The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Archives

Morning Cheat Sheet

Bill Low-Keys It in Denver


Bill and Chelsea Clinton in Denver. (AP).

By Peter Baker
DENVER -- If Hillary Rodham Clinton really did tell her husband to stop attacking Barack Obama, she evidently didn't say anything about stalking.

Just hours after Obama packed the basketball arena at the University of Denver yesterday, Bill Clinton showed up at the same stadium to pitch his wife to many of the same students under the same jumbotron, introduced by the same mayor.

The former president didn't exactly pack them in the way the Illinois senator did earlier in the day. About 9,000 people jammed Magness Arena to see Obama and thousands more gathered in the gymnasium and the lacrosse field. Obama spent time visiting the overflow crowds before even heading into the main event. By contrast, the arena wasn't even half full by the time Clinton showed up in the evening, though he wasn't helped by a sudden snowstorm that dumped a couple inches and made local roads treacherous.

During his appearance, Obama turned Bill Clinton's 1996 reelection slogan around on him by saying it was not enough to "simply turn back the clock, and to build a bridge back to the 20th century." But the former president did not rise to the bait, staying on good behavior as he has in recent days and eschewing the sort of angry outbursts that drew so much backlash among Democrats. Still, he did essentially give the Denver students and their parents and neighbors a rebuttal of what they had heard earlier in the day.

"The issue is not experience versus change," he said. "The issue is who can make change in your lives." He added: "You have to decide who is the best changemaker...and she is the best changemaker that I have ever known."

Clinton saved his ire for a couple hecklers in the audience who shouted at him about investigating what really happened on Sept. 11, 2001. "Are you one of those it-was-an-inside-jobs?" he demanded, his eyes flaring. "Nine-eleven was not an inside job...Nineteen people from Saudi Arabia, they murdered 3,000 Americans, including 200 other Muslims and we look like idiots, folks" to engage in conspiracy theories.

The Clinton camp is dispatching the former president to some of the lower-priority states while the New York senator focuses on some of the key battlegrounds, such as California. Over the last few days, Bill Clinton has hit colleges or other sites in Brentwood, N.J., Cleveland, Edwardsville, Ill., and Norman, Okla. Today he heads to Albuquerque, N.M., and Tempe, Ariz., while his wife debates Obama in Los Angeles.

Posted at 5:45 AM ET on Jan 31, 2008  | Category:  Morning Cheat Sheet
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Previous: Obama Amps It Up | Next: A Clinton Corner in Obama's Home Town


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.



those obama supporters must stop writing hate comments...so mu7ch about civil rights and equality, honestly doing no good to their candidate. Really lovely to see Bill Clinton and his daughter supporting his wife, taking the heat, and campaigning for her. Obama.s wife is doing the same, why not Hilary.s husband. Obama camp just twist her words and his words. What.s most shocking is sexism is tolerated, and openly applauded, but racism is a taboo if directed apparently or likely or vaguely against black. One way taboo is unacceptable either from supporters or the media. Race card seems to be acceptable is only used in fabour of the black, but not the other way round...this comment comes from a person of colour for god sake...

Posted by: Cook1 | February 2, 2008 1:56 PM

This may be a repeat, skeptic421, because I haven't seen my reply to you show up on the comments so I will simply post the link to the Atlantic article on Obama that you should read. Thanks for your comments and willingness to look at the other side:


Shortcut to: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/obama

Posted by: Omyobama | January 31, 2008 3:28 PM

OmyObama --

That's hardly convincing. Talk about selective facts! Where is Clinton's record on health care? She's been a leader in supporting programs for children and families, but you have nothing in there. . . Of course you don't, since you're still mostly slamming Cliton while providing little substance about Obama. You just proved my point.

Here's my counter for you, since you just opened yourself up to it. And I am going to include an attack on his character (or at least on the faith people have in his character), since I've read so many on Clinton. The guy seems likable (enough), but I am not certain he's above politics in the way that his supporters want to believe. . .

My reading of what little coverage of Obama's record I can find is that he spent most of his time in Illinois and nearly all of his time in the US senate trying to run for the presidency. He spent only 4 years in the IL State Senate before he tried to run for the US Congress (failed his first attempt). While in the IL senate, he seems to have been an average legislator -- nothing big to lay claim to. He worked on some bipartisan issues -- especially campaign finance -- but mostly that was handed to him as a favor by the head of the IL senate. Some of his colleagues in the IL legislature have stated (anonymously, of course) that he may have been able to do bigger and better things if he hadn't been trying so hard to get out of Illinois. . .

