The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Archives

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Defeated, and Getting Their Dance On

By Kevin Merida
COLUMBIA, S.C. -- The HRC crowd lost early at the polls but stayed late at the club. Their candidate, Hillary Rodham Clinton, was long gone, having landed somewhere in Tennessee.

But there they were, her beaten troops, at The Element, where the official South Carolina campaign party had ended at the senior-citizen hour of 9 p.m. and the party-party had taken over. The woman at the door was collecting five bucks, and the bouncers were taping wristbands to hands.

Inside, the blue and white balloons were still full of helium, a few Hillary placards were on the white-clothed tables, but most folks were getting their dance on and their drink on.

Alana Robles explained what had happened -- at least from her perspective. She was wearing a Clinton t-shirt, sipping a Bourbon and ginger ale. "I think Obama pulled out all the stops," she said. "We were canvassing hard, but he went into the churches, talking to people after the services, going deep into the community. He set the bar high."

Robles, 24, a restaurant manager, had worked hard as a Clinton volunteer. But South Carolina was not to be. "It's a bump in the road, but I think she'll win in the long run."

The red club lights were on, a shiny ball was spinning above the dance floor. Michael Jackson's "Billie Jean" was blasting from the speaker system. The Clintonites hovered around the bar and traded theories about what had gone wrong and why. Maybe it was Clinton's debate performance in Myrtle Beach, maybe it was John Edwards doing better than they had expected with the white vote, maybe it was Bill Clinton's sniping at Obama. Maybe it was just inevitable that a black candidate was going to win in a Democratic primary where black voter participation was so high.

Zac Wright, the Clinton communications director in South Carolina, summed it up like this: "It is what it is. We fought hard here. We didn't concede a single vote."

He was on the conference call with Hillary Clinton when she told her organizers early in the evening that she had called Obama and he was to be congratulated.

What did Wright plan to do now?

"Take a nap," he said, noting he had averaged but 3-4 hours a sleep a night over the last 10 days.

Then he got a sudden glint in his eye as he looked to his left. "In the meantime, I'm going to try to dance with that pretty girl from the TV station."

Posted at 11:48 PM ET on Jan 26, 2008  | Category:  Hillary Rodham Clinton
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Previous: For Bill Clinton, Echoes of Jackson in Obama Win | Next: Obama's S.C. Victory Speech


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 >>


Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Perhaps Robin Davidson could explain the source for the personal letter from JFK Jr. to the Clintons. Hmmm??

Posted by: ginger193 | January 27, 2008 8:09 PM

If Obama couldn't win in South Carolina, he would have no chance at all. Aren't 45% of the likely Democrat primary voters black?
I don't like Obama, but I like the Clinton's even less. Maybe people are finally catching on to the Clinton's.
Donald W. Bales

Posted by: dwbalessr | January 27, 2008 2:19 PM

robinrealtor27,

You talk about why Caroline should have endorsed Hillary instead of Obama because some other Kennedy was fond of the Clintons. Here's how I look at the same picture.

When you are hungry and you are presented with a badly rotten apple, and another bruised apple, you would definitely prefer the bruised apple. But now if you are presented with a bruised apple and a fresh apple, you would definitely go for the fresh apple.

The other Kennedys when they swam with the Clintons were not presented with the fresh ideas of Obama. They had no choice but to go with the Clintons. But now Caroline on the other hand has a choice. Just because your parents or your brothers preferred another candidate does not mean that you cannot make your own judgement about whom you want to support.

Clearly this race has shown that Obama's fresh ideas and high integrity trumps Clinton's old style and political tactics. Another important factor the Caroline Kennedy endorsement brings to our attention in broad daylight is that she being white and being a woman, did not look at gender or race to decide who she should endorse. That is the only big slap for the Clinton's who have directly and indirectly tried to inject race and gender into their campaign.

Posted by: JohnMcCormick | January 27, 2008 2:07 PM

"The red club lights were on, a shiny ball was spinning above the dance floor. Michael Jackson's "Billie Jean" was blasting from the speaker system."

I thought this was 2008. Perhaps this illustrates the Clintons being stuck in the past.

Posted by: jade_7243 | January 27, 2008 1:55 PM

The whole head/heart thing is a false choice. Frankly, there's more than enough evidence that Obama is the head choice, and I don't think anyone's disputing the heart part.

The idea that Obama is nothing but words is a myth. He's smart enough that he was president of the Harvard Law Review -- the most prestigious position for law students around the country -- and has been described by Harvard professors as one of the brightest people to come through Harvard in the last few decades.

In Illinois, his signature legislation included the most sweeping ethics reform in many, many years, as well as criminal justice reforms that initially met stiff resistance but ended up passing easily, and an expansion of health care coverage -- all despite being in the minority.

Obama opposed the decision to invade Iraq and, under no obligation to do so as he planned a Senate run, publicly declared as much at a time when opposition to the war was deeply unpopular.

In the US Senate, he's passed ethics reform, helped secure loose nuclear weapons, helped plan government response to a potential flu epidemic, and passed the "Google for government" bill.

If the measure of a candidate's readiness is their past record of success, I don't think there's any way you can argue that Obama isn't ready. I certainly challenge you to come up with a comparable list of concrete accomplishments made by Mrs. Clinton in her "35 years of service".

Look, experience is nice. But experience is a far worse predictor of success in the White House than is past success. So don't make experience a surrogate for competence, because it isn't.

And that's not even getting into the whole question of honesty and respect for democracy.

Posted by: davestickler | January 27, 2008 1:27 PM

cairodc:

I'm now back from shopping at Wegmans. My sense is that rayacop and hotnuke2007 are plants. No one can be that dumb. Both of them will definitely congeal backers of Obama and even folks that are leaning toward Hillary to vote for Obama. Here's my reasoning: if this is the type of folks that are voting for Hillary, who wants to be among them? If Hillary is looking for a backlash, she needs to go no further than to have published their blogs. And as I said before, rayacop is spewing ignorance. I will not give my name out because it's none of his business who I am. But I do work for the FBI now, and I have run into him before. He's a very frustrated old man whose life has gone terribly wrong. To all the rest of you bloggers, sleep well. If the Clintons have their way, you may have to learn Chinese to get ahead.

Posted by: sdansker2002 | January 27, 2008 1:06 PM

Check Ellen Goodman's column, in which she quotes Obama's sister. This sister, who is also white on their mother's side, considers herself "hybrid," as she has an Indonesian father, whom she actually knew. She agrees Obama is "black" because that is how he chooses to label himself. He is white by his mother and by his upbringing.

