The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008


Dan Balz's Take

Bill Clinton's South Carolina Ties

Bill Clinton campaigns for his wife during a campaign stop in Aiken, S.C. (AP).

By Dan Balz
COLUMBIA, S.C. -- The morning after the most rancorous debate of the Democratic campaign began for former president Bill Clinton at the Lizard's Thicket restaurant just north of downtown.

The man who was at the center of much of the argument between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton at the Myrtle Beach debate, the man who has been urged to dial back his advocacy, was not on good behavior -- sartorially at least. In the home city of the University of South Carolina, he was wearing a politically incorrect, bright orange (read Clemson) necktie.

"Mr. President, you know this is Gamecock country," one man said to Clinton as he shook hands with the restaurant's patrons, a reminder that folks here take their football and school loyalty seriously.

"I didn't do it on purpose," Clinton said, sounding chagrined and apologetic.

He offered no apologies, however, for the role he has played in his wife's presidential campaign. Was South Carolina Rep. James Clyburn wrong to have urged the former president to chill out?

Clyburn earlier had jumped Clinton for his "fairy tale" comment about Obama's Iraq record -- a remark interpreted by some Democrats, particularly in the African American community, as a slap at Obama's entire candidacy and a denigration of his politics of hope. Before Monday's debate, he urged Clinton again to tone it down.

Clinton was nonplused. "He was in Australia or someplace when all this happened and I had the impression when I talked to him that he'd gotten one side of the argument," he said of Clyburn. "But I'm pretty chilled out, don't you think?"

The former president was in a chatty, conversational mood as he surveyed the bank of TV cameras, photographers and reporters craning to hear what he had to say about the campaign.

He was asked about Obama's quip at the debate that he wasn't sure sometimes whether he was running against Hillary Clinton or Bill Clinton. "I thought he was running against me in Nevada for a while when he said Republicans had ideas and challenged the conventional wisdom in the '90s," Clinton said.

It was clear that whatever Obama meant when he talked about the Republicans as the party of ideas over the past 10 to 15 years, Clinton had taken it personally. "I thought we challenged the conventional wisdom in the '90s," he said.

He talked about growing the economy while balancing the budget, about protecting the environment without harming the economy, about being pro-labor and pro-business, about reforming welfare and moving people into jobs.

"I don't really think he's running against me," he said. "I just think he was doing what he thought he should do."

The former president has become more than his wife's chief surrogate in South Carolina. Given her absence for part of this week, he is the face of the Clinton campaign. He told one person in the restaurant that after a return to Washington Tuesday night, he will be working the Palmetto State on behalf of his wife the rest of the week.

His wife's schedule this week, focused on states with contests on Feb. 5, suggests she is trying to tamp down expectations in the first Democratic primary in the South. Obama's strong support in the African American community makes it likely she will lose for the first time since Iowa. The less time she spends in the state, the more her campaign hopes an Obama victory will be discounted.

"I think we'll be fine here," the former president told reporters. "I like it here. These people were very good to me."

When a reporter asked Clinton about whether was playing the role of attack dog for his wife, he shrugged it off. The only time he had gone after Obama, he said, was over what he said were insignificant differences in the two candidates' positions on Iraq -- a view with which Obama takes sharp issue, given Hillary Clinton's support for the 2002 resolution authorizing the war and Obama's stated opposition to the invasion at the time.

"This is all just politics," he said of the quarrel between the candidates.

"It's really, really important not to overblow the inevitable back and forth that happens in every campaign, particularly if you've got now three talented people -- we did have six immensely talented people -- who in general agreed with each other. Sometimes when you have a family feud, it's harsher than if you have a feud with somebody in another clan because you have to dig so hard to get to where the differences are."

Voters, he insisted, could care less about the kinds of questions reporters were throwing at him. "You guys want to hear the politics," he said. "The voters want to hear the issues. Nobody ever asks me about any of this at a town meeting."

On his way toward the exit, a reporter asked one of Clinton's associates whether the former president was as good a politician as he had been in 1992. "Better," came the reply.

Clinton offered a different assessment. "He's rusty and old and creaky," he said of himself.

You wouldn't have worn that tie in 1992, he was told.

Proving he is rusty and creaky, Clinton responded, "I was stylistically challenged in '92."

He did not pick up on the inference that in 1992 he would have known better than to wear a Clemson tie in the city of the South Carolina Gamecocks.

