Monica incident demonstrated only too well, the only thing that matters to the Clinton is satisfying their craven political ambition.

Here's hoping that Obama takes Nevada and South Carolina, and that Gore endorses him before Super Tuesday. He is our only hope of victory in the general, and our only hope of America becoming the great nation it has the potential of becoming.

Posted by: choskasoft | January 13, 2008 4:27 PM

I have been saying that Mrs. Clinton is THE WHITE SUPREMACIST for many years by now. People didn't believe ny experience, now they have your own experience. Yes, she is racist. Her core is the core of KKK member. Now people should believe their own experience.

Posted by: aepelbaum | January 13, 2008 4:27 PM

I'm sick of Obama's racist behavior.. Vote for him, he's black!

Any one with a brain can see he's all voice, no substance.

Posted by: newagent99 | January 13, 2008 4:21 PM

Let Obama turn this election into a Black/White issue, and he will never be President.

Obama can play the "race card", but it will backfire, when the white folks go into the polls and vote.

Americans are tired of black leaders crying and lying about what white people say.

He may win some votes in some states, but will lose in the end.

Posted by: WestVirginian | January 13, 2008 4:11 PM

It is time to pass the torch away form Clinton-Bush divisive politics of the past 20 years. It is time to move forward !
I hope we have an independent candidate to vote for if Hillary is nominated because I will vote against the Dems for the first time. I fail to see how Clinton can stand for a new direction this country desperately needs.

Posted by: PulSamsara | January 13, 2008 4:11 PM

Everyone knows that Lyndon Johnson played a mayor role in advancing Dr. King's dream of equability for all. After all it was Johnson who signed the Civil Rights Act, so I'm not sure why the Obama people are pimping that issue. Shame on him.

Posted by: dcpsychic | January 13, 2008 4:08 PM

"Clinton Says Obama Playing Racial Politics"

This has become a hallmark of Hillary Clinton's campaign for President. Accuse your opponent of the very things that you yourself are guilty of. It's dirty politics and it's hypocracy. It's also pure Clinton!

Senator Obama is the candidate who has been remarkably consistent throughout his campaign for President. The only thing that is different is that for the first time, he has a substantial number of African American voters to talk to, as do Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. Hillary Clinton is the candidate who has once again "retooled", "reorganized" or "refocussed" her campaign to target African American voters and "play racial politics. Senator Obama has repeatedly quoted Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. throughout his campaign in Iowa and New Hampshire where 98% of voters were Caucasion; and he will not change his message now that Primary moves to South Carolina, where half the voters are African American and other states that are far less white than Iowa and New Hampshire.

Hillary is the one who attempted to derail the Obama campaign in an overwhelmingly Caucasion New Hampshire by giving the credit for The Civil Rights Act to Lyndon Johnson instead of Dr. King and his supporters. It was Bill Clinton who went on an angry tirade that was unbecoming an ex-President and unfair for a politician who is not, himself, a candidate, in a personal attack against Senator Obama. Both Clintons are using lies and half-truths to distort the position and the record of Senator Obama. George W Bush used these same tactics to destroy John Kerry in 2004, but the Clintons are making him look like a rank amateur. It's the Clinton Campaign (HRC) that is once again changing their message, changing their slogan, changing their tactics and changing their target in trying to attract greater numbers of African American voters. It is the Clinton Campaign that is "Playing Racial Politics".

Posted by: diksagev | January 13, 2008 3:57 PM

A black, a woman in a sea of White! This is only the beginning, the Klan will be out in fresh sheets before this is over! This is America don't forget.

Posted by: matrox | January 13, 2008 3:56 PM

There is no doubt Billary twisted a dagger into the back of the African American community, but that's what happens when idiots run on the "first woman president" or "first black president" rather than the issues.

Posted by: sem-report-card | January 13, 2008 3:56 PM

I will not vote, as before, based on party, yet based on the best candidate. We have seen where strictly voting on party gets us.

Who can lead this country out of the several challenges we face?

imho- Ron Paul.

Posted by: davidmwe | January 13, 2008 3:50 PM

The Las Vegas Culinary Union is comprised mainly of illegal immigrants working as the maids, maintenance men, and kitchen staff, within the Las Vegas Hotel industry.

and then we hear both of our candidates catering to them with "Si, si, puede", and "there aren't any illegals."

Hillary and Barack, "La Senora" and "El Senor" AMNISTIA selling Amnesty to illegal immigrants.