Another column claims the Obama victory in South Carolina is a sign of "unity.? UNITY? The Democrats of that state played "the race card" with more vigor and zeal than ever seen before.

Enough of this liberal doublespeak! I am fed up with the racial overtones and the Clinton machine. I have decided to support John Edwards as the only moral choice I have left.

Posted by: lflaster | January 27, 2008 12:54 PM

I posted my comments and they weren't posted. What gives?

Diane Steiner

Posted by: diane_steiner | January 27, 2008 12:21 PM

Dear Senator Clinton,

Since Pres. Bill first ran for office in 1992 a whole new genreation has come of age. And they are far more connected to each other throught the internet than we ever were in the 60's singing Kumbaya.

You can't stretch the truth with them they will hunt down the facts and slam you with it. They aren't jaded by politics and still hold the belief that they can change things for the better.

What a precious gift they have given me as one of the first 18 yr. olds to vote in 1972, a second chance to change the world.
Hear those fingers hitting the keys? Each day they are getting louder and stronger. Soon our generation will be passing the torch to theirs.

Thank God! I'm so sick and tired of the politics as usual. What a refreshing thought, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

There is a revolution coming, I can hear it on the news, I can read it on the blogs and this isn't the 60's no one needs to be on the streets.

Posted by: AverageJane | January 27, 2008 12:21 PM

I am tired of the arrogance that the Clintons have displayed in the weeks of campaigning, especially Bill Clinton. We have had enough of the both of them and need someone who is honest and not a Washington politician and that man is Barack Obama.

The Clintons act as though they are owed the White House again. I also agree with the writer who said that Hillary's 35 years of service is a myth fabricated by her disillusional supporters. What has she done to make life better for the American people? No one talks about how she was bought off by self-serving interest groups. Did she make vast changes for the average citizen for health care? No she did not!

Bill Clinton's pompous and condescending attitude about Obama's win is repulsive. "He won fair and square." What does that mean. He won because believe believe in him and his honest approach to real change, not political talking head talk about change.

I am an educated independent woman and it is for that reason that I am not going to vote for Hillary Clinton just on the fact that she is a woman. She has planned out her role very carefully for this moment in history going back to her run for the Senate. I will give her an A for being a strategic planner for herself. I just hope the American people wake up in time or else we will have the next four years of the same type of self-serving politicians we have had. We will be losing while they gain everything. Wake up America and give your vote to an honest man, Barack Obama.

Posted by: diane_steiner | January 27, 2008 12:17 PM

The ENTIRE controversy over race was engineered and manufactured by the Obama campaign in order to fuel a win in South Carolina. Obama had seen the writing on the wall, namely that if he didn't win in South Carolina, a state whose Democratic Primary voters were composed of nearly 50% African Americans, he would be seen as nothing more than a boutique candidate on the order of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. He understandably realized that Hillary was garnering the majority of black support, despite the fact he himself was black, and felt if he was going to have ANY chance at being nominated, he had to win South Carolina. His staff then decided they were going to play the race card, and did so. They sent their surrogates out immediately following the New Hampshire primary, including Professor Michael Eric Dyson of Georgetown (a major advocate of the Obama campaign who speaks on Obama's behalf on every major political show on TV), who began questioning whether the win by Hillary in New Hampshire was NOT because she had swayed voters in that state based on their belief that she was a more experienced, more qualified, and more genuine candidate, but rather that they, the voters, had simply voted for her and not Obama because he was black. That same evening, Jesse Jackson, Jr. (a Senior Advisor to Obama's Campaign) went on MSNBC and made the following comment (and I'm paraphrasing here, but it's pretty accurate and you're welcome to google for the YouTube video that shows it) that Hillary's "tears" needed to be examined in light of the "Fact" (and fact is a complete falsehood on his part as he hasn't got a clue as to whether this is factual) that Hillary never cried about Katrina. He made this remark three times, and its clear intent was to say HILLARY CLINTON DOESN'T CARE ABOUT BLACK PEOPLE.

This charge of RACISM, leveled at the New Hampshire voters who supported Hillary was a veiled attempt at painting ALL of Hillary Clinton's supporters (at least the white ones), in fact ALL Democrats who DIDN'T support Obama, as RACISTS. They then manufactured a controversy over Hillary's statement about MLK, which was ONLY made in response to OBAMA'S likening HIMSELF to MLK and JFK, claiming she had "DISSED" the man. Nothing could be further from the truth, but the media, nearly all of whom hate Hillary to the core, picked up on this in a heartbeat, and were defacto Obama surrogates in their effort to paint Hillary Clinton as, AT BEST, someone who wasn't sympathetic to blacks concerns or sensibilities.

The Obama campaign then went on to use Bill Clinton's words, where he OBVIOUSLY criticized Obama for his claim that he had been ADAMANTLY opposed to the Iraq War CONSISTENTLY TO THE SAME DEGREE, since before it started, and tried to paint those remarks as racist as well by misquoting Bill, twisting his words, and taking them completely out of context to suggest Bill Clinton had suggested Obama's ENTIRE campaign (and thereby the entire notion that a Black man could ever be president) was a "Fairy Tale". The TRUTH, though, is that Bill had said, CLEARLY AND CONCISELY, that Obama's claim that he had been consistent on his views about the war was a "Fairly Tale". Now, some could argue this is an unfair criticism of Obama, and that would have been a valid, if incorrect opinion in my view. However, they didn't do this. Instead, they clipped the speech by Bill to include NONE of the context of what he had said, and simply used the words "Give me a break, this whole thing is a Fairy Tale" as their quote from Bill, and then claimed he had said this in the context of saying Obama's entire campaign, his entire dream of becoming president, was a "Fairy Tale". This was done in order to anger blacks, to incite them to believe Bill Clinton was a closet racist. And it worked beautifully. Obama's lame claim that he had nothing to do with it was EASILY refuted by the MEMO that had been released by HIS CAMPAIGN which noted Bill's remarks, and did EXACTLY what I stated above in trying to claim Bill had made the claim Obama's campaign was a "Fairy Tale." Not to mention the remarks by Michelle Obama to that same effect at a mostly black event where she is quoted as having said, "That win in Iowa ain't no Fairy Tale" Another surrogate of Obama's, a representative of South Carolina named Bakari Sellers, went on to make the same claim the very MORNING of the Primary, although he was chastised about it by David Shuster.