Posted at 2:39 PM ET on Jan 22, 2008  | Category:  Dan Balz's Take
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in | Digg This
Previous: Fred Thompson Out of Race | Next: In Atlanta, Huckabee Courts the South

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.

It was said: "Wake up America, people are going to vote her as the nominee and then the REPUBLICANS are once again going to steal the election."

If Shrillary is the nominee, the Reps won't need to "steal" the election. Just look at the national electability polls. Dems right now look like lemmings headed for the cliff.

Posted by: flarrfan | January 23, 2008 9:55 AM

Hey! Why didn't you report about the protest outside? The former president babbling about his tie isn't news - why don't you report on the fabulous ground game Barack's got in South Carolina???

Here's the real story from someone who was there:

Some genius on Hill's staff decided to schedule the President's breakfast two blocks from BO's Columbia HQ. At 8:45 Hill had about 20 supporters outside holding signs and getting supporters to honk as they drove by.

As soon as we realized this event was going on - by 9 o'clock we had 60+ BO supporters outside holding signs and chanting, "It's not a fairy tale! Hope and change will never fail!." By the time the former President was finished with his breakfast all but two of the Hillary supporters left in frustration.

Seriously - a peddled, orchestrated Clinton appearance is NOT a story. The mobilization of the immense South Carolina BO ground game in such a short time is.

Posted by: DonRitchie | January 23, 2008 9:31 AM

Pun is appreciated as a metaphor: Bill Clinton would not have been so adversarial and made such faulty political decisions in the 90s. I don't know if Hillary would have either - isn't she renown for her political savvy parceling voters and wouldn't she have picked his ties back then? Is he saying she didn't help him pick them back then, and he was a bad dresser as a result? If we are to pity him, no way. Am I to understand we're paying for his Secret Service when he gets paid over half a million dollars three times in three visits to Dubai?! When he's going to India, the UAE, wherever to get paid to "speak" and collect millions for foundations and buildings in his name, we pay for his protection? What's wrong with this picture, besides putting the Secret Service at risk to make the Clintons the multimillionaires [at least] they became since they left the White House?

Posted by: VCubed | January 23, 2008 5:37 AM

I see this thread is filled with more of the same from the mindless, lying, lowlife, Hillary-Hating, racist scumbag supporters of the lying, lowlife racist

Or is there really just ONE paid operative? I've kind of wondered about

Posted by: hotnuke2007 | January 23, 2008 2:10 AM

if anyone ever had any question what role former president clinton would play in HRC's administration rest assured; it will be undignified, improper and deeply resented by large portions of the american people. this campaign is about his legacy, and the clintons don't care about the long term effect of normalizing political dynasties in america. but, would someone tell bill that it's never cool for an american to wear a full-windsor knot (even though he studied at oxford) americans can get away with a ½ windsor.

Posted by: jacade | January 23, 2008 1:13 AM

Hillary also comes with a lot of baggage.
Some bloggers say it isn't her fault, but I disagree.

Look back to the Watergate years, when she was staff working to impeach Nixon.

Here's a good intro discussion:

In 1974, Democrat Jerry Zeifman was chief counsel to the House Judiciary Committee during the impeachment proceedings against Richard Nixon, and he recalled (in 1999) that Hillary Rodham had been charged with establishing legal procedures. The procedures she urged the committee to adopt, though, were so ethically flawed that the members refused to adopt most of them....

(and) according to Zeifman, Hillary tried to prevent the public from seeing the Douglas impeachment files

So, she angered the Democratic estabishment by behaving unethically. Hillary was one of only two people who did not get a recommendation for her work, cutting her out of Washington. That, along with failing her bar exam in Columbia, sent her to be with Bill in Arkansas.

She angered by Republican establishment by hiding information that might have exonerated Nixon.

Now, I would argue that it isn't fair to bring up something so far in the past, she's surely learned her lesson.

But, this is relevant today because we keep seeing this behavior, even in this campaign. We have prominent Democrats vocally campaigning against her.

The Republicans are angry because she hid information that might have exonerated Nixon. Ever wonder why they tried so hard to impeach Bill? This is why. They'll try even harder with Hillary.

Hillary has alot of baggage. The Republican's have been building a campaign against her for years, they've been building the hatred against her. NOBODY will rally Republican's like Hillary.

Even if she does pull it off, history shows us that the Clintons will loose the recently hard won Democratic seats to Republicans, once again. And, Republicans will not work with her on any agenda items.

We have alot to do. Hillary will not be a good leader.