Just what we need, candidates attracting more illegal immigrants to swarm across our borders, waiting to gain citizenship, a la Pavlov's dog.

In 1986, Ronald Reagan granted amnesty to 1.7 million illegal immigrants, which turned into 3.3 Million illegal immigrants, and that led to where we are today. Only this time they will grant citizenship to 30 million illegal immigrants.

According to a study by the Heritage Foundation, each, low paid, poverty level, working poor, immigrant family, if they pay taxes, costs taxpayer $20,000 per year, meaning they consume that much more in social benefits, than they contribute in taxes. If they don't pay taxes, then their cost to the taxpayers is $30,000.

Illegal immigrants are draining the financial social services system of our United States of many Billions of Dollars. We cannot afford to allow people who shouldn't even be in our country, to ravage our social services, burdening the middle, and upper class, taxpayers, and consuming benefits not meant for them.

California, the state with the most illegal immigrants, by far, has a 14 Billion Dollar State Budget Deficit, ALL OF WHICH CAN BE DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTED TO THE 4 MILLION ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS within its borders.

Wake Up Americans!! Do not allow our presidential candidates to even think about Amnesty, let alone encourage the illegal immigrants who are draining our nation!!





Posted by: buzzm1 | January 13, 2008 3:50 PM

This campaign is about who is going to be the next president of the is not about race,religion`s or somebody record.I have been very disappointed in the way Sen Hilary Clinton has been Threating Sen Barack Obama campaign.
she need to be careful when it comes to talking about black leaders.

one other thing is about Former President Bill Clinton.he need to stay awy from this campaign and let Sen Hilary do the talking.after all she is the one running not him.
Bruno Sako

Posted by: bruno.sako | January 13, 2008 3:49 PM

We all know that the Clintons will say and do anything to return to the White House. In NH, a predominantly white state, they and their surrogates were happy to mock Obama as a "fairy tale" peddling "false hope". When he pointed out that MLK did not back down from his dream, Hillary reminded NH voters that it took that white President, LBJ, to actually accomplish MLK's "dream".

When independent writers, commentators and elected officials expressed concern about this race baiting, as the campaign pivoted to states with black voters, suddenly the Clintons are blaming Obama fro what THEY and their surogates said. Their whining has the same credibility as Clinton's most famous fairy tale: "I did not have sex with the woman..."

Posted by: dmooney | January 13, 2008 3:47 PM

I have been a Clinton fan for years. This past week has allowed me to understand one of the main reasons Republicans have rallied against them. They don't take responsibility for their actions. I am appalled that Billl and Hillary can say whatever they like regarding "fairy tales", and MLK when the chips are down, but to come out swinging @ Obama for these unfortunate and misguided quotes is unfathomable. If Clinton is the democratic nominee, I'm going to vote Republican.

Posted by: nalvarn | January 13, 2008 3:46 PM

The Clintons just don't stop, the power hungry team will do and say anything to get back in the white house. Their politics as usual mentality will not deceive the American like their friend GWB did in 2004.

Posted by: alexoc949 | January 13, 2008 3:45 PM

Posted by: palmeroth: While I vowed never to vote for a Republican again, I now can understand why they hate the Clintons so much. (But I still don't understand why they don't hate the Rove/Bush administration even more.)

Palmeroth, one can only harbor so much hate at once. But now that Bush/Rove are dropping off the face of the earth, we are redirecting and focusing our dislike HRC's way! Me, I am supporting Obama all the way to punish both sides! I like Obama too, but I am, after all, a Republican. I can wait four years for the party to get their act back together.

I cannot fathom why anyone would support that woman. She is bad news, BAD NEWS!