The simple fact is, the Obama campaign started it all, and continued it non-stop. Every chance they got they tried to point the finger at the Clintons and say, "Hey, my opponents are race-baiting, people, isn't that despicable considering I'm a Black Man?" Anyone who watched the coverage over the past two weeks who didn't come away seeing that is simply blind. Blinded by either their own racial hatred, their ridiculous fantasies of a Utopia Obama would create, or their Repuglikkkunt-inspired and COMPLETELY baseless hatred of the Clintons.

Now, if you want to dismiss all this, you're welcome to. But it is completely and utterly factual. If you'd like links to all of the stuff, including the comments by Dyson, Jackson, and Michelle Obama, they're on YouTube. The Memo is at HuffingtonPost.com. Again, you can dismiss it, but you're simply lying to yourself. Obama, and his campaign, in a desperate bid to stay alive in this contest, PLAYED THE RACE CARD. And while it's garnered him a great deal more support among blacks, he's also realized he's lost a great deal of support among women, whites and Hispanics because of it.

It was bad enough that he pulled such a lowlife move. The fact he's lied about it continuously, and is now having his campaign, his surrogates, and his supporters spread these vicious, EVIL, and completely phony stories about voter intimidation on the part of Clinton supporters shows me there is NO depth to which he won't go. People claim Hillary acts as if she's owed this nomination. I say they're blind. Hillary has NEVER acted like that. The Media has painted that narrative for a year and she's thoroughly rejected it. OBAMA IS THE JERK WHO ACTS LIKE HE'S OWED THE PRESIDENCY. He acts, and his campaign acts, like any attack on him is an attack on blacks.

Now, I know that many blacks who are racist (and trust me, there are just as many racist blacks as there are whites proportionally), and many other blacks who aren't, but are no more interested in delving into the details of the campaigns as the majority of Americans, will be swayed by all of this nonsense that has been fueled by the Obama campaign and their defacto surrogates (the entire Hillary-Hating media). But they better remember one thing. WHITES MAKE UP THE MAJORITY OF THIS NATION, AND EVEN THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. Obama may find he's won the battle (South Carolina), and lost the war.

I think it's too late for Obama, his surrogates, or advocates to close the Pandora's box they opened with their despicable lies and BS. There might be a chance, but I don't think there is. And frankly, I don't want there to be a chance anymore. For while I have been calling for a Hillary Clinton / Barack Obama ticket for the past two years, if Hillary were to put this man on the ticket I not only wouldn't be able to vote for her, but would in fact be forced out of principle to actively work against her campaign. To me, Barack Obama is a lying, lowlife, RACIST TRAITOR to everything this nation holds dear. The fact he's been able to convince so many morons otherwise doesn't surprise me though. Bush did the same for a while, and I was NEVER fooled by his lies and BS either. To me, Barack Obama is nothing more than a lowlife RACIST NIGG*R, not fit to shine my shoes, let alone be my president.

Posted by: hotnuke2007 | January 27, 2008 12:00 PM

SeedofChange: what makes someone ready to be commander in chief? And what is he supposed to learn in 8 years in the senate? This is not a senority based system. No one has to wait their turn. It is not a monarchy. We do not have to wait for the old king to die. No one is owed the nomination. By you logic, 1960 was Johnson's year not Kennedy's.

Posted by: anonquia | January 27, 2008 11:31 AM

Rayacop:

First of all, let me say that your number of typos and misspelled words is so staggering that I doubt that you are in the legal profession. Please, before your next post, have someone proofread your spelling and grammar. Really, it's embarrassing. You really fit the stereotype of the uneducated racist, or cracker. Dust off that 3rd grade spelling/grammar/usage textbook before you attempt to state your opinions in print.

Secondly, it is laughable that you obviously get offended by being called a racist. Who else would repeatedly characterize a Black man as a crack smoker, and anyone who agrees with that Black man as a crack smoking "sympothizer" (your incorrect spelling, not mine.)Your rant sounds like the typical racist spewing that comes when the racist can feel that the tide is turning and that "the good old days" are coming to an end.

Finally, your analysis about the racial breakdown of the vote in SC is correct: it's not time to break out the champagne bottles just yet, just because a Black man won a state with 60% Black voters. It would have been the death knell had he lost. However, what about Iowa? Iowa is a state with one of the smallest Black populations in this country. He won!! Which means that a lot of whites voted for him. Guess they were crack smoking "sympothizers" too? So, please, go on to your job as probably a secretarial assistant to a paralegal and leave the heavy thinking for those of us who aren't pining away for the good old days of the 1950s, when Blacks "knew their place."

By the wat, I am not one of these people who wants you to have to guess about my ethnicity. I am your worst nightmare: an educated African American man who makes more money than you.

worstnightmare

Posted by: cairodc | January 27, 2008 11:31 AM

last post was incomplete...

Posted by: amunike99 | January 27, 2008 10:29 AM

Carolyn Kennedy is talking from the heart, not from head:

I love democrats, elites and commoners, for their great knowledge and humanity.
But a commoner always remember what JFK had to do in Chicago to win a 50-50 election. What LBJ had to do to get the civil right bill through the congress. What Clinton had to do to win 2 election and FDR had to do to win 3 elections. A great human like Gore, Kerry, Mondale, Dukakis never won. A saint like Jimmy Carter got knocked off by a hollywood actor
JFK being a war hero and a man of action in congress for 14 years, had to take the help of Richard Daley to win the election.
Obama is devoid of courage, and accomplishment. He is no JFK.
Obama did not even had the backbone to vote again the Iran resolution, he was absent. He is no JFK, no MLK, no Bobby. he is just a great speech write and gifted speech delivery person.

Carolyn also talks about ethics without providing examples. She seemed to forget about JFK and Monoe & hundred other girl friend in white house, while taking a dig at Bill.

Also, Kenney legacy vs. Clinton legacy is at stake. Kenneys have won one election, and Clintons have already won two.

But again, I think she is talking from the heart.

Posted by: SeedofChange | January 27, 2008 10:20 AM

LA Times Report Obama pushed wrong button 6 times and voted incorrectly (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obamavotes24jan24,1,4287705.story?ctrack=3&cset=true)

Most interesting part is the last sentense, where the Senetor defending him say, he never voted incorrectly in his life.

Obama is not ready to be Commander in Chief, but he will be in 8 years. Also, he will learn to win against Republicans and stop trying at little foul plays by Democrats.