It feels good to remember the 1990s, I was an ardent President Bill Clinton fan. But, we can't go back, the past cannot be undone, as much as we might wish it could.

It's time to move forward and elect a president who CAN start a new beginning. It's time to make a fresh start.

Obama has a respect for people that can move us past some of the old divisions. He has used good judgment and has been on the right side of the issues. He brings people togehter, he doesn't divide us. He has passed good legislation on many different topics, such as woman and kids health, tax returns, nuclear disarmament, government transparency, congressional ethics reform, alternative energy....

Please, please, please, Hillary supporters, look carefully at the candidates. Understand who they are, and think about the possible future with each of them.

Posted by: kiku | January 22, 2008 9:45 PM


You are right, we do need someone strong, independent and intelligent. Hillary is strong and intelligent.

But,she is very tied to the lobbyists. She has taken more money from the military complex than any other candidate, as well as from many other lobbyists. She will not operate against them. Others here have commented on her health care bill being tied to the insurance companies. Other actions will follow suite.

Posted by: kiku | January 22, 2008 9:19 PM

Hillary, a beard for her false husband, voted for the Iraq false war predicated on Bush 9-11 treason: she is neither moral nor righteous and is part of the problem. Bill's nose is eerily shaped like Winthrop Rockefeller's and not like James Blythe's.

Obama is anointed and must be made elect.

Posted by: 1america | January 22, 2008 9:11 PM

Oh come on laplumelefirmament, that is a low blow. You are criticising why Hillary supported a Republican politician when she was a teeny bopper - having crushes on teen idols and reading teen magazines?

Seriously! What's wqrong with you? That is so low! eVEN more unjust than criticizing Obama for smoking pot and inhaling cocaine when he was a teenager! DISGUSTING!

Posted by: fjstratford | January 22, 2008 8:04 PM

I hope somebody wins.

Posted by: hhkeller | January 22, 2008 7:49 PM

Being from Vermont and loving Howard Dean's antiwar position, I supported him in 2004. I felt inspired. In 2000, I thought Bill Bradley had excellent ideas and was more in touch with people than Al Gore. I felt inspired. Having lived and worked in Africa for many years and being married to an African woman, I liked Obama. I felt inspired. But then I began to wonder if inspiration is enough? As much as we want a clean break from politics in Washington, we can't erase history.

If Obama is the nominee, I will happily support him. But sometimes I think it's good to know your interests and to have someone, even if they are wonderfully inspiring, who will fight for you and can pull a victory from defeat (like New Hampshire). . .

I just hope Clinton and Obama don't tear each other apart so much that NOBODY wins. . .where will your inspiration be then?

Posted by: jforauer | January 22, 2008 7:12 PM


Hillary does not support HR 676.

Hillary's plan is a gift to insurance companies. Hillary's plan is to force all americans to buy health insurance. There has been a question if it's even constitutional to force people to buy a product from for-profit companies.

Hillary doesn't support real "Universal Healthcare" ala Kucinich. Neither do Obama or Edwards, but at least Obama doesn't want to criminalize middle class americans who can't afford private insurance.

Posted by: julieds | January 22, 2008 7:02 PM

When i started paying attention to this campaign, 8 months ago, i was open to all the dem candidates. Because of his early out spoken opposition to the Iraq war, i leaned towards Obama.

There was a time, that i would have voted (in the general election) for whichever dem won the nomination. No more. I am SO absolutely DISGUSTED with the behavior of the Clintons....I'm almost speechless...Americans say they want change, but if Hillary wins, with the Clintons' old, dirty, backhanded, political tricks, I'll believe things will just never change in America. It's very depressing.

Dems who are supporting the Clintons better pay attention.
Hillary needs to get the support of moderate dems and Independents in the general election in order to win. Count this dem-leaning independent as someone who will NEVER EVER EVER vote for the Clintons. EVER. And no, i will not be over it by the time next year's general election comes around.

Posted by: julieds | January 22, 2008 6:54 PM

It's funny to see all these negative comments regarding Bill Clinton's role in his wife's campaign. If either Obama or Edwards had a "Bill Clinton" as part of their campaign, they would use the opportunity to the fullest just like Hillary is doing. Both Obama and Edwards have done their fair share of mud slinging and I'm sure it is not over. This is politics people and as long as no one is literally getting hurt everything is fair game.