Posted by: johng1 | January 13, 2008 3:43 PM

Senator Clinton stood her ground in the Meet the Press show this morning. I commend her for her strong and most appropriate responses. Senator Obama was never seen in the forefront of the fight against the Iraq war except in a speech in 2002. He did not support Howard Dean in 2004 during his campaign based on opposition to the war in Iraq. He gave a resounding keynote speech in the last Democratic Party conference for presidential nominee selection without ever indicating his disagreement over the 2002 war resolution. I respect his position against the ongoing war in Iraq, but what is his difference with Hillary's position on the war in Iraq now? He also voted for the funding of the troops. Hillary has a right to highlight the facts. So has Obama. The idea that he would change the Washington politics is indeed a fairy tale. Who is he going to change? Is it the democrats or the republicans? Or is he going to follow Lieberman's lead? After all, Lieberman spoke about leading the democrats and republicans towards a common goal in Washington. He is now practically a republican. Do we need another uniter who will play the republican card in the democratic party? I have seen comments in these columns indicating that Obama supporters will vote for republican presidential candidate against Hillary. May be Lieberman should become an independent candidate and they can all vote for him if they feel so strongly about democrat-republican unity. With Lieberman, it may even succeed, but I am not sure that Obama can deliver on the "uniter" claim. When you come from different ideological spectral divide, and you believe in your ideology, you don't betray your ideology on individual preferences. Clinton or Obama, let the best aspirant become the candidate, and no matter who is the candidate let the ideological base stay strong.

Posted by: vaidyatk | January 13, 2008 3:42 PM

It's amazing how Hillary can manage to cause division. She's dividing the Dems, she's dividing the Black community. I just can't wait for the Republicans to give her a taste of her own medicine.

She can have five PhDs and 50 yrs of experience...but there's no way she's going to get people to work together to solve the massive problems in this country.

Posted by: ngatabaki | January 13, 2008 3:42 PM

It is rapidly becoming clear that Hillary Clinton's abrasive personality and political tin ear will cost us this election.

Obama is the best candidate.

Clinton's attempt to portray Obama as a lightweight is despicable. He is a sitting U. S. Senator and a top Harvard Law School graduate who was elected by his Harvard peers to be president of the Harvard Law Review.

He could have leveraged his credentials and connections to work in a top corporate law firm, as Hillary Clinton did. Instead, he went into public interest law and taught at University of Chicago Law School before being elected the U.S. senate.

Unlike Hillary Clinton, he has shown leadership skills by coming out publicly against the war in Iraq before it became fashionable.

He has served 11 years in elected office to Hillary's 7. But that is not the point. The point is that he has the intelligence to make the best appointments and pick the best advisors, has a record that shows a commitment to progressive causes, and is clearly the most articulate and charismatic of the candidates, which will help him represent our country abroad, build coalitions at home and win in November.

Current polls have shown doing running about equally against McCain as Hillary Clinton at this point in time. His greater charisma is likely increase that lead over McCain during the long course of a tough presidential campaign.

As to the implicit concerns that a black man can't win, I would refer readers to the March 13, 20007 Gallup poll (consistent with other polls), that shows 84% of Americans completely comfortable voting for a black, 77% for a woman, and only 42% for a 72 year old (McCain's age).

Posted by: saraz1 | January 13, 2008 3:40 PM

I used to like the Clintons. Now they look like Bush to me. They are so angry, vile and conniving. Its such a shame to see them stoop so low.
Obama has avoided discussing race because he is running for all Americans. But they want to remind people that he is black so to scare ignorant white people.
Like Novak said after Obama won IOWA, "there shall be blood." They are out to destroy anyone who gets in their way.
I see so much hate from Clinton supporters in this blog. If you oppose Barack, why are people getting so personal. Cant we have a civil discussion without insults?
When i listen to Obama's speeches, i feel good, inspired because he doesnt build his character by attacking other people. He build his character by talking about himself.
All i know is that, he is a good man.
As a woman, i admire Clinton. But i am not sure if she makes me feel good about myself or the future like Barack does. A good leader surrounds themselves with people that are experienced. I am not worried about his policies because they are the same as Clinton. Good luck Senator Obama, when you get the nomination, u will be derserving of it. God Bless you and make you strong during this time. I hope that you appoint Clinton in your cabinet because she is smart and capable.

Posted by: thato | January 13, 2008 3:39 PM

"Clinton accuses" and "Clinton blames". It seems that's all we have heard from Bill and Hillary since 1992. Everytime Bill and Hillary find themselves at the center of some controversy or scandal,their response is to accuse and blame others. When was the last time a Clinton accepted blame for any of their own rerrible mistakes, including unethical and illegal activities?

I'm a 54 year old, Caucasion male, and I immediately took Hillary's comments about Dr. King to rob him of the credit that rightfully belongs to him and all those other people who were responsible for the great success of the Civil Rights Movement. I didn't need to hear comments from Barrack Obama,or anyone else, to "twist" Hillary's words. I heard what SHE said, and I have a mind of my own, thank you very much. If Hillary understands what Senator Obama's message of change is reall about; she does a very good job of acting as if she does not and trying to distort that message. Her comments dengrating Dr. King's accomplishments are a great example of how Hillary simply doesn't grasp this very simple concept of "change". Does anyone really believe that Lyndon Johnson would have pushed for and signed significant Civil Rights legislation (or that Congress would have passed such legislation) in the 1960's without the years of hard work by a coalition of so many, predominantly African Americans, under the leadership of Martin Luther King Jr. and other influential Civil Rights leaders?