Posted by: SeedofChange | January 27, 2008 10:14 AM

As he has elsewhere, Obama scored better among younger white voters taking half of the 18- to 29-year-old non-black vote, and with whites with higher incomes and more education. Eight in 10 whites supporting Obama sought a change-oriented candidate, compared with fewer than three in 10 among other white voters. Obama got 25 percent of total white voters in South Carolina and the same number of votes from white men that Billary Clinton got. A third of white Obama backers said the Clintons ran an unfair campaign of attacks and distortions. Clinton voters were older, had lower incomes and or less education and were primarily married white women with Billary Clinton winning non-black females 43 percent to 23 percent. 45% of white men favored Edwards & the rest split evenly between Clinton and Obama
But thanks to Billary Clinton's attacks on Obama, the trend has been toward more polarization of votes along racial lines. In the last week, Obama's favorability rating in the McClatchy-MSNBC poll dropped 19 percentage points among whites, while the Clintons' rating dropped 13 points among African Americans. Bill Clinton did have an effect on South Carolina voters however. Exit polls provided evidence that he may have hurt Hillary Clinton's chances there. About 60 percent of the voters said that Bill Clinton's campaigning was important in how they decided to vote and of those, 47 percent voted for Obama while only 38 percent voted for the Clintons. About one fifth of the voters made up their minds in the last three days, with 57 percent of them going for Obama and only 18 percent for the Clintons. Obama also won more than half of the voters who decided in the last 24 hours before they voted.
President John F. Kennedy's only daughter, Caroline Kennedy, endorsed Barack Obama today in a NY Times op-ed piece titled A President Like My Father, the first time she has endorsed someone in a US presidential race since her uncle Ted Kennedy ran in 1980. All eyes will now be on the senator from Massachusetts, one of the Democratic political establishment's fence sitters, who is also known to have been very annoyed with the Clintons' attacking campaign tactics in recent weeks. Will Kennedy and other Democratic political establishment figures now begin to step up to the plate and endorse Obama?

Posted by: claffiteau | January 27, 2008 10:12 AM

Well it has been amusing but, unlike my sad little adversary, I do not live in a shelter and am not posting from a blue hippo community computer, therefor I do not have all day to respond to the ranting of an obvious lunatic! I have real legal work to do and a case to prepare for so without further ado, I will bid you reasonable people goodday!

Posted by: rayacop | January 27, 2008 10:10 AM

sdansker

Sure you were and while I and most others on this blog are laughing at you as you are getting you panties in a wad and throwing a hissy fit, you erroneous ASSumptions about me and delusions about yourself are irrelevant. Also nobody said you were black and my comment was in reference to blacks and their pseudo sympothizers, which obviously includes you. I realize you are in denial about your continued crack usage, just like Obama, but once again you cannot factually contest what I posted, which is the truth. Let me explain it to you in legal terms from a general perspective, you can claim all the false credentials you want but that will not change either the laws as they are written or the procederal rules. Keep hitting the pipe though because you are amusing!! By the way did you notice how I did not need to brag about my many and noteworthy credentials to make my point. Try doing that instead of relying on faulty and flawed argumentation!

Posted by: rayacop | January 27, 2008 10:00 AM

Hillary and Obama supporter need to chill out as far as devisive language is concerned. Fight each other, slam each other, but don't loose sight of the ultimate price.

It will Hillary Obama ticket. SC voter liked Obama but does not feel he is ready for Commander in Chief. He will be ready in 8 years as VP.

White voters are the mystery and ultimate outcome is unpredictable. But there is an interesting statistics from last night:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#SCDEM

Obama overall vote: 54%
Obama as C-in-C / Beating Republican: 46/48
Clinton overall vote: 27%
Clinton as C-in-C/ Beating Republican: 35/36

Therefore, a significant part of the voter in SC = (54-47)+(36-27)= 16% last night thought Obama was not the right person, but they voted for him for other reason. I know you are not an opinion person, but it does allow opportunity to try a hypothesis. RCP average showed Obama winning by 12%, but he ended up with 27% margin. Probably these "white" voters knew the right candidate, but did not like the tone or at least what the media projected or Hillary simply not spending time in SC ticked them. If this chunk is white, it will be devastating for Obama and Clintons have succeeded in making him the "black candidate".

Eight years will be enough for Obama to overcome the readiness issue.

God bless diverse America. and Razko for Obama money :-)

Posted by: SeedofChange | January 27, 2008 9:57 AM

rayacop: Uh, I was the chief of staff for the IL State Senate Chairman a few years ago. Again, you know nothing about IL, never lived there & have this THING about having to denegrate folks who actually have the temerity to point out a few facts. I'm white, and have met Obama many times. You know absolutely NOTHING about the man. These are facts. And I never smoked. I have no idea what your agenda is, but by your emails you really need to go to anger management. As to your election figures, they are realistic. So? I'm not refuting those. I'm just saying you don't know JACK about IL.

Posted by: sdansker2002 | January 27, 2008 9:50 AM

To timcinroy. I'm part of the over 60 group who won't vote for Obama. Military service was mandatory for those in my age group, mpst of us didn't enjoy it but saw it as our duty. Obama's abandonment of our sons and daughters in uniform smacks of treason. I served. My son serves in Afghanistan today. This lifelong democrat will vote for McCain if Obama takes the nomination.

Posted by: oldsemperfiguy | January 27, 2008 9:46 AM

sdansker

Hey twit and obviously no Genius my reference about the web-site was for those that wanted to verify the facts for themselves. I sincerely doubt you worked for the state senate there unless it was cleaning toilets and more importantly despite such assertions in a futile attampt to perpetrate an argumentative fallacy, you cannot dispute the truth of what I say. Why is it every time a black racist idiot or one of their pseudo sympothyzers, including Obama and his camp, is confronted with the truth they whine race or bigotry like a little bunch of babies? I am no such thing and suspect the true racists in this campaign are the people that cry out the words the most often! Sort of like when a person breaks wind and then asks who did it, or is that just Obama's breath we smell! Keep hitting that crack pipe though and deluding yourself. Perhaps Obama can hook you up with his connection!

Posted by: rayacop | January 27, 2008 9:41 AM

Of course the Republicans will keep the
White House next November. A backlash from
white America is coming. White America in
large majority, will never accept, at
least not for now, a black person as their
President. That's why the Republican
election machine is doing the impossible
to insure that Obama will be the
Democratic candidate in November.