It has been a pleasure to finally see some actual debating going on. In my opinion this country is going to need someone who has been in the game already and has stood up to many advisories. We are compiling a lot of enemies and before Bush leaves office I'm sure we will have many more. We need someone who, from day one, will start cleaning up Bush's messes. I believe that person is Hillary Clinton. She is a strong, independent, and intelligent person and, in my opinion, that is what we need right now. She has a stated course of action and unfortunately I do not hear many specifics on economy, health care, foreign policy, and education from either Edwards or Obama. They have a couple of ideas but nothing very structured or detailed. In all of the debates I've seen Clinton has been the only one that has stated specifically, every time, her strategy plans on all those subjects. Both Obama and Edwards start declaring what they would do but somehow it ends up becoming a story about "so and so", whom they met somewhere, but they never go back to the original question and give us detailed information on what they are talking about. It is great to have ideas, everyone has them, but we need someone who has a concrete plan and let's us know what they are going to do in a organized way. Clinton has proven that she has one time and time again.

Let's face it, if you think anyone of the three candidates are squeaky clean then you have probably led a very sheltered life....under a a very remote location.

Posted by: xbead | January 22, 2008 6:48 PM

Bottom Line:

Like all of you. I know that health care is the most critical, and important issue facing the American people. Now, and in the coming elections. And like the vast majority of the American people, I want HR 676 (Medicare For All) passed into law NOW! "Single payer, Tax Supported, Not For Profit, True Universal Health Care" free for all as a right. Like every other developed country in the world has. See:

"HR 676:
For church goers: less money to insur. companies and more to the church- lots more.
Srs on Medicare: save way over $100/wk. Because no more medigap, long term care & dental insur. needed. No more drug bills."

But if we the American people fail to bring enough pressure on our current politicians to get HR 676 passed into law before the elections. We will have to identify, and replace all the politicians standing in the way of passage of HR 676. And, I think the best first place to start is with the politicians that blocked the bipartisan SCHIP bills for the kids. Passed by congress twice.

But what about the President. It was Bush after all that blocked the bipartisan SCHIP bill passed by congress to assure more health coverage for Americas kids. So which of the presidential hopefuls do I think will be most supportive of implementing the demand of the majority of the American people to have HR 676 (Medicare For All) passed into law immediately!

We have some very fine presidential candidates who would make good presidents. But none of the top Presidential candidates directly support HR 676, the only true Universal Health Care plan. So I am supporting Hillary Clinton. She is the only top candidate that has ever actually fought for universal health care before.

I have enormous admiration, and respect for Hillary Clinton. She fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds back in 1993. To prevent this disastrous health care crisis that is now devastating the American people, and America. She fought so hard for the American people that she risk almost completely destroying her husbands presidency. I haven't forgotten her heroic effort. If any Presidential hopeful for universal health care deserves my support, it's her.

Also, if we the American people fail to bring enough pressure on our government to give us HR 676 which we all so desperately need NOW! Then we will need the most skilled politician we can get on our side to broker the best health care plan for the American people that we can get. Though it will be less than we need, and less than we deserve. The politician I think to best do this is Hillary Clinton. The Clinton's are probably the most skilled politicians in American history.

The insurance industry, and medical industry that has been ripping you off, and killing you has given Hillary Clinton so much money because they fear her. They have also given Barack Obama so much money because they fear Hillary Clinton. They think they can manipulate Barack Obama against the best interest of the American people better than they can manipulate Hillary Clinton. There is no race issue with Hillary Clinton. The Clinton's are the poster family for how African Americans want white people to be towards African Americans.

As always, African Americans are suffering, and dieing in this health care crisis at a much higher rate than any other group in America. The last time there was any significant drop in the African American death rate was when Bill Clinton was president.

My fellow Americans, you are dieing needlessly at an astounding rate. In higher numbers than any other people in the developed world. Rich, and poor a like. Insured, and uninsured. Men, women, children, and babies. And we the American people must stop it. And fix it NOW! Keep Fighting!!! Never! give up hope. There are millions of lives at stake. Bless you all... You are doing great!

Posted by: JackSmith1 | January 22, 2008 6:44 PM


"Rezko, who was part of Obama's senatorial finance committee, also is accused of directing "at least one other individual" to donate money to Obama and then reimbursing that individual -- in possible violation of federal election law.",obama20web.article

Posted by: autowx | January 22, 2008 6:43 PM


You state - "I refuse to vote for candidates because they are of a particular rce, sex religion or even party"; and then you state "Plus she reperesent the Majority population that has gone without representation since the founding of this country, WOmen, It is their time."