I believe it's only right that Senator Obama frequently quotes Dr. King in his speeches; not because he is African American, but because he is leading a coalition of "dreamers" and believers that I find reminiscent of that coalition of African Americans, young college students, and other fair-minded Americans who are open-minded enough to accept Senator Obama's message of hope and change.

Martin Luther King Jr. is not responsible for single-handedly bringing about the Civil Rights Act, but niether is Lyndon Johnson. It is the millions of Americans who supported the Civil Rights Movement - that coalition of Americans who followed the dedicated leadership of Dr. King and other leaders who helped pressure President Johnson and members of Congress to enact change by passing that historic Civil Rights Act. How much easier would it be to enact more significant and historical change if another great coalition of Americans can succeed in placing another inspirational leader on the inside and at the head of our government? Martin Luther King could have never gotten serious consideration as a candidate for President in the 1960's; but fortunately America has changed and Barrack Obama can!

Posted by: diksagev | January 13, 2008 3:39 PM

Seems like I've heard all this's always somebody else's fault. This time, instead of "a vast right wing conspiracy" it's "a story line pushed by the Obama campaign."
I guess the Clintons feel that they got away with lies, distortions and parsing words on numerous other occasions, so there is no reason to believe they can't get away with it again. And if all else fails, there's always tears...
It's appalling that they continue their shameless manipulation of the facts to achieve their own personal gain. It's equally appalling that voters think this is "leadership".

Posted by: NH_Hick | January 13, 2008 3:33 PM

Isn't it nice to know when another racist has been exposed, "she" has the audacity to blame the victim.

Can you imagine her foreign policy?

It will be based entirely on the logic that dictated the happenings folowing the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

Posted by: ita8111 | January 13, 2008 3:32 PM

Ms. Clinton's "snake in the grass" attack on the Obama campaign is not hard to fathom.

Her special interests friends are very shaky as they cannot comprehend a non white as President.

Thank you Ms. Clinton for blaming the rape on the victim who wore tight jeans.

The word reprehensible easily comes to mind!

Posted by: ita8111 | January 13, 2008 3:29 PM

Race, race, race. I do not get these tit-for-tat "race cards." All this does is waste valuable time when we could be asking real questions to the candidates. (OK, if one is clearly racist- expose them, but people are really digging deep now and searching for problems.)

The problem is, the race is on for the one whom will take over this tremendous challenge as leader of our country.

Posted by: davidmwe | January 13, 2008 3:28 PM

"Obama is talking about pioneers and immigrants, about slaves and suffragettes, about the can-do spirit that Americans used to have...and somewhere in a screaming sea of 4,000, Arlene Estevez is pondering a parable: When a man asked for help, she remembers, God sent a rope. Then a ladder. When both went unused, He took them back. 'The world has seemed so hopeless. It's like there was nobody there to help us up and help us out,' she says. 'To me, Obama is the rope and the ladder. It's our opportunity right now, and I'm not going to miss it.'"

"The Clintons have become simply too arrogant and self-serving and forgotten that their popularity was given to them by the American people, despite many shortcomings that they, as all mortals, succumb to. They need to remind themselves how blessed they really are instead of how entitled they should be with regards to the White House. -- Posted by Nguyen Chau Giao

"The real gamble in this election is to do the same things, with the same folks, playing the same games over and over and over again and somehow expect a different result,'' he said. ``That is a gamble we cannot afford, that is a risk we cannot take. Not this time. Not now. It is time to turn the page." Obama

We cannot survive a continuation of Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-... politics. This fairytale, freaking nightmare, must end. Enough is enough!

Posted by: JoJo7 | January 13, 2008 3:27 PM

I was offended when Hillary said that it took LBJ to get the "job done." The shortsighted comment failed to account for the fact that LBJ wouldn't have done anything on civil rights if it hadn't been for MLK and the entire Civil Rights Movement. I was even more offended this morning when Clinton said that Obama was responsible for blacks taking offense to her original remarks about MLK. No one I know has received talking points from the Obama campaign, yet as African Americans we were all offended by her remarks. Her Meet the Press comments left the impression that blacks can't think for themselves. She needs a new set of talking points and the country needs a brand new direction.

