Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Dartmouth Students Walk Out on Bill

By Jose Antonio Vargas
HANOVER, N.H. -- About thirty minutes into Bill Clinton's nearly two-hour stop here at Dartmouth College, a steady stream of students started walking out of the venue.

Moments later, Clinton -- his voice hoarse, sometimes cracking -- took arguably the toughest question of the night, courtesy of a tall, blond 19-year old freshman wearing a bright red sweater. "My main concern is, if Hillary were elected, it would create a dynastification of American politics. Bush, Clinton, Bush. What do you think?" asked Sebastian Ramirez, standing less than a hundred feet from the former president.

Clinton responded, to rolling laughter across the room, "I'm not responsible for the 12 years that the American people gave to the Bushes." He continued: "I actually tried to talk Hillary into leaving me when we were in law school, that's the God's truth. I told her, 'You have more talent for public service than anybody in my generation that I have met... I shouldn't stand in your way.' She looked at me and said, 'Oh, Bill, I'll never run for office.'"

That got a few cheers from the crowd of about 600, most of them students, with their backpacks and books in tow. But many of the students in the room, judging from more than two dozen interviews, are supporters of Sen. Barack Obama. They plan to vote for him tomorrow night.

"I am not anti-Hillary, I am not anti-Clinton, I love Bill Clinton. But I just think we need a fresh start, a new face," Ramirez told The Trail. "All my life I've known the Clintons. As much as I like them, it's time for someone like Barack."

Friends Allie Landers, Jenna Smith and Marina Galkina echoed Ramirez. The three stopped by to get a glimpse of Clinton. But they headed for the doors just a few minutes after they got there. They're Obama supporters.

"I think it's really hard that you're campaigning for change -- Clinton's been using that word a lot too -- when, if you were elected, then the past presidents would be Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton," said Landers, 21.

Added Smith, also 21: "I'm from New York. I think Hillary has done a good job as a senator, but it was just her stepping stone. And, for some reason, for whatever reason, I just don't like her."

The girls headed to the food court for dinner.

By Web Politics Editor  |  January 7, 2008; 9:06 PM ET
Categories:  B_Blog , Hillary Rodham Clinton , The Democrats  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: An Edwards Promise That Few Have Kept
Next: Not a Game

Comments

Rejecting the analogy drawn between McGovern and Obama, dchandra16 says:

"McGovern stood for a purpose far greater than his own candidacy. So what if he lost in '72? His mere presence in the '72 race essentially forced Nixon to triangulate and draw down the Vietnam War."

Say what? McGovern carried exactly 1 state: Massachusetts, and you think THAT forced Nixon to triangulate and draw down the Vietnam War????? 'Fraid not.

Which brings us to a fundamental question of the nature of change: as someone pointed out about 30 posts ago, our system of government is designed to ensure that change is made, if not incrementally, then at least not instantly. If Nixon changed his policy on Vietman, it was due not to McGovern's pathetic showing in the 1972 general election, but YEARS of protest demonstrations by hundreds of thousands of Americans. Change takes time, patience and perseverance, and those who undertake to cause change must be willing to stand up to years of frustration.

So far, student voters in Iowa have shown that they were willing to devote precisely 1 to 2 hours involved in participating in the Iowa caucus. How much time are they willing to devote to making real change in this country? Some sound as if they expected the nomination to be wrapped up if not in Iowa, then in N.H.

The process of choosing party candidates and then electing a President is not a reality show; it won't end in 1 week or even 10 weeks. Wishing, or demanding that it be otherwise will not make it so.

Posted by: cilka | January 9, 2008 1:44 AM | Report abuse

I'm reading people on this site comparing George McGovern to Barack Obama and that we shouldn't nominate Obama because he might lose like McGovern did.

Let me say this: George McGovern was a FAR greater American than Bill Clinton. Then, and now. McGovern was a war hero. McGovern stood for a purpose far greater than his own candidacy. So what if he lost in '72? His mere presence in the '72 race essentially forced Nixon to triangulate and draw down the Vietnam War.