So you do vote for her because she is a woman, but don't vote due to the fact what her gender is? I do not get it. Sounds a lot like when Hillary said she voted for it but hoped it didn't become law. Jeez, can't see that commercial coming.

Posted by: mcmahon10 | January 22, 2008 5:26 PM

If you're going to be doing a story about B Clinton's ties, then you must do one on Michelle Obama's SC ties. She has much deeper roots than Bill. Her grandparents live here and she has a zillion relatives still living there. Why are you doing this story on Bill when Hillary insists she is her own woman ?

I am so sick of Bill Clinton. I would love never having to see his photo again in the news.

Posted by: vbalfour | January 22, 2008 4:45 PM

The only thing the Repug's can attack BHO for is being black and having a foreign middle name. Attacks like that will only further alienate the majority of Americans who want as little to do as possible with the Republican party. Even Republicans are voting for Obama. The Clintons, on the other hand, can stir the right-wing hornets nest better then anyone, giving The Press an opportunity to focus on the inane charges instead of the policies.

Hilary, stay in the Senate, become majority leader and fight Republicans with your last breath. Not from the Whites House.

Posted by: thebobbob | January 22, 2008 4:44 PM

If anyone doesn't think that Bill and Hillary would run the presidency together then I would surmise that they haven't been listening to the rancor coming from the former president. Which is why you often hear them described as Billary Clinton. Obama is essentially running against them both and yet whenever anyone in the Obama or Edwards camp dares to attack Hillary they are accused of "piling on." In other words that they are ganging up on the Senator from New York unfairly and that she is being held to a higher standard because she's a woman. Yet when Bill and Hillary tag team on Obama then they are seen as masterful tacticians by the media.

I'm sick of the Clintons getting to have it both ways in the media but it's not going to change because the media is afraid of the Clinton mafia style intimidation and manipulation while being in love with them at the same time. It's some kind of weird Stockholm syndrome. You can't get access to the Clintons in the media unless you say good things about them. If you dare say something critical of them you are cut off, just like with "w." And the media can't stand being cut off from the entrenched power players in Washington such as Bill and Hillary so they bend over backwards to give them whatever they want.

It's sad to see Bill acting this way. I use to have so much respect for him.

Posted by: jamzer35 | January 22, 2008 4:43 PM

I am angry that Bill Clinton, who gets Secret Service Protection as a former President, is using OUR HARD-EARNED TAX DOLLARS to engage in so much campaigning. This is not something that the voters approved, and someone needs to initiate a petition, even a court case to halt this unauthorized use of tax dollars.

I in fact was a voter for Bill Clinton and supported him as President, but there's a reason that ex-Presidents are supposed to step aside after their terms and work as respected senior statesmen. It's not merely the 22nd Amendment-- after having served their terms, they have a wealth of experience that few other people have, but they apply this effectively only when they stay above the fray. George H. W. Bush did this in 2000, allowing his son to run his campaign independently.

But most of all, Bush Sr. recognized that it would be an essentially unlawful and wholly unauthorized use of taxpayer dollars to engage in political campaigning.

Bill's Secret Service detail is costing taxpayers millions of extra dollars as he campaigns around the country like this. This is more than merely arrogant and inappropriate-- is is against the law, and this is not something that we have paid our tax dollars for! Bill should have enough dignity and respect for our nation and the taxpayers to step aside, because he is committing nothing less than a transparent embezzlement of our tax dollars in the process. If he fails to do this, then perhaps it will become necessary for a court to deliver the tough message to him, or perhaps he'd prefer to spend some weeks behind bars?

Posted by: malagasy | January 22, 2008 4:37 PM

Bill and Hillary both know how to stand up to vicious right wing attacks. If we send a bright but fresh young mind to the general, Reps will tear him to shreds and we will lose the election.

But that's not why I'm voting for Hillary -

I'm voting for her because she's the best Dem for National Security and foreign policy, which is what we need now.
We cant afford that.