Posted by: rockeymoore | January 13, 2008 3:27 PM

I am so dumbfounded by all of this. Hillary says Obama is playing racial politics? Honestly, the issue of race is so dangerous for Obama...

The Obama campaign has done absolutely nothing resembling "racial politics." The only thing that was questionable was a list of Bill & Hillary quotes sent out to an activist, not as a press release. Oh, and then an Obama campaign spokesman said "voters will have to decide for themselves."

The Clintons have spent much more time making this about race than Obama, who's based his campaign on transcending racial and ethnic differences. This will only hurt him in the Feb. 5 states, and that's why the Clinton's keep talking about it. He needs to come out and say something like, "bill and hillary are champions of african americans, and we need to move past this."

Posted by: jgerbs711 | January 13, 2008 3:24 PM

Hillary seeks to divide and rule by excusing, not apologizing for Bill's outburst about "kid" Obama's "fairy tale." It's a mean-spirited fulmination, to say the least, but I suspect that few African Americans will be taken in by the Clintons' dire effort to drive this wedge and thus carry forward the status quo.

Posted by: FirstMouse | January 13, 2008 3:22 PM

It was my fervent hope, back when others said it was inevitable that Senator Clinton would seek the 2008 nomination,that she would confound those pundits and content herself with forging a great career as a legislator, being a powerhouse in the Senate, perhaps even as Senate Majority Leader one day. I would have respected her tremendously had she taken that route. Instead she chose to seek the presidential nomination, and in a very obnoxious, destructive way. She doesn't seem to realize that the country is simply bone-weary of polarization and that she, fairly or not, is perceived very negatively by a huge number of Americans. The very sight of her, or the very sound of her voice, sends huge numbers of people screaming in the opposite direction. She can never bring people together no matter how hard she tries. The most troubling thing to me about her continued candidacy is that she appears to be putting her own ego above the well-being of the country. She seems robotically relentless in her quest to become "the first woman president" irrespective of how her candidacy tends to re-open all the wounds from the 1990s. Finally, she would be an instant-galvanizing machine for the Republican Party in 2008 no matter who their nominee is. Sen. Obama would be a much stronger nominee for the Democrats to field this year. Senator Clinton, don't drag this out. It will only hurt our country and our eventual nominee, Sen. Obama. Why don't you you bow out gracefully now, and focus on your great future in the US Senate!

Posted by: nancyellen879 | January 13, 2008 3:20 PM

After watching Mrs. Clinton on "Meet the Press" this morning, the overarching impression I had was that this is one deeply unhappy woman.

Posted by: vbalfour | January 13, 2008 3:20 PM

Seems unfair treatment is still running rampant in the media. I listened to both original clips of both Hillary and Bill's comments and neither could be classified as racist in any stretch of the imagination. But it seems it is fair game to call the Clintons on playing the race card, while Obama is untouchable???? Sorry, but calling on Oprah, trying to emulate the speeches of MLK don't suggest trying to inject the race card into his campaign? Funy how no one is supposed to mention that Obama is black but everyone can pounce on Clinton because she is a woman? What a sick environment this is! You know it has been overblown when even Brit Hume and Bill Krystol are defending the Clintons over this racial charge. Who has been following the tactics of Rove here by turning someone's strength against them? Sounds like a strategy that the media once again is falling for hook line and sinker. Either treat all candidates equally with coverage, and that includes John Edwards, or stop giving favorable coverage to Obama with no scrutiny yet unending scrutiny to Clinton and finding fault with everything. I think that if she withstands this all encompassing hatred from all sides, she will make one fine and strong President.