Posted by: jeanhochu | January 27, 2008 9:40 AM

When the primaries initially started I was all Hillary Clinton...felt it was a predisposition she would get the Democratic nomination. Then I started following the activities. Obama changed my mind. I had forgotten what I expected in a leader. My thinking was win--no matter what--win. Eight years of this Republican administration helped me get to that point. Arrogance, trampling on truth and right,hurdling personal goals ahead of human rights and suffering and similar devastations. Hillary, in the beginning, had me thinking she could turn this around. But as the campaigning continued, Obama led me to think I could help him turn this around. He helped me realize I don't want a leader that just goes forth and battles wrongful, bad practices but someone who moves me to do the same thing. I was in between these two mindsets when the SC primary came along and that nailed it for me and it sipped in what I fundamentally want from a leader and from America. I want a leader with integrity and a willingness to listen to different positions and the ability to forge compromises for effectiveness and progress. A leader of moral purpose, intelligence and high-mindedness. Hillary let me down. Obama picked me up. Based on substance and principle, Obama caused me to change my original mindset. That's what I want the American President to be able to do--across the political spectrum.

Posted by: AgnerAJ2 | January 27, 2008 9:28 AM

rayacop: I worked in the IL Senate. Your knowledge of the IL Senate is totally dependent upon a cursory look at our website. Nice going, genius. BTW, I'm a Republican & definitely won't vote for Clinton, but MAY vote for Obama, if McCain isn't nominated. Put THAT into your prejudical head & smoke it.

Posted by: sdansker2002 | January 27, 2008 9:13 AM

A little history lesson for the Obaka idiots on here!

1988 election
Four years later, in 1988, Jackson once again offered himself as a candidate for the Democratic Party presidential nomination. This time, his successes in the past made him a more credible candidate, and he was both better financed and better organized. Although most people did not seem to believe he had a serious chance at winning, Jackson once again exceeded expectations as he more than doubled his previous results, prompting R.W. Apple of the New York Times to call 1988 "the Year of Jackson". [14]

He captured 6.9 million votes and won 11 contests; seven primaries (Alabama, the District of Columbia, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Puerto Rico and Virginia) and four caucuses (Delaware, Michigan, South Carolina and Vermont).[15]. Jackson also scored March victories in Alaska's caucuses and Texas's local conventions, despite losing the Texas primary.[1] [2] Some news accounts credit him with 13 wins. [3] Briefly, after he won 55% of the vote in the Michigan Democratic caucus, he was considered the frontrunner for the nomination, as he surpassed all the other candidates in total number of pledged delegates.

In early 1988, Jackson organized a rally at the former American Motors assembly plant in Kenosha, Wisconsin, approximately two weeks after new owner Chrysler announced it would close the plant by the end of the year. In his speech, Jackson spoke out against Chrysler's decision, stating "We have to put the focus on Kenosha, Wisconsin, as the place, here and now, where we draw the line to end economic violence!" and compared the workers' fight to that of the civil rights movement in Selma, Alabama. As a result, the UAW Local 72 union voted to endorse his candidacy, even against the rules of the UAW. (Dudley 1994) However, Jackson's campaign suffered a significant setback less than two weeks later when he was defeated handily in the Wisconsin primary by Michael Dukakis. Jackson's showing among white voters in Wisconsin was significantly higher than in his 1984 run, but was also noticeably lower than pre-primary polling had indicated it would be. The discrepancy has been cited as an example of the so-called "Bradley effect".[16]

Jackson's campaign had also been interrupted by allegations regarding his half-brother Noah Robinson, Jr.'s criminal activity.[17] Jackson had to answer frequent questions about his brother, who was often referred to as "the Billy Carter of the Jackson campaign". [18]

On the heels of Jackson's narrow loss to Dukakis the day before in Colorado, Dukakis' comfortable win in Wisconsin terminated Jackson's momentum. The victory established Dukakis as the clear Democratic frontrunner, and he went on to claim the party's nomination, but lose the general election in November.[19]

Obaka has won two states to Hillary's three so far, Counting Nichigan since their delegates will be seated at the convention and anyone that does not think so is truly politically naive. He will lose Florida big and almost all the big super Tuesday states. He is als behind in the delegate race if committed super delegates are counted by 78 delegates. The message is I would not get to bold and comfy if I were an Obaka supporter, which gladly I am not. It is not about race, it is about character and ability to lead, which Obaka is sadly deficient in both areas!

Posted by: rayacop | January 27, 2008 9:12 AM

Sorry for the typo. It should read what you or your fearful whining leader Obamarama keep trying to mislead people into believing! Feel free to yank your head out of your butt, it is blocking your perspective!

Posted by: rayacop | January 27, 2008 8:59 AM

If experience were the core issue then Bill Richardson and/or Joe Biden would be the front runner(s). Few have the depth and breadth of international and executive experience of Richardson. So we can put that old chestnut to rest. I will gladly vote for Hillary if she wins the primary. But, I am not unaware at what cost comes with that. Frank Rich is spot on. After 8 years of Bush, we are a nation not only more divided but unsure of what it means to be Americans and how that fits into a changing world. We can try to reach a consensus as a people or we can turn a cold civil war into a hot one. If we take the latter tack, I am not sure our liberal/progressive side will win. But one side would have to be beaten into submission. Obama offers the hope of avoiding that hot war. He is offering the same hope and change that Clinton did in 92 and that a Gov. Clinton would be running on today. As another, short resumed man from Illinois said, "a house divided against itself cannot stand." I am saying,"GIVE PEACE A CHANCE."

Posted by: anonquia | January 27, 2008 8:57 AM

sdansker

You need to quit smoking crack with Obama and the rest of his 85% black coalition and that way you will see through the man's outright lies. Present in the Illinois Senate does not mean what your or your fearful leader Obamarama keep tryng to mislead people into believing. Present voting means you have not taken a position on the matter and that is according to the state senate web-site. He won S.C. because he got 85% of the black vote in a state in which 60% of the voters were black. He only got 22% of the white vote. From a national perspective he is well behind in all the upcoming states and well behind in the racial makeup of all the upcoming contest which are more representative of the true racial dynamic of America in which over 60% of the population is white, 19% are Hispanic, and only 13% are Black. Since Hillary leads by 3-1 amoung Hispanic voters and by 65% - 35% amoung white voters over the age of forty, you Obaka idiots do the math. Wait put down your crack pipes first!

Posted by: rayacop | January 27, 2008 8:55 AM

It's interesting that although Obama has one almost all of the demographics or delivered very well...there is one demographic that is troubling ...he is not winning the older 60+ demographic...he only got 16%. This would be the sizable voting block that consistantly votes and turnsout in the general election. The media doesn't seem to focus on this, they would rather focus on Hillary only getting 17% of the African American vote.