Posted by: jack9 | January 22, 2008 4:31 PM

Thank goodness George Washington wanted terms limits for Presidents. If Hillary, is elected, Bill Clinton will have in an active role administration at the WHITE HOUSE, this is very apparent just look at the campaign. This could lead to another Constitutional crisis lead by the Republican Parties Lawyer's! I think the Clinton are lawyers and whenever lawyers find a loophole they GLOAT (Hillary really has to take charge of her campaign bottom line).Please remember that Bill Clinton did Lie to the American Public (remember the impeachment charge) and to Hillary too! The George W Bush's white house lied to Hillary she voted for the War. My problem with Hillary is on her on merits she has made misjudgments in her personal and professional life BIG ONES, but I know we can not discuss those type if issues during our quest for a President. I think she has been attack and hurt some much, she naturally snaps back and she seems too want revenge on old foes over any issue, the health care matter cause her scars as First Lady this may be a benefit for the American Public but it makes me wonder about her true motivation. I want a real fighter in the White House not an AVENGING ANGEL. Just thoughts

Posted by: gyw0369 | January 22, 2008 4:19 PM

I live in Atlanta, and will support Hillary Clinton for President. In 8 years, I will vote for Obama. I refuse to vote for candidates because they are of a particular rce, sex religion or even party.

Every candidate from DEM to REP have profess change. There is nothing in Barack History that says he will fair any better than those who preceeded him. In fact the Welfare State was chnage because of a democratic President. How we forget, that the only President that beat the Republicans, twice, when he probably should have lost, balance the budget, ended the welfare state, created jobs, actually win a war, Kosovo, and govern with an opposition Congress, WILIIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, name me another that has won since. We have a spinless congress that needs forceful leadership. Hillary Clinton is that person. Plus she reperesent the Majority population that has gone without representation since the founding of this country, WOmen, It is their time.


Posted by: HSanabria | January 22, 2008 4:13 PM

Hillary is running for President correct?
Then her husband needs to back off. He is making this look ugly for her. My vote was for Hillary but Bill changed my mind. Obamba has my vote. Her actions show that she cannot run this country without her husband. Wake up America, people are going to vote her as the nominee and then the REPUBLICANS are once again going to steal the election. American is not ready for a woman as President.

Posted by: lraquelkent | January 22, 2008 4:01 PM

Hillary is running for President correct?
Then her husband needs to back off. He is making this look ugly for her. My vote was for Hillary but Bill changed my mind. Obamba has my vote. Her actions show that she cannot run this country without her husband. Wake up America, people are going to vote her as the nominee and then the REPUBLICANS are once again going to still the election. American is not ready for a woman as President.

Posted by: lraquelkent | January 22, 2008 4:00 PM

Hilarious. Bill Clinton falls asleep at MLK celebration




Posted by: laplumelefirmament | January 22, 2008 3:55 PM

Hilarious. Bill Clinton falls asleep at MLK celebration




Posted by: laplumelefirmament | January 22, 2008 3:54 PM

According to CNN Election Center 2008, 2,025 delegates will be needed to win the Democratic nomination for president at the Democratic National Convention to be held in Denver August 25-28. Current pledged delegate totals before the South Carolina Democratic primary election Saturday January 26 are: Obama 38, Clinton 36, and Edwards 18.
Florida will be meaningless to Democrats because like Michigan all Democratic delegates have been declared illegal by the national committee because of the state party's non compliance in setting their primary date no sooner than Super Tuesday February 5.

Should Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton Become the Democratic Party's Nominee for President in 2008?

Which candidate is best able to inspire Americans with a new vision of a better America both domestically and in foreign affairs that will attract sufficient independent voters and disenchanted Republicans so that Democrats can win the general election in November?

Which candidate is least likely to cause a worsening division and polarization of voters and elected officials that maintains the partisan politics that currently paralyzes Washington?

Which candidate refuses campaign contributions from lobbyists and political action committees as a first step in seeking to change the money dominated special interest politics that currently rules Washington?

Which candidate has had the personal background and life experiences and possesses the vision and ability necessary to bring together Americans of all ethnic backgrounds be they white, Latino, Asian, African American, or native American in a sense of common purpose?

Which candidate do Americans most respect and admire given the facts of his or her personal family background, marriage relationship, intelligence and academic achievement, and the particular path by which he or she has become a candidate for president of the United States?

Which candidate does not have a spouse whose past political experience and personal behavior could prove to be a serious distraction that might needlessly complicate the office and duties of the President and potentially interfere with the normal functioning of cabinet officers?

Which candidate will the American people be able to trust when times are tough because he or she consistently values telling the truth, rather than choosing his or her words primarily with regard to the politics of the moment?

The inescapable answer is Barack Obama.

Posted by: bobwestafer | January 22, 2008 3:48 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.


© 2009 The Washington Post Company