Posted by: justmyvoice | January 13, 2008 3:19 PM

Obama Trinity United Church of Christ, an African-American mega-church unorthodox pastor Reverend Jeremiah Wright describing the September 11 attacks as a "wake-up call" to America for ignoring the concerns of "people of colour"

Posted by: dyck21005 | January 13, 2008 3:17 PM

KEEP FIGHTING BACK HILLARY WE ARE BEHIND YOU, NO ONE IS RESPECTING THE MEDIA NOW!Clinton focuses on economy in Presidential race Obama focuses on RACE!Obama Trinity United Church of Christ, an African-American mega-church unorthodox pastor Reverend Jeremiah Wright describing the September 11 attacks as a "wake-up call" to America for ignoring the concerns of "people of colour", and for claiming that Americans "believe in white supremacy and black inferiority . . . more than we believe in God". Wright travelled to meet Muammar Gadaffi, the Libyan leader, in the 1980s with Louis Farrakhan, the black supremacist leader of the Nation of Islam, and subscribes to the "Black Values System", which preaches self-reliance but claims "middle-classness" is ensnaring blacks. Reverend Jeremiah Wright went to Tripoli to visit Colonel Gadaffi with Farrakhan., The arguement that Obama offers white voters a chance to free themselves from white guilt, is continuing to create a negative race issue..
Billionaire Clinton backer Bob Johnson, who founded Black Entertainment Television, said he's "a little bit insulted, if you will, by Senator Obama letting his campaign imply that Hillary Clinton does not revere what Martin Luther King did for African Americans.""I think that's taking it way too far," he said while campaigning with Clinton in South Carolina. "I think Barack understands clearly what the senator was saying." "Nobody believes either Hillary Clinton or Bill Clinton would say anything that would denigrate either Barack Obama or Martin Luther King. And to me, what may happen is a backlash may occur when people see that Barack Obama is allowing his PR people to let out the notion that Hillary Clinton did not respect everything that Dr. Martin Luther King or any other person who faced the problems and the threats of being a part of the civil rights movement faced. ""And to me, Barack knows better than that.

Posted by: dyck21005 | January 13, 2008 3:16 PM

Mr. Obama is a very passionate speaker but when you really listen to him you come to see that though he is inspiring, without action or a track record they are simply speeches. Willing is not enough, we must do and Knowing is not enough, we must apply. And when his camp and followers use the race card, it really brings him down to the gutter because he knows that the Clinton's are not racist nor did they imply racism but simply asked the question "Where's the beef" it has nothing to do with color. He should keep up his lofty speeches and poor spanish "si se puede" but match it with deed and a track record you with substance you could be proud of in the senate.

Posted by: artcamacho | January 13, 2008 3:15 PM

Obama's response to HRC's Meet The Press appearance:

What we saw this morning is why the American people are tired of Washington politicians and the games they play. But Sen. Clinton made an unfortunate remark, an ill advised remark, about King and Lyndon Johnson. I didn't make the statement. I haven't remarked on it, and she I think offended some folks who felt that somehow diminished King's role in bringing about the Civil Rights Act. She is free to explain that, but the notion that somehow this is our doing is ludicrous.

I have to point out that instead of telling the American people about her positive vision for America, Sen. Clinton spent an hour talking about me and my record in a way that was flat-out wrong. She suggested that I didn't clearly and unambiguously oppose the war in Iraq when it is absolutely clear and anyone who has followed this knows that I did. I stood up against the war when she was voting for it, at a time when she didn't read the intelligence reports or give diplomacy a chance. She belittled the most sweeping ethics reform since Watergate despite the fact that she stood on the sidelines during that negotiations on that bill.

I have to say that she started this campaign saying that she wanted to make history and lately she has been spending a lot of time rewriting it. I know that in Washington it is acceptable to say or do anything it takes to get elected, but I really don't think that is the kind of politics that is good for our party, and I don't think it is good for our country, and I think that the American people will reject it in this election.

What I want to do is spend talking about how we are going to make sure that people who are losing their jobs get work. How are we going to make sure that our young people are going to afford college? How are we going to make sure that the subprime lending crisis does not lead to an all-out recession? How are we going to create the kind of foreign policy that allows us to bring our troops home and makes us safer and goes after a genuine terrorist threat? Those are the issues that we are going to spend time talking about in this campaign and if Sen. Clinton wants to be distracted by the sorts of political point scoring that was evident today then that is going to be her prerogative.

Thanks to Ben Smith at Politico.

Posted by: mikshy | January 13, 2008 3:14 PM

I am still wondering what makes Senator Clinton qualified to be president.

Anyone who is a community activist should be offended by her notion that LBJ would have passed the Civil Rights Act without the impetus of MLK.

Obama has served in the trenches, has run fo office numerous times, has more government experience than Hillary Clinton as an elected official. And his framework is correct.

Of course, the most experienced candidate running for President is John McCain. Mike Huckabee has more than ten as governor and helped improve the state after the Clintons left.

If you are looking for experience, it is not Hilary Clinton you want.