Bill and Hillary are all about Bill and Hillary. Obama is all about trying to change the culture of Washington. He's not in it for his own vanity like Hillary. If he wins, then great. But even if Barack loses, his candidacy will still have done more for this country in than eight years of the tired Clinton act.

Posted by: dchandra16 | January 8, 2008 7:56 PM | Report abuse

Who would wish to clean the mouses House that George created? Ofcourse Hillary would fit nicely into George Bushes shoes but I don't "BELIEVE" a word spoken Hill and Bill, though Ms. and Mr. Clinton sound like sour grapes already.

Posted by: bdrevers | January 8, 2008 7:27 PM | Report abuse

I'm happy to explain why Obama is substantively a much stronger candidate than HRC -- but in my experience of the past two weeks, the maudlin, self-pitying Baby Boomers don't really want to have that conversation; they just want to lament the fact that young voters have seized control of the party's destiny.

WOW. What an agist you are! So, it REALLY is about making "kings," isn't it? You're p***ed at the wrong people. Why don't you, instead, direct your anger and frustration where it belongs: to George W. Bush, instead of slamming and banging Hillary Clinton and other Baby Boomers? The Baby Boomers ARE NOT responsible for the way Washington, D.C. is. And if you fall for that line of c*** then you've bought the Republican PR hook, line and sinker, so I guess the years they've been trying to demonize all the progress we have made really has worked. How sad!


Well, start getting adjusted, old folks: we ARE in control. And we aren't giving that control back to you -- ever. It's our party now, and our movement. And Obama is going to be our young president.

Old folks?!? WE are responsible -- including Hillary Clinton -- for every right and privilege you enjoy: civil rights, women's rights, equal pay, making sexual harassment illegal, affordable college education, equal opportunity for men and women in education, sports scholarships for women to go to college. Now, because you want instant change and instant gratification, all of a sudden what the baby boomers did is no longer valid?!?

The good news for you is that the powerful progressive movement Obama's arrival presages will mean that you'll get the health care you need over the next 30 years. It will also mean several -- not one, but several -- woman presidents in the country's near future. (Who knows: maybe one of them will be a lesbian! The young voters who are storming the gates of the Democratic party certainly wouldn't mind.)

Oh, please! And maybe if we all sit down and hold hands there will be world peace, too. Your generation doesn't get it; you don't understand what real change entails. You think that once you find a savior who utters the right words in a soothing tone of voice, everybody will swoon and follow him to Canaan. Baby, you need to come back from whatever trip you're on and live in the REAL world -- the one that your new rock/pop/media star/savior doesn't want you to see, probably because he doesn't get it, either!

In spite of the condescending "heart-over-head" line that the punditry has been repeating ad nauseam, we young voters know exactly what issues are important to us, and who is likeliest to make some headway on them.

Really? So, um, like, uh, what are the uh, issues and, like, um, how do you, um, think you and your cult should, um, like, make, uh, headway on them? Sit around and meditate, perhaps? Way cool...

Like I said, you've bought the Republican PR blitz, so come November 2008 (if Barack Obama IS the Dem candidate), after we have yet again lost the White House because the Right Wing Republican machine will have eaten Barack Obama for breakfast, don't snivel and blame the "old folks" who told you it was a big mistake to support him.

Posted by: ljwalker | January 8, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

The ignorance on display in this thread is just gobsmacking.

Republicans lamenting an Obama primary victory? Now you HRC people are starting to sound like college students: i.e., stoned.

The GOP's greatest fear from day 1 was an Obama victory.

To the people above who are threatening to leave the party (or -- ha -- the country) if Obama's the nominee, I know I'm not the only person whose response is: GOOD RIDDANCE!

Progressive voters are sick of being shamed, harangued, scared, and threatened. If the people in thic comment thread are truly representative of HRC's base, she must be attracting the most lily-livered, spineless, gullible, weak-willed dupes of all time.

[Teeth chattering:] "Obama's so risky! In spite of his decades of experience as a political organizer, Harvard Law Review editor, U. of Chicago law lecturer, state senator, and U.S. Senator, he's just too young! In spite of his detailed policy proposals which I'm too lazy to read, he doesn't have any specific ideas! We need to keep doing things the way we've done them before (with such great success)! We need to retreat to the 1990s!"