After seven years in the IL senate, Obama finally got to the US congress. Since there, he's been less than impressive. He's Obama's missed tons of US Senate votes (including key ones on Iran and on children's health insurance) and done essentially nothing of substance while there, largely because he's been campaigning for the Presidency the whole time.

To add to all of this, the guys writes two books ABOUT HIMSELF -- one as he's launching a bid for state senate and the other one as he's starting to plan for the presidential campaign. Does this sound like someone who is only running for president because he wants to change the tone? He's been planning this for a long long time, and I'm not talking about his kindergarten report . . .

There's my character attack. People should really question whether he's exactly what they think he is. I think he's a politician -- and that's okay by me -- but that might be off-putting to those who think he's above the fray.

I would urge folks who want to review Hillary's record to look at the Atlantic article on her from last summer (I believe). She showed exactly the opposite traits that her detractors claim of her: humility, ability to work with the other side, willingness to learn from her mistakes in the 90s. It's a fairly balanced portrayel, and certainly not all positive. I've yet to see anything of comparable depth on Obama. I would love to see it, since maybe it would convince me there was more to him.

Posted by: skeptic421 | January 31, 2008 2:52 PM

How typically low class -- Obama gets one of his biggest crowds, most inspiring speeches and Hillary sends Bill in to try to steal his thunder (but gets egg in the face instead). It's just like the Kennedy endorsement -- Ted and Caroline Kennedy had been uncommitted and actively sought by all the candidates. When they decide on their endorsements (news) Hillary parades out Bobby's 3 kids who have been campaigning for her since last year (NOT news) and acts like that's some new development and gets them to write an op-ed in the LA Times (you should read it -- it congratulates Mrs. Clinton for being a brawling street-fighter, I am not kidding). I am an Obama fan and skeptic 421, I agree Obama's fans should use more talking points. So here are a few for you to digest, which I am quoting from a NY Times blogger:

It's because of the quality of their characters. A person's character is shaped and tested by their experiences which is why our next President's character should matter as much if not more than their experience.

1969 - While Barack Obama was being raised by a single mother and experiencing a life of racial and cultural diversity, Hillary Clinton was learning the art of triangulation and writing an admiring college thesis on Saul Alinsky whose fifth rule of political agitation was, "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon."

1979 - While Barack Obama was actively involved in the South African divestment movement to end apartheid, Hillary was reaping profits of almost 10,000% in the futures markets and leaving taxpayers with her real-estate losses in the Savings & Loan bailout.

1989 - While Barack Obama served as the Harvard Law Review's first black president in its 104 year history, Hillary Clinton then wife of the Arkansas governor was receiving payments from a law firm that was doing the state's business and receiving board of director payments from Wal-Mart where she remained silent about Wal-Mart's anti-labor union practices.

1999 - While Barack Obama was securing bipartisan support for health-care reform and passage of low-income tax credits and child care subsidies in the Illinois legislature, Hillary Clinton was urging her husband to bomb Yugoslavia and supporting his Iraq "regime change" policy in order to divert public attention from the president's marital, legal and ethical infidelities.

2007 - While Barack was promoting a restoration of balance between work and wealth and criticizing special interests for distorting U.S. tax codes, Hillary and her husband were liquidating their blind trust of the nearly $50 million amassed during their years in public office.

The U.S. needs a uniter not a divider for President as the global economy teeters on the brink of economic meltdown not unlike the Great Depression.

Afterall the Roaring Twenties decade that preceded the Great Depression, like the Irrational Nineties that preceded our current decade, were both a golden age for technology, scandal-plagued politicians, corporate greed, and unrestrained personal debt and speculation.


Posted by: Omyobama | January 31, 2008 2:22 PM

ASinMoCo --

I appreciate your requests for people to keep it civil. In fact, most of the Obama supporters in my social network are nowhere near this harsh (though they still slam Hillary most of the time I talk with them). And I agree that not all the Hillary supporters in this group -- or in general -- are civil. I too have seen Hotnukes' comments and been uttery appalled.

But the thing that has turned me so far against Obama is that I would say the majority of supporters I've come across online (and in person) make these sorts of comments about Hillary. They seems to spend more time running against Hillary than they are running *FOR* Obama. With the exception of their claims about his ability to change the dynamic, which no one really has any solid evidence of for any of the candidates, they have nothing to say that makes me inclined to vote FOR Obama. They're too busy telling me why I should vote AGAINST Hillary.