Posted by: fprmclain | January 13, 2008 3:13 PM

It's just one more distortion spun by Clinton that Obama had anything to do with the reaction of many black Americans to Hillary's and Bill's desperate statements about MLK and Barack.

I was working abroad for much of the Bill Clinton years and did not follow the Clintons too much. I believed at the time Bill merely dissembled about his sex life, a personal matter, but was generally honest. Now I realize I was wrong. Now I see clearly that both Clintons are dishonest to the core, driven only by self-serving ambition.

They have completely distorted Obama's record.

While I vowed never to vote for a Republican again, I now can understand why they hate the Clintons so much. (But I still don't understand why they don't hate the Rove/Bush administration even more.)

Posted by: palmeroth | January 13, 2008 3:11 PM

Ah, dear svedear-Hillary, you would be the great patient of mental facility for privileged and rich, if you go there now. Other way, you would be obliged to become the great inmate in some, maybe not so priveleged prison. In any occasion, step out of race, you are pathetic, and everybody sees it.

Posted by: aepelbaum | January 13, 2008 3:10 PM

Hillary's campaign looks oddly like a George W. Bush campaign. And the last checked, trying to re-write history is not change.

Posted by: frothtales | January 13, 2008 3:08 PM

It's interesting that division follows the Clintons wherever they go and whatever they do. Maybe we should start asking: Are they the ones CAUSING the division?

Also, is anything ever THEIR fault?

Posted by: associate20 | January 13, 2008 3:06 PM

Now Hillary is accusing Obama of the crime of "running for office while being Black." As someone once said: "Give. Me. A. Break."

What a lot of picayune whiners!!!

Posted by: thrh | January 13, 2008 3:05 PM

Thank God Hillary's finally fighting back.

Obama's been given a free ride by the press and gotten away with way too much for far too long.

Hillary is so much more qualified than Obama its like day and night.

We can't afford to elect any more "Prom Kings"

We need to elect the most competent President we can find.

That's Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton is going to be a GREAT President!!!

Posted by: svreader | January 13, 2008 2:54 PM

Hillary is accusing Obama of playing racial politics? Talk about the pot calling the kettle....oh... you finish it.

She's pathetic.

Posted by: xcrunner771 | January 13, 2008 2:53 PM

The United States - and the world - have suffered greatly from having a president who has, essentially, been brain from drugs and booze for most of his adult life and totally lacked the knowledge and experience to handle such an important job. The running of the country and the setting of national policy has consequently reverted to a megalomanic vice president, who never has been challenged by the "official" president, for obvious reasons.

One would think that Americans have had enough of this type of government. Apparently not - given the misguided interest by some Dems in O-BOMBA.

The supporters of this low-IQ type, who is brain-impaired from extensive drug use, and is equally lacking in knowledge and experience, should realize that they are repeating history. They should asked themselves one very important question: If O-BOMBA were, god-forbid, elected president, who would actually run the country?

Posted by: ImpeachNOW | January 13, 2008 2:48 PM

I once respected Hillary, but no more. She has repeatedly and blatantly distorted the truth in this campaign, sowing division and putting herself first before the country and before the party. It is so terribly disappointing. The last straw for me was the way she sullied the memory of Dr. Martin Luther King in order to make a jab at Senator Obama. That moment it became clear to me that her campaign is willing to say whatever is necessary to whoever they are speaking to in order to win their vote. I respect intelligence, but I have no respect for dishonesty. Should the democratic party nominate Clinton, I cannot bring myself to vote for her in the general election. I simply cannot reward the lack of principles that I've witnessed.

Senator Obama may not be a perfect candidate, but he's won my vote. The purity of his purpose is clear. The America I saw after he was Iowa is the America I am most proud of. Hillary Clinton's attack on that is completely disappointing and deserves stern rebuke from the electoral public.

Posted by: maq1 | January 13, 2008 2:48 PM

One can amazingly see the number of Google searches going way up for Mr. Obama the last days... as if they are looking for options:

Pretty amazing stuff- here are all the candidates.

The voters are certainly searching those running for president and some more than others.

Posted by: davidmwe | January 13, 2008 2:46 PM

It was Bush's fault Clinton voted for Iraq and now it is Obama's fault that she stuck her foot in her mouth about the civil rights era. Is anything her fault or will she follow the example of her husband?

Posted by: sidmore-TM | January 13, 2008 2:30 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.


© 2009 The Washington Post Company