It's not the 20-somethings who need to grow up: it's the 50-somethings.

Baby-Boomers: Take those pacifiers out of your dribbling mouths. Grow some balls. GROW UP.

And read Obama's policy letters before you repeat that bogus talking point about Obama's being all style, no substance.

My experience reading these comments is going to make tonight's blowout so much sweeter.

Posted by: MyManGodfrey | January 8, 2008 6:50 PM | Report abuse

To dyck21005:

Obama had the support of over 50% of the people at my caucus. I was in the Biden group and we were well short of viability, as was Richardson. During realignment Obama picked up additional support and won 4 of the 7 allotted delegates. (Clinton got 2, Edwards 1.) When I half-jokingly told the Obama people that we needed 29 people to become viable and they would still have four delegates they didn't buy it. There was no sign of any extra Obama people moving to Richardson either. This is just the report from one precinct but I suspect it is typical of what happened that night in Iowa. There may have been some intrigue at the campaign level, but keep in mind that people who attend a caucus are not so easily herded to or from a candidate.

Posted by: dubhlaoich | January 8, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

Consider Marge Simpson's simple statement of Oakeshottian-style conservatism:

Marge Simpson: "I guess its true that one person really can change the world, but most of the time you probably shouldn't"

If we elect Obama, it will be a mandate for change. I don't think there is any doubt about that. So, (1) what kind of change will we be mandating? And (2) is this one of those more frequent "most of the time(s)" that change is a bad idea or is it one of those less frequent times when change is a good idea? Lastly, (3) How can we know?

Answer to (2 & 3): We "know" that this is a good time for change when we, as an electorate, determine that it is. We may be wrong - but in a free society - we are responsible for making that determination. This determination is much more likely to be "right" if we have an open and honest political discussion.

Which leads directly to the answer to (1): Obama's meta-message is about improving our political discourse and process. His campaign has embodied an open and honest discussion of ideas, issues, and political philosophy. This is true leadership - "be the change you want to see in the world". Obama's message is, of course, not limited to this elevation of political discourse. His policy ideas are quite progressive/liberal. I do not agree with most of them. If he is elected, he will surely also have a mandate for changing our policy in the progressive direction. As a sceptical (of my own judgement as well as others) and humble conservative I must concede that it is basically certain that progressives/liberals have better ideas on at least some issues. If we elevate our political discourse and process, it is extremely likely that more of the "good" progressive/liberal ideas will be implemented (as opposed to the "bad" ones). And if the process is truly improved then, when it is the conservative's turn to govern again, the same should be true about which of their ideas are implemented. One more benefit is that these ideas should be implemented in a more competent fashion than we are used to.

This may all sound like pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking. We HOPE that Obama can be the agent for this kind of change. This is the hope we will be voting for/against in November.

Posted by: evanarsdall | January 8, 2008 5:16 PM | Report abuse

When's Bill going to get it... it's his wife that's running, not him... As chief attack dog he's doing a lousy job. Because of him, she's lost my vote. D.

Posted by: Linzack | January 8, 2008 5:15 PM | Report abuse

How exactly can the GOP win the White House "BACK" if they control it right now? Did you mean to say "When the GOP retain the White House"?

For any Obamaniacs who have seen him speak in person, have you ever seen anyone leave during it? Even after MIDNIGHT, no one has ever left? I find that really hard to believe.

Posted by: JakeD | January 8, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

I have been a Democrat since I first voted, because it is and has always been Democrats who are progressive. We're the ones who keep making forward progress, no matter what!

But I am really dismayed that Barack Obama's campaign has decided to make this election a referendum on "change" vs. "experience." What he seems to be saying is that experience is worth nothing because it's associated with people who are older than he is and that years of change they (and we) have worked for -- within the system -- is outdated.

Poor Hillary; I can understand her frustration, anger and disappointment. She sees everything she has accomplished being turned to dust in front of her eyes as Barack Obama (the new rock star) plays pied piper to every angry, frustrated, disenchanted young person out there.