Like it or not, most progressives would agree that Hillary has done a lot of good things for this country, I have a hard time buying the argument that she's the devil.

Maybe you should give some of your cohort some convincing talking points about Obama's strengths (I could write some myself), so they're aren't stuck trying to make him win by taking down Hillary. I have been active in politics for years, and this is truly the most divisive community I've come across.

Posted by: skeptic421 | January 31, 2008 1:41 PM

icr7 -- I think it's a bit presumptuous to suggest that those who are rational and use research will inevitably support Obama.
In fact, some of your conclusions from your research strike me as naive. For one, Obama didn't write those policy papers on his website (surprise, surprise). I even know some of the folks writing them for him -- just like the other candidates have folks writing them for them

There are rational, intelligent, well-researched reasons to vote for Hillary, as well. It is foolish to think that one candidate has a monopoly on strengths and the other presents only weaknesses.

Certainly, when you talk about policy positions, Hillary is far more specific and intelligent when speaking -- off the cuff -- about policy issues. Obama seems less sure-footed, and it's only in his policy statements (again, not written by him) that I've seen anything really strong. In fact, that's the primary reason I started leaning toward Hillary.

She's got downsides, of course. Concerns about electability are at the forefront if my mind. But one shouldn't be so confident that Obama -- with little to run on other than opposition to the war -- will fare so well against McCain, who has FAR more exerience. With the small percentage of voters still obsessing why we ever got into Iraq, yes he'll do fine. But most voters are concerned about more than that. When it comes to the economy (the number 1 issue), Hillary's talk is much more impressive than Obama's. LUckily, McCain is worse than Obama, so Obama may be able to beat him anyway. But Obama is going to look REALLY inexperienced against McCain. His only major legislative achievement -- campaign finance in IL -- looks ridiculous next to McCain's work. And he doesn't have much else. Even though Hillary didn't succeed in getting national healthcare, I think there's a reasonable argument to be made that we wouldn't be talking about it if she hadn't tried. And we wouldn't have the SCHIP program without her.

If Obama wins, I will support him. I have read his books, even donated money to his campaign at one time. But his current supporter need to wake up. Obama has yet to have a serious candidacy in which he was really scrutinized and tested. When the media wake up from this fairytale they're living in (and no, I do not mean because he's black), he's going to face a lot more scrutiny. And the Republicans will be out for blood. We truly have no idea how he will handle those situations, and I for one am not so confident.

Posted by: skeptic421 | January 31, 2008 1:33 PM

barb.vanhaute there is a lot of difference between $31 million over 2 years than being able to negotiate a discount for your home because you have known some one over 15 years. Do you know all the business dealings of all your friends. Are you sure that all the people that you interact today will not at some point in the future be investigated by the police or FBI. The real difference betwenn the Clintons And Barak Obama is that the Clintons have a history of this going back 35 years. That is the real experience that Hillary Clinton will bring to the Presidecy, 'from day one'.

Posted by: Brit009 | January 31, 2008 1:27 PM

Seedofchange how much are you being paid as a clinton staffer?

Posted by: Brit009 | January 31, 2008 1:11 PM

After reader the NYT article, it seems a bit overboard for Obama supporters to fear that WP is somehow shielding its readers from the 'real' dirt on Bill Clinton. Just to update those who suffer from this 'fear', global economics is often influenced by social connections. Perhaps if some of you bothered to look into 'connections' analyis you'd find a very popular tool used by sociologists, economists, and the intelligence community called social networking analysis.

Try it sometime. Doing so might provide you with the opportunity to understand more clearly the important differences between Obama/Rezko dealings over a 15 year period and Clinton/Giustra meetings over a period of 2 years.

Posted by: barb.vanhaute | January 31, 2008 1:07 PM

seedofchange(NOT!), there is a nytimes.com article of Bill's recent dealings with some Canadian mining moguls doing urainium deals in Kazakhstan with Bill's connections and help. Now that former Soviet Republic is one of the most ruthless states on the planet and allows zero dissent from its citizens. These same Canadian mogels gave the Bill Clinton Foundation US$31.3M and pledged to give the foundation another US$100M. Nice of them, right.

Well, being that you know how the game is played, no one gives you that kind of money from an altruistic motive; they want something. It's like the godfather who performs a favor but expects that favor to be returned with no refusal. Hillary knows too, according to you, how to play the game. The moguls want access and their "donations" to Bill's foundation gives them seats at the table. Do you think for a moment they will be denied access and whatever favor they call on Hillary through Bill?