Posted by: tmcinroy | January 27, 2008 8:33 AM

dear hillery and bill...with the writer's strike cutting off tv material there is an opportunity for you as a reality show - soap opera "The Clintons"

Posted by: mcdcl2 | January 27, 2008 8:33 AM

RE: The racially insensitive postcard from Bill

This postcard was part of the Hope, AR Chamber of Commerce's play on Hope being the home of the largest watermelons. The area has long been know for raising melons. In light of 2008 ethos, the card is insensitive, but reflects the culture of the 60s, countrywide.

Clintons are still bottom feeders and stuck on Arrogance.

"Arky"

Posted by: jwsoutherland | January 27, 2008 8:23 AM

Politicalpuck: Here's another case of Clinton propaganda, viz., the mischaracterization of the meaning of the PRESENT vote in Illinois. A quick check of IL Senate procedures shows that a PRESENT vote means you like the Bill but not all of it & you just want it to go back to Committee to reconsider. Either through abject stupidity or intentional misinformation, the Clinton campaign has characterized the vote as being uninvolved or chicken. Neither is the truth. This is another reason I will not vote for a Clinton EVER!

Posted by: sdansker2002 | January 27, 2008 8:23 AM

It's hard for me to fathom how the Obama crowd can frame getting slightly more than 20% of the white vote in S.C. an affirmation of a national voting coalition. More troubling is the media's coziness with the Obama camp. The media was also cozy with G.W. Bush in 2000. You could look up the level of coziness in Carville and Begala's book "Take it Back!"

There is much more to good government than giving a feel-good speech and hiding behind dozens of "present" votes while holding elective office. No Profile in Courage there.

Posted by: Politicalpuck | January 27, 2008 8:13 AM

Of course a Black man can win in America. Of course a woman can also win in America, but not Hillary who carries far too much old baggage from her "35-year experience" that includes such details as working for Goldwater, the Rose Law Firm, Whitewater, and Slick Willie, just to name a few.
Another woman, like Nancy Pelosi for example, could win hands down.

Posted by: dunnhaupt | January 27, 2008 8:12 AM

apologies I meant to type "Republicans aren't the enemy"

Posted by: boondoggle | January 27, 2008 7:48 AM

1) Dynasties are bad for democracies.
2) The Clintons appear to not be people of of high character (see Mr. Clinton's presidency, Hilary's cynical early support for the war, and the unnecessarily divisive campaigning).
3) Almost half the country finds them to be completely unacceptable.
4) The policies of all three candidates aren't significantly different.

I just feel that the Clinton's would divide our country in a time of war and recession and continue to impose a Rovian derisive political tone on an already disillusioned electorate.

Plus how cool would it be to feel inspired by an American leader? Lord knows it has been hard to feel good and hopeful about an American government since the maybe the first year of the Clinton presidency before the failed heath care, government shut down, the dysfunctional relationship between the political right and the left, Rwanda, impeachment hearings and then 8 years of Bush.

I could use a little inspiration. How cool, how transformative are the possibilities when Obama can win saying that Republican's are the enemy and his supporters chant "Race doesn't matter"?

The possibility of America being a better more unified place really excites me.

Go Obama!

Posted by: boondoggle | January 27, 2008 7:46 AM

White voters are the mystery and ultimate outcome is unpredictable. But there is an interesting statistics from last night:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#SCDEM

Obama overall vote: 54%
Obama as C-in-C / Beating Republican: 46/48
Clinton overall vote: 27%
Clinton as C-in-C/ Beating Republican: 35/36

Therefore, a significant part of the voter in SC = (54-47)+(36-27)= 16% last night thought Obama was not the right person, but they voted for him for other reason. I know you are not an opinion person, but it does allow opportunity to try a hypothesis. RCP average showed Obama winning by 12%, but he ended up with 27% margin. Probably these "white" voters knew the right candidate, but did not like the tone or at least what the media projected or Hillary simply not spending time in SC ticked them. If this chunk is white, it will be devastating for Obama and Clintons have succeded in making him the "black candidate".

"Black Obama" is not ready for Commander in Chief, that was the message of SC. But they voted with their heart.

Posted by: SeedofChange | January 27, 2008 7:42 AM

I would like to see one journalist have the nerve to describe Obama as white. He had a black, African-born father who died long ago, and was raised more by his white, Amrican-born mother, so can't he be described as much as white as black? To call him black or African-American since he is not pure white harkens back to practices that should have been long in our past. Besides, he is the only voter who can say (truthfully or not) that he understands both races.

Posted by: Sutter | January 27, 2008 7:34 AM


THEY USE SMEAR TACTICS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE ABOUT DRUGS AND ABORTION...

THEY USE LAWSUITS IN NEVADA AGAINST HISPANICS...

THEY USE ANGER IN SOUTH CAROLINA...

THEY WILL DO ANYTHING FOR POWER!!!!WELCOME TO THE CLINTONS WORLD!!!

HILLARY CLINTON OPPOSES ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS DRIVER'S LICENCE.

THIS MEANS THEY WILL HAVE TO DRIVE ILLEGALLY TO GO TO WORK!

THIS MEANS THEY CANT GET INSURANCE FOR THEIR CARS!

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-11-14-clinton-immigration_N.htm

Hilarious. Bill Clinton falls asleep at MLK celebration

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2008/01/clinton_gets_sleepy_at_mlk_day.php

CLINTON SAYS WE HAVE THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT BECAUSE LYNDON JOHNSON SIGNED IT.

GOLDWATER RAN A CAMPAIGN AGAINST JOHNSON...
SO WHY WAS SHE CAMPAIGNING FOR BARRY GOLDWATER WHO WAS AGAINST THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT???

BY THE WAY CHECK OUT BILL CLINTON'S RACIST POSTCARD HE SENT TO HIS GRANDMA IN 1966 DURING THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT.

http://serr8d.blogspot.com/2007/10/bill-clinton-racist-postcard-buy-it-now.html

Posted by: laplumelefirmament | January 27, 2008 6:58 AM

To the Robert Sandys of the world, you have just proven one of my points: Zealots are blind. The fact that the Clintons have been able to evade prosecution means they are slick, nothing more. The USA judicial system is easily manipulated, if you have enough money and competent lawyers. The proof is millions (and I mean millions) of criminals evade prosecution due to any number of factors. The Clintons are being blasted now not because of their past, but because of the PRESENT actions. How they run a campaign tells more about them than the unnamed evil Republican political machine that suppossedly distorts and vilifies them. No, Robert Sandy, it is you that can't see the forest for the trees. And that's MY truth.