A lot of us are angry, frustrated and disenchanted because we know we have been abused, lied-to, conned, and had the wool pulled over our eyes by the Bush Administration so many times. We're fed up to the gills with what we've experienced the last 7 years. But those of us in the latter group know what real change is about and how it is achieved. We have been there in the trenches and worked it.

Anybody who 'disses' that kind of experience hasn't one clue about what it really takes to change the system!

So, along comes Barack Obama, a truly great politician (because he taps into this anger, frustration and disenchantment) and channels our emotions very skillfully.

But, to what end? Emotions are a very real part of humanity, but we shouldn't be electing a president based on how 'happy' he or she makes us feel -- and that's what Barack Obama is selling: a feel-good pill.

The Republican strategists are surely throwing parties now. They've managed (they think) to get rid of their toughest opponent (Hillary Clinton) and set up another Rovian situation where they will be able to eat Barack Obama for breakfast and retake the White House.

That's quite a hangover to wake up to once the Obama happy pill wears off...

People may say they want change, but when it comes down to their pocketbooks, their safety, their kids, their jobs, they'll vote for the status quo every single time.

If you want real change -- the kind that will get proven results, even if it doesn't satisfy your insatiable instant gratification mentality -- Hillary Clinton is the best candidate in the field.

On the other hand, if you want to listen to Obama's siren song and follow him, that is your right, too.

Just don't come sniveling and blame us "old farts" for trying to tell you that supporting Obama was a big mistake when the Republicans win the White House back in 2008.

Posted by: ljwalker | January 8, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

I just hope all of you people railing against Hillary Clinton ("I will never vote for her") remember that when she's the nominee.

Posted by: JakeD | January 8, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Bush>Clinton>Bush>??Clinton?? is dynasticism pure and simple. A Hillary Clinton presidency is a restoration. This, from my perspective, is unacceptable. Our nation is not ( I hope) a banana republic governed by an oligarchy.

This is from a baby boomer who first voted proudly for George McGovern and has voted Democratic ever since.

Not this time with a Hillary candidacy. Neither would I vote Republican.

Posted by: sgoetz | January 8, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Hillary does have a heart and she finally let it show. She is also brilliant. The world is too tough to entrust this presidency to a "nice guy." Give him some more experience and elect him in eight years.

I agree with Joycerems. Go Hillary!

Posted by: Kansas28 | January 8, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

I am a liberal Democrat. I started the campaign happy to support all of the Dem candidates. While I will still support whoever is nominated, I must say if that is Obama, I am ashamed to be voting with his supporters I read in these comments. They sound like Republicans.

Posted by: zukermand | January 8, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

I live in Washington, I work for your federal government, I have a graduate history degree, and I was first able to vote for Jimmy Carter (end of disclosure statement).

So sad we're looking badly naive these days. Perhaps it's a sign of desperation, perhaps just the media hyping what they consider good "copy" until it's had an altogether deleterious effect.

Here's how it works - when you come to Washington as a relative newbie, you get roughly handled. Happened to Carter, happened to W.J. Clinton (didn't happen to GWB, because he was "pre-approved" by the Washington republican establishment). If y'all want to sweat out a few years of idling while a guy who was a state legislator 2 years ago gets routinely sidelined, just keep it up.

It's also a great disservice to democracy that the media would have you believing there are only 2 Democratic candidates. There is little question that Edwards has a combination of the sharpest message and the "most-likely-to-succeed" potential were he nominated. Alas, he's short on cash and thus being largely dismissed by the media. Plus, he hasn't done well in these early "beauty" contests.

Another sign of desperation - a nation hanging it's hopes on a "non-primary" result ( the Iowa caucus ), and an anomalous primary in a tiny state (NH). These contests are as nothing in the great scheme of nominating a party's candidate. Once again, the media is the winner - hype today sells newspapers, TV ads, etc. tomorrow !

Wake-up from your dream, Americans, before you wake up as Losers !!

Posted by: lemp | January 8, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Change will occur when the American people are inspired to demand it. The American people when motivated can accomplish amazing things. Open a history book, EVERY major change from abolishment of slavery, rights for women to vote, defeat of facism, civil rights - arose from motivation of the American populous by an inspirational person. There is no 'experience' that makes one inspirational. There is no formula or training to create - it simply exists within certain people. No amount of working w/ both parties, begging of governors or foreign leaders will bring healthcare, end wars, resurrect the economy - the American people rallying around an inspirational leader will accomplish this. Senator Obama is this person. I look forward to the future.

Posted by: jasoiffy | January 8, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

I'm also one of the Dartmouth Students who "walked out on Bill." It had nothing to do with what he said, but all to do with the fact that I had a job interview and I couldn't hang around any longer. The event started hour after the advertised starting time, and I linked up an hour to get in. I'm not surprised that the people who did manage to hear Bill speak after so much waiting had other things to do. Please don't make assumptions.

Posted by: jennifer.a.chong | January 8, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

So as a progressive and Democrat I'm thrilled that Republicans, Independents, students(who it is a pretty safe bet will not be in a voting booths come November)are going to choose the Democratic nominee. This wonderfully Democratic process is brought to you by the Democratic party and made into reality by the corporate press. I am also impressed That young people/students would gravitate to arguably the most wimpy, crystally, conservative Democrat running. We can all agree that having "universal" health care is a bad thing and we should leave as big a whole to let people escape as possible. Additionally even though Obama used to be for an actual real universal health care plan, e.g., a single payor plan, in his guise as the great compromiser, he has jettisoned that policy as too dam progressive. I would imagine his plan is, if elected to immediately sit down with Tancredo, Hunter, Boehner, Mitch McConnel, et.al., and hammer out a set of policies that will be labelled CHANGE. He will given his position on SS undoubtedly agree with those across the aisle that "private accounts" is a necessary compromise to get those elusive Republican votes. And when he's finished I'll bet you'll have a hard time distinguishing between him and the Repubofascists across the aisle, he's so intent on finding common ground with. Sort of like the Jews, during the Nazi regime sitting down with Goebbles(sp.?). But hell, he's a dynamite speaker and the corporate media, Southerners, lower middle class blue collar workers, Republicans, etc., are all pulling for him. Only the Democratic party could find a way, to lose the presidential race in 08.
By the way, all you Obama fans, what does he stand for????????

Posted by: alan2a | January 8, 2008 3:09 PM | Report abuse

I have been to the Barack website and it has the specifics that people keep asking about. His inspirational words are what get the press but when you hear him talking about a Chief Technology Officer for the country or a real plan for public schools then you know why people who actually listen to him become believers.

Hillary always talk about "I" and "my plan". Barack inspires people to not only follow but also use their own God given talents to help the country.

Go to www.barackobama.com to get the information you seek.

Posted by: brian | January 8, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

I have a message for those students who think it was funny to walk out on Bill Clinton:
Some of you wouldn't even be in college if it wasn't for Clinton's policies on college education funding.
You want to vote for Obama, OKAY, WHAT DOES HE STAND FOR?
What will be his foreign policy concerning Russia, Pakistan, Iran, and Afghanistan?
What is his policy going to be on how to get us out of the huge debt we owe to foreign countries? How is he going to bring jobs and manufacturing back to this country?
What about your future? Are you going to have a good job or are you going to be working at a low paying job and then try to raise a family and pay off your school loans.
OBAMA will be another George W. Bush.
He has the young people buffaloed into thinking he is going to change this country around but he never says HOW!!!!!!!!
Before you young people vote you had better think twice.
Also I see a lot of older people voting for him. He is no John F. Kennedy and he is no Rhodes Scholar.
He is just a politician running on a non-platform.