If there is anything to Obama/Rezko thing, we'll know soon enough. But know this: the White House is for sale by the Clintons well before HRC takes the oath of office.

Posted by: meldupree | January 31, 2008 11:39 AM

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Just google "Clinton convicts" and see the results. That is the legacy of the Clintons from the 90s. Are we that short of leaders in this country of 300 million people, that we have to be continued to be ruled by 2 families - Bushes and Clintons?. Vote to reject the Clinton-Bush dynasty. Vote McCain, Vote Obama, Vote Romney

Save our country from the political stranglehold of these two families. We do not have a monarchy system of government. Who next after Hillary - Jeb Bush, then Chelsea Clinton?

Posted by: ezboy03 | January 31, 2008 11:35 AM

there isn't anything that obama are big media could say that would diminish my respect for president clinton or sen. clinton. the more obama and big media attack their stupendous record of service, the more many voters realize that the clinton's are being wronged.

we will vote for what we know to be true and not obama's sleek but empty speeches.

thank you president clinton!
hillary clinton for president!

Posted by: mikel1 | January 31, 2008 10:44 AM

Why is WaPo sitting on this HUGE Story about the Clintons currently being carried as the Lead on the Front PAge of the New York Times?????? Are you TRYING to get Hillary past the California Debates, have it lost over the weekend before Super Tuesday??? You are backpedaling from similar Isikoff Piece in Newsweek, a WaPo afilliate!!!!!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html?hp

""""After Mining Deal, Financier Donated to Clinton Charity
By JO BECKER and DON VAN NATTA Jr.

A Canadian financier who traveled to Kazakhstan with Bill Clinton and won a big mining deal later donated millions to Mr. Clinton's charitable foundation.......

Within two days, corporate records show that Mr. Giustra also came up a winner when his company signed preliminary agreements giving it the right to buy into three uranium projects controlled by Kazakhstan's state-owned uranium agency, Kazatomprom.

The monster deal stunned the mining industry, turning an unknown shell company into one of the world's largest uranium producers in a transaction ultimately worth tens of millions of dollars to Mr. Giustra, analysts said.

Just months after the Kazakh pact was finalized, Mr. Clinton's charitable foundation received its own windfall: a $31.3 million donation from Mr. Giustra that had remained a secret until he acknowledged it last month. The gift, combined with Mr. Giustra's more recent and public pledge to give the William J. Clinton Foundation an additional $100 million,........."""

MSNBC has Picked it up...What's going on WaPo????? Are you Backpedalling from Isikoffs Piece in Newsweek ???A re you trying to get Hillary Past the California Primary.????


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22926743/

Posted by: fugeddabowdid | January 31, 2008 10:42 AM

Bill certainly does want to win, but as more news comes out about his shady dealings, I think he will only continue to hurt Hillary -- see the recent headline story in the NY Times on his dealings with mining kingpin Frank Giustra and his very questionable statements about human rights in Kazakhistan.


With things like this constantly percolating into the news, Clinton fatigue seems to to be headed towards CCFS -- Chronic Clinton Fatigue Syndrome...

Posted by: hermanSF | January 31, 2008 10:41 AM

To be sure Barak Obama has won the youth vote as expressed here by so many ardent yes votes that use the internet the most to communicate.

But to be sure that the point is not over-looked about Obama's current voters who are mostly black so far attributing to his primary wins - the Feb 5th "SUPER VOTE" more diverse racial mix of voters across America will most likely put a screeching halt to the Obama unbridled supporter enthusiasm when the math becomes evident his inexperience and great speeches - he can't win.

Stop your winning about Clinton campaign two-fers or the campaign interjecting this or that.

First-time voters aren't used to all-out politics, but if at the end everyone supports the candidate destined to beat the selfish Republican candidate whoever it is that will represent ALL The American People... then the democrats will win in 08!

Posted by: danglingwrangler | January 31, 2008 10:27 AM

Why is the WP so virulently Anti-Clinton?

Where is their sense of outrage about Bush/Cheney????

Posted by: svreader | January 31, 2008 10:20 AM

vishalg_99: I have written a number of posts asking Obama supporters (and everyone else) to keep it civil. But at some point, I just realized that there are people on all sides of these arguments that will resort to the lowest form of discourse. It is completely disingenuous to only call out the Obama supporters that do it, though. Have you ever seen hotnuke's pro-Clinton/anti-Obama posts? talk about hateful vitriol.