Posted by: sdansker2002 | January 27, 2008 6:57 AM

It is very clear from the ridiculously inane comments to this article just how naive and unsophisticated the American electorate has become.

No one seems to remember how the right-wing war machine spent years hunting the Clintons, most of it at tax-payers expense. When all was said and done, and after seven years of effort, all Ken Starr and his associates managed to prove was infidelity and a husband who lied. If, after all of that treatment, the Clintons learned to play hardball then I am willing to grade them on a curve. Do not forget that these two people have been accused of murder, rape, drug-dealing, lesbianism, and tax evasion--among other things. Do any of you not realize that if the Clintons were guilty of nearly half the charges thrown at them they WOULD be in prison? Do you not realize that Ken Starr would have done ANYTHING to ensure that if he could?
So, this ridiculous and non-stop assault on the Clintons proves that the right-wing's effort to destroy actually works.

If Mr. Obama wins this primary he will be subject to the same push poll antics as were the Clintons. Within six-months half of America will be insisting that Barack Obama is a drug using, money-bilking, Islam supporting, terrorist who is going to allow total access to outside attack. I guarantee it...use your brains people!

The Clintons are not devils, particularly Hillary, who has always had more to recommend than her husband has. That is not to say that they are perfect, but NONE of these people are, not even Saint Barack.

I am going to vote for Hillary, but will vote for Mr. Obama in the general elections if he wins the nomination.

I can only hope that the rhetoric of these boards, so elevated and full of unresearched claims, will take it down a notch and begin a more reasoned and just level of debate. My one, and best, piece of advice for many of you (and I do not mean this condescendingly) is to not take every charge you find in the blogosphere with anything more than a grain of salt. I mean half of you spewing this crap prove beyond a doubt that you have a lesser ethical model than you claim the Clintons or any other politician has.

And that is the truth of it.

peace.

Robert Sandy

Posted by: robertsandy | January 27, 2008 6:31 AM

Good morning, all. Isn't it a brighter day now that Obama crushed the Clintons? How sweet it is! I forecast that unless Hillary concedes to Obama after 5 Feb, the Republicans will win the White House. Why? Well for one thing, the Democratic candidates will eviscerate each other to the point that nothing will be left. I'm not so sure that the same will happen between McCain & Romney, but with them you have the religious & flip-flopping issues, not the race & gender issues which to me are much more devisive lightening rods. I predict that unless Hillary bows out (which she definitely won't do), she will cause the Party to tear itself apart. It will be poetic justice, since they were the ones who touted themselves as the New Wave back in the 90's. They just can't let go of the ultimate prize, because they were deceived into thinking the road to the White House was a cake-walk. Little did they realize that because of their own history, they are their own worst enemies. Only the most ardent followers will vote for her in the general election should she get the nomination. It will be like South Carolina. Anyone wanna bet?

Posted by: sdansker2002 | January 27, 2008 6:14 AM

Watching this all along, I decided that our nominee will be whoever the majority of the media say our nominee will be (and I'm thinking particularly of cable news). They decided from day one that this race is between Saint Obama and the Devil(s) Incarnate, the Clintons. They fawn over Obama while trashing the Clintons. Even the "Billary" designation plays into that theme. Next time, we may as well just make Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzenzski our proxies and let them decide. As a 61-year-old woman, I'm stunned by how acceptable it still is to demean a woman while making even mild criticism of the black man intolerable.

Posted by: vdeputy.sheriff | January 27, 2008 5:05 AM

Is Robin retarded.

How does this experience myth continue to get so much play when it is so easily verified that for much of those "35 years" she wasn't doing much of anything.

And I'm sure the best way to keep alive the dream MLK had is through race-baiting and marginalizing the first viable black candidate by reducing him to a Jesse Jackson.

The only thing Bill has ever inspired is new uses for a stogie.

Give it up already. There is no point is wasting such an impassioned and eloquent schpeil on such a morally bankrupt couple.

Posted by: JosephPulitzer | January 27, 2008 4:31 AM

Is Robin retarded.

How does this experience myth continue to get so much play when it is so easily verified that for much of those "35 years" she wasn't doing much of anything.

And I'm sure the best way to keep alive the dream MLK had is through race-baiting and marginalizing the first viable black candidate by reducing him to a Jesse Jackson.

The only thing Bill has ever inspired is new uses for a stogie.

Give it up already. There is no point is wasting such an impassioned and eloquent schpeil on such a morally bankrupt couple.

Posted by: JosephPulitzer | January 27, 2008 4:25 AM

Is Robin retarded.

How does this experience myth continue to get so much play when it is so easily verified that for much of those "35 years" she wasn't doing much of anything.

And I'm sure the best way to keep alive the dream MLK had is through race-baiting and marginalizing the first viable black candidate by reducing him to a Jesse Jackson.

The only thing Bill has ever inspired is new uses for a stogie.

Give it up already. There is no point is wasting such an impassioned and eloquent schpeil on such a morally bankrupt couple.

Posted by: JosephPulitzer | January 27, 2008 4:20 AM

Obama has been steadily eating away at Clinton and this can be best seen or at least in one clear way via their web stats (Web page hits and Google Searches):

Hillary vs. Barack- the web battle stats:

http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=40

Posted by: davidmwe | January 27, 2008 3:38 AM

Robin, I appreciate the sincerity of your post. However, Hillary is inspiration for this life-long Democrat to vote Republican if she gets the nomination. It's not enough to make a vague claim of 35 years of experience, especially when your accomplishments are minor in comparison with your failures, failures like the health care debacle and the support of the Iraq war. It's nice to talk about getting things done, but what little we've seen of Hillary's record suggests colossal and habitual failures of jugdment.

That was enough for me to not support her in the primary, although I still intended to support her in the general election as of about a week ago.

But, over the last few days, it's become obvious that the Clintons -- let's face it, we're electing him along with her -- simply don't have a sense of decency. I believe in the importance of honesty and fairness in elections, and the Clintons do not. I believe that it's wrong to inflame racial divides in America, but the Clintons apparently do not (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qqd2dfjl2pw for one of several examples). I believe that there's more to an election than just winning. The Clintons don't.

Because I have such deep reservations about how the Clintons have campaigned, I'll be unable to support them in a general election. I'd rather stay home than vote for a candidate who I don't respect and don't trust.

Posted by: davestickler | January 27, 2008 3:12 AM

This is an honest and admirable piece Ms. Robin Davidson. Thanks.