Posted by: dolsac3 | January 8, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

In their effort to gain lost ground I find that Bill and Hillary's distortions, scare tactics, and exaggerations directed toward Obama to be reminiscent of Bush's effort to convince the world of the existence of WMD. To me, this offers us a glimpse of her LEADERSHIP style, and quite frankly I don't like it. I guess for them, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Posted by: valskeet | January 8, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Iamanobama
Vote for Obama and redeem America. America has military bases in 150 countries. We already are the military colossus that bestrides the world. A drowning man clings to hope, and we have been drowning in a Byzantine militaristic foreign policy as violent & self-defeating as it is seemingly endless in its scope. Obama may not turn out to be a faultless man with impeccable credentials to be president, but people in Iowa & New Hampshire have spoken, & they have spoken his name. Spoken it in faith. They must've known something that I didn't know before, because it took listening to his victory speech that night in Iowa for me to see what he represents. I am voting him for what he represents to me, and not because I have any magical powers to see into his heart of hearts anymore than I could see into Bush's or Clinton's. I hope, I pray, he is who I wish him to be. Nonetheless, I will vote for him with a whole heart because he represents for me the hope that America can be unified, unified into a people with a good conscious who believe in their own potential for goodness, and a desire to act such that others view them with good faith.
The damn "fools" who have voted for him in Iowa & New Hampshire made me feel proud. They redeemed the name America. Whether you love the Clintons or if you hate them, is besides the point in this debate. The Clintons have not inspired the hope that this one wiry black man named Obama has. The Obama campaign is running on hope, & the Clinton campaign has run out of hope. America has near run out of hope after being worn down by the last 7 years. I cannot promise anyone that Obama will be in the future what he seems now to me to be. I can say that he has given me hope. And in that sense, I truly hope that America continues in the future to say to the world, "I am an Obama more than I am a Bush."

Posted by: krwerbel | January 8, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

What I gather from reading the above article is that some curious people went to see the former President and left when they had their curiosity satisfied while some Obama activists attended in order to make a point by walking out.

What I gather from reading the subsequent blogs is that while there is some reasoned discussion taking place there are far too many posts which are poisoned and or personal attacks either on a candidate or against another blogger.

What is being missed almost altogether can be found below:

* The demographics of Iowa and New Hampshire, which essentially lack minorities, are in stark contrast to the US demographics.

* Allowing cross over voting results in primary results being skewed by non-affiliated voters.

* The caucuses are open to abuse by the candidates doing some "horse trading" and by voter intimidation.

* Cell phones and Blackberrys have significantly altered the dynamics of electioneering and elections.

One person, one vote (by affilated voters only) should be the rule. The first and second in the nation status of Iowa and New Hampshire needs to be abridged to allow for improved demographics and the inclusion of larger voting blocs.

I think Obama is Slick Willy II but lacks experience. Edwards is too shrill and also is thin on experience. Biden may be the most presidential but won't make the cut. Richardson may be a great negotiator but seems an empty suit otherwise (his stated positions leave me cold). Process of elimination leads to Hillary. Certainly she is smart enough and tough enough and will bring some very talented people back into the White House.

Anybody who thinks the next 8 years will be a cakewalk should cast their vote for Obama. A pragmatist would not.

Posted by: jgrecco | January 8, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

To bokonon13:

You said,

"This is the only area she was closely involved in, and with what result? The number of uninsured grew, drug prices spiked, and universal coverage was off the table for 15 years. Her secretive approach turned off the legislators she needed on her side. Hillary killed universal coverage almost singlehandedly back in 1993."

Perhaps you were still in your didees, dear! Hillary took a huge lead on this issue and got absolutely pummeled by the Republicans and other mainstream boys because she was too outspoken and too out in front on this issue. I know because I was there!

And you said:

"The Family leave act?"

"This was not her doing."

I was there; I worked on this legislation, starting when Ronald Reagan was president. Hillary Clinton was directly involved in working to get this legislation passed when Bill Clinton took office. She created the bridge from White House to the "interest" groups to Congress in order to get this passed.

Please, please, please do not insult people -- like Hillary Clinton and those of us who spent long hours and YEARS to get this passed -- by saying something completely untrue!

Posted by: ljwalker | January 8, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

"The young people want something other than traditional democratic establishment candidate"

So do the "old" people!

Posted by: BigDadddySteve | January 8, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

"Will Obama change the world? Of course he could. Could he go power crazy, just like Hillary or Bush or McCain or, or, or etc...? Absolutely."
Well Obama could turn out as devisive as Bill or W in the White House. However, he could equally turn out to be a true "game changer". As for Hillary, we all know what we will get, more of the partisan venom and scandals. That is the key.

Bill was pathetic in his speech in NH. The implication that Obama got a free pass from the media because he is black shows the true nature of Clintons.

Posted by: fzheng501 | January 8, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

I really hate to be this cynical, but I am so disappointed in the Democratic voters in this primary election. I think there certainly is a herd mentality in the Democratic electorate. The word change certainly is inspiring; Obama is an inspiring candidate. Obama is, however, inexperienced. It is laughable to think that this man could change Washington when he's only been there for two years. Yes, special interests dominate Washington. Special interests also serve as a medium for the needs for American people. The truth is that even if he is elected, his outsider message will leave him as an outsider in Washington (remember Jimmy Carter). People should not ignore history.

Obama has created this persona that he and others think is comparable to the Camelot mystique of JFK. Obama is no JFK. JFK was in Washington for 12 years before he ran for President. I think that Obama has an inspiring message and I think that with time, he has the potential to be a strong leader. Yet, we are in difficult times. We need a President with experience, not just one with an inspirational message to clean up Bush's mistakes. I thought that voters would be smart enough to realize this, but perhaps people respond to superficial things like media hype and speeches. Everything that I've learned about voter behavior has been manifested in this election and that greatly saddens me.

Posted by: nycfc86 | January 8, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

It's amazing how many people believe in Obama and want a second JFK/MLK/Messiah out of him. I, personally, would like some more information about him before I give him my vote. What's he going to do about Africa? New Orleans? Gas prices? Energy prices? The housing market? Lead paint in toys? Upgrading our nation's infrastructure and at what expense? Iraq, if it turns into a true civil war once we drawdown? His reaction to a terrorist attack. He has said very little specifics about anything and he's already getting tagged as a far-left liberal in the conservative hate machine.

Bill, unfortunately, hit it on the head when he said the media is treating Obama like a 'Fairytale'. I guess most of the people here forgets the finer details of 2000 when Bush was the "Unifier" and the 'guy I want a beer with' and "the one who'll bring dignity back to the White House'. When, approached with the 11th-hour coke DUI, Bush claimed, " I don't play the Gotcha game." And the media then, like now, gave a free pass.

Bush/Clinton/Reagan etc.... all promise 'change'. After 4(8) years of whoever, I can understand why. But by God, if there was any other time when it was more important to find out what change means, and how it will be defined, it's this election

And should Hillary bow out, which I expect, then this nation's greatest villian will forever be destroyed; hopefully then, everyone who has hated her from Rush to Anne, Hannity to Drudge, and even bloggers on this and others forum can all be raptured, for there will be no reason for them to exist any longer. If this did happen, I would vote against Hillary, just to clear out the meaningless hate toward a woman because of her name that clutter these blogs and the airwaves.

Is Hillary an angel? Of course not. Will Obama change the world? Of course he could. Could he go power crazy, just like Hillary or Bush or McCain or, or, or etc...? Absolutely.

Posted by: eternal9 | January 8, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

I would only like to remind those Dartmouth women about the glass ceiling they face and will continue to face if we again reject a fully competent woman.

But even more than that let us remind them of history. In 1960 we elected John F. Kennedy over Lyndon Johnson. I actually am old enought to remember the excitement Kennedy caused. I was 13 at the time. But in reviewing history, let us also remember what happened when we elected Kennedy. It was a time of general peace and and he created such excitement.

Then we had the bay of pigs, followed by the Cuban Missile Crisis and Kennedy couldn't get any of his legislation through the Congress.

It was only after he died that Lyndon Johnson got civil rights legislation passed and many of the larger health care programs.

Some try to rewrite history and say Kennedy would not have led us deeper into Viet Nam but we will never know.

Soaring rhetoric is beautiful. Obama is charismatic and intelligent. Were he running for Governor or a big City Mayor I would agree we should elect him. But he is running for President, dealing from day one with life and death issues, and he is not ready. We really know nothing about him