I am supporting Obama because I do believe he can raise the tone of the discourse in this country. Yes, he has made a couple of statements that go against that, but VERY few. I think the attacks coming from the Clinton camp have been much more numerous and much more offensive. That is what I have seen.

But what the heck: calling all Obama supporters-please don't post attacks based on anything other than political records! We've got ourselves a great candidate with good ideas and a new kind of politics. let's follow his lead.

:)

Posted by: ASinMoCo | January 31, 2008 10:17 AM

I don't think the media has been fair when it comes to the Clinton. To put a spin on the true statements made by Bill is unfair. Hillery all the way..

Posted by: charris780 | January 31, 2008 10:11 AM

My wife and I were staunch Clinton supporters but their cynical use of race has pushed us into the Obama camp. Our thoughts more fully expressed on the blog:

http://newpoliticos.blogspot.com

Posted by: shafqat.a.khan | January 31, 2008 10:04 AM

What I don't get about so many Hill supporters is that they argue that Barak hasn't stood for anything. I'm sorry, but are you kidding me!! Barak famously stood against the war, when it was completely politically toxic to do so. Everyone in the country was salivating for revenge regarding 9/11, rightly or wrongly. I am an independent, but I can't deny it took an awful lot of courage to say the war was wrong at that time, and that's exactly what Barak said. Say what you will, but that fact is irrefutable.

Also, I've tried to be as neutrual as possible and research the candidates. I went to Obama's website, and I was shocked to see how substantive it was. After reading it, I realized that all these, "BO is hot air" comments are simply talking points designed to confuse the naive. I believed it for awhile, and then I started researching. In reality that's far from the truth. BO's positions are principled and extremely well thought out. For example, look at his positions on the foreclosure crisis - its compelling. Moreover, BO's stimulus package puts more money directly in the hands of middle class citizens faster than anyone else's, which most economists agree is the best way to stave of this looming recession. Also look at his health care proposal - the majority of American don't want mandates, they want cheaper health care. This is more in tune with my own sense of living in a Democracy and free choice.

Also, what doesn't make sense to me is how Hillary is seen as more competitive against Mcain. That's almost laughable. If you disagree, just look at a google search of all the legislation Mcain and Hillary have co-authored. Or do an issue by issue comparison.

Obama cleary presents the best contrast to Mcain out of the remaining candidates. For example, Mcain for the war - Obama against it. Hillary will get slaughtered on this issue. Inevitably, she'll be labled a filp-flopper because she switched position based on political convenience.

If you consider these points, research and use reason, I think you will come to the realization, as I have, that Obama presentes the best option of beating Mcain in November if you want a Democratic president.

Posted by: icr7 | January 31, 2008 9:44 AM

I'm trying to think of a less informative, pettier, more vacuous and trivial way this event could have been "reported" and I'm coming up empty. Mr Baker has, as usual, achieved maximum insult to the ideals and ethics of journalism. Good show, sir!

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

Consider these facts: During 8-years of Clintons presidency; al-Qaeda took birth, got stronger and attacked us three times i.e. February 26, 1993 bombing on World Trade Center; August 7, 1998 bombing on US embassies in Africa; and October 12, 2000 bombing on USS Cole in Yemen. Clintons' lukewarm response to these attacks emboldened al-Qaeda who hit us again on September 11, 2001.

Also, Pakistan became nuclear power during Clintons presidency i.e. Pakistan tested its nuclear bomb on May 28, 1998.

After knowing these facts, do you feel safe if Clintons are back in the White House?

Posted by: mac789us | January 31, 2008 9:20 AM

Obama and Tony Rezko long term relationship:

The TRUTH about the SLUMLORD comment

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.article

"Over the years, REZKO, Mahru, their wives and businesses have given more than $50,000 TO OBAMA'S CAMPAIGN FUNDS, records show. And REZKO HAS HELPED RAISE MILLIONS MORE.


REZKO WAS AMONG THE PEOPLE OBAMA APPOINTED TO SERVE ON HIS U.S. SENATE CAMPAIGN FINANCE COMMITTEE, the Sun-Times reported in 2003. The committee raised more than $14 million, according to Federal Election Commission records, helping send Obama to Washington in 2004.

As a U.S. senator, Obama grew closer to Rezko.