Posted by: teak1 | January 27, 2008 3:07 AM

Robin Davidson writes an impassioned but outdated argument for Hillary Clinton. The points made only underscore why Clinton represents the past and Obama the future not only of the Democratic party but more importantly the country.
The self centered tactics used by the Clinton campaign to try to diminish Obama have been pathetic and smack of the worst in all of us. And as Democrats we should all see that this only benefits the Clinton team and not the party or the country.
Hillary may win the nomination but at what cost? It will not help get the Democrats elected to congress, the Senate or retake the White House in 08. But the only two people it benefits are the Clintons who will be given a chance to win.
The worst about all of this is that the Clintons knew they could employ these tactics because of all of the good will they had generated within the African American community. And they abused that affinity and loyalty. What they have not counted on is the overwhelming disgust and negative reaction their campaign has generated among WHITE Democrats who were inclined to support her candidacy(writer included). That support is falling away with every day that the Bill and Hill show continues the Gerry Springer show long after that show was canceled.
She may win the nomination but it will be because her husband dragged her across the finish line. Very inspiring and a real image of post modern feminism. Congratulations...no wonder younger women are not relating to this dynamic. They see this yet older women do not.
Democrats are better than this. The rest of us are waking up to this fact and the Clintons are still stuck in 1998.

Posted by: awg1967 | January 27, 2008 3:02 AM

Robin, If all we were hearing from the Clintons was the kind of positive, thoughtful message you just posted, many voters and commentators would be taking a completely different attitude. I don't remember well, but I'm told that when Bill ran for president he was considered someone new and visionary for the Democratic party. Nothing has been new or visionary about this current campaign. I think (like you, speaking as a private citizen) that there are other "stories" Hillary Clinton could have run on that would have resonated better with the American people. The choice she made to run on, emphasizing unverifiable experience, a dismissive attitude toward the other candidates, knee-jerk hatred of all Republicans and the argument that it was her turn looks to me like a strategy crafted by yes-men. Then when all that didn't work well in Iowa the Clintons went negative big time.
I'm glad Clinton inspires you and I wanted to be inspired by her myself. It just hasn't happened.

Posted by: ViejitaDelOeste | January 27, 2008 3:00 AM

I am deeply sadden by Caroline's endorsement of Senator Obama. I understand that she feels he is inspiring, but what we need now is more than just inspiration.

I have to wonder if Caroline would have endorsed Senator Obama, if Jackie Kennedy Onassis was still alive. Jackie was very fond of the Clinton's stating how Bill and his visions reminded her of her husband. Jackie was a friend to Hillary often sharing stories of raising children in such a public eye.

Upon her death, John F Kennedy,Jr. sent the Clinton's a hand written letter that said " I wanted you both to understand how much your burgeoning friendship with my mother meant to her. Since she left Washington I believe she resisted ever connecting with it emotionally-or the institutional demands of being a former First Lady. It had much to do with the memories stirred and her desires to resist being cast in a lifelong role that didn't quite fit. However, she seemed pro fondly happy and relived to allow herself to reconnect with it through you. It helped her in a profound way- whether it was discussing the perils of raising children in those circumstances or perhaps it was the many similarities between your presidency and my fathers".

It appears that the Clinton's not only inspired a nation, but also a former First Lady. Though I respect Caroline's decision to talk of Obama's inspiration and his great work in Chicago. It still does not take away from the facts, that his "resume" comes up short!!! Americans need more than inspiration after the Bush administration.

Americans need a proven leader who has traveled the "World" building relationships with foreign leaders. We need someone who has dedicated their entire adult life to helping the under privileged in our Country. Someone who has fought for civil, human and yes, woman's rights. Not only here in America but across the globe. We need a proven voice that can reach out across party lines. We need someone who is battle tested. We need change for our failing economy. We need universal heathcare. We need jobs. We need to focus on our energy crisis. We need "our" men and woman home. Americans need a leader. Americans need Hillary Clinton!

Though Obama is a beautifully spoken and inspiring gentleman. I am inspired by the years of hard work and dedication that Hillary brings to the table. Kitchen table at that! I am inspired by her ability to stand strong during the media's continuous bias. I am inspired by a woman who has been fighting for American since before I was born. I am inspired by her continued wiliness to make America better to help make Martin Luther King Jr. dreams a reality. The speeches she heard LIVE all those years ago when segregation was thought to be impossible there stood in Chicago a very young white girl, on a mission to learn and help. Hillary has dedicate her life to a cause so great it has empowered her during some of the toughest times. When most would have given in, she stands to fight for us again and again. That to me, is inspiration. Hillary Rodham Clinton is an inspiration to many Americans and Many Woman all over the WORLD!!!

Today I am endorsing Hillary Clinton. My voice is only one and I am not famous. I will not be on front pages of the dailies across the Country. I am not a Kennedy who swam along side of Chelsea, with her Mom and Bill and Hillary at Menemsha Harbor. I am not
"a perceptive friend and role model to Chelsea", as Caroline Kennedy was regarded.

I am an American endorsing the only other American running who is qualified to lead and passionate enough to never forget us.

I am an Inspired American from Kentucky and I am proud to endorse, support and volunteer for the 44th President of the United States, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

My name is Robin Davidson and I not only approve this message, but I wrote it.

Posted by: robinrealtor27 | January 27, 2008 2:34 AM

Well I spoke to quite a few of my friends in South Carolina. Almost all of the 15 people I spoke to were white except for 2. The message I got war more or less unanimous. All except 3 voted for Obama. Most of them were really tired of Bill Clinton. They wanted to vote for Hillary a few weeks ago. But the constant onslaught of Bill campaigning for Hillary was too much for them. Any message they wanted to hear from Hillary's mouth was coming from Bill's mouth instead. That put them in a tough situation to figure out whether Hillary can actually lead this country with out Bill's help. Their vote shows that they really doubt Hillary could be a leader with out Bill.

Hillary's past was shrouded by Bill until she went to New York to become a senator. Now Bill is back casting an even bigger shadow on her. If Hillary gets elected this country would make history in many ways.

1) First woman president
2) First puppet president
3) First third term for an ex-president

Out of these Hillary will always be considered as a puppet whose strings are constantly pulled by Bill. Bill will run the country, while sending paperwork to Hillary's desk to be signed. That is not the type of leadership we expect from a first woman president.

Obama on the other hand has been a lightning rod for the younger generation, with his charisma and no non-sense campaign.

Posted by: MaryHiggins1 | January 27, 2008 2:06 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2009 The Washington Post Company