Two years ago, Obama bought a mansion on the South Side, in the Kenwood neighborhood, from a doctor. On the same day, Rezko's wife, Rita Rezko, bought the vacant lot next door from the same seller. The doctor had listed the properties for sale together. He sold the house to Obama for $300,000 below the asking price. The doctor got his asking price on the lot from Rezko's wife.

Last year, Rita Rezko sold a strip of that vacant lot to Obama for $104,500 -- a deal Obama later apologized for, acknowledging that PEOPLE MIGHT THINK he got a favor from Rezko."

Posted by: SeedofChange | January 31, 2008 9:14 AM

nicekid, Up until last week I was going to vote for Obama in the general elections at least but the way you all have gone about demeaning and destroying Bill Clinton. No way, not in this lifetime. And let me tell you, there are a lot of Democrats like me. I talk to them.

Posted by: vishalg_99 | January 31, 2008 9:02 AM

Look at the disgusting vitriol of people like laplumelefirmament. Is this how people infected by the hopeful, change virus of Obama look like? Does anyone of fundamental human decency talk this? I have not seen one Obama supporter ask this high class, top notch moron to desist from such slander. Yesterday, Bill Clinton was Blacker than Black, the first Black President and today he is racist?! The anger I feel makes me truly realize how Bill was baited into this race issue. If I were once so beloved in a community and were being thrown to the sharks now because the community has it's own candidate, I would be seething mad too.

Posted by: vishalg_99 | January 31, 2008 8:58 AM

I'm a big fan of Obama and would love for him to win the nomination. I wish we had someone like him trying to make a difference here in Britain. BUT...

I really don't understand the hatred of Bill Clinton at times. Sure, he's been "playing" Obama a little, before Nevada and after, but it's all in the game.

Hillary- that's another story. But lay off Bill, he's playing the game with the hand that was dealt him.

I'm jealous of Americans for their choice here, between the clinton juggernaught, the Obama phenomenon, and (until recently), a very decent, heartfelt campaign by Edwards. You Democrats should be proud of that. I hope you can all come round the candidate who wins.

Posted by: henni.ouahes | January 31, 2008 8:58 AM

I agree with others about the Washington Post's spin on things. I have been watching closely, and just about every day there is an article focused on one Clinton or another with a strongly negative focus (usually far worse than this one, though this one wasn't totally balanced). You'd think they'd try to balance out their columnists a little more. Barack gets far less coverage, but it tends to be either neutral or positive. And they have never had any detailed coverage of Barack's record, so I am at a loss there.

As someone trying to make an important decision on who to elect, I've given up on the Post as a valid source of information for the Dems at least. It's laughable.

Posted by: skeptic421 | January 31, 2008 8:55 AM

The media has yet to notice but New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida put an end to the notion that Hillary Clinton is divisive. Indeed, it appears Mrs. Clinton is the uniter and Barack Obama is the divisive candidate.

While Obama handily won the black vote, Mrs. Clinton received the white, Hispanic and Asian vote. She thus unites; he divides. Obama becomes the official black candidate while Mrs. Clinton represents a broad coalition of the rest of the Democratic electorate. Blacks, of course, can be expected to join once she nails the nomination.

Posted by: ram9478 | January 31, 2008 8:27 AM

There doesn't seem to be any news here. You seem to be trying to sway voters. Is that your mission? Peter, are you a Republican. You certainly sound like one. Let's have more reporting of the news and less trying to make the news please.

Posted by: hazwalnut | January 31, 2008 8:25 AM

Is it possible for the Washington Post to publish an item without using hate speech against the Clintons? Using the word "stalking" to describe Bill Clinton speaking in the same place that Obama spoke earlier is a deliberate attempt at slander.

Posted by: ichief | January 31, 2008 8:11 AM


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

THEY USE SCARE TACTICS IN IOWA AGAINST STUDENTS...

THEY USE RACE CARD AGAINST BLACKS IN SOUTH CAROLINA...

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!!!

Posted by: laplumelefirmament | January 31, 2008 8:04 AM

Up until last week, I wasn't going to vote for either Clinton or Obama, but Bill Clinton made up my mind...to vote for Obama.

Posted by: nicekid | January 31, 2008 7:56 AM

Looks like he got the memo that this is Hillary's campaign - not a two-fer deal.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: parkerfl | January 31, 2008 7:33 AM

Bill must really want to get into the White House again. With web stats (the web hits figure is where Obama is really winning) like this, Hillary will have some work to do:

http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=43

Posted by: davidmwe | January 31, 2008 7:12 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2009 The Washington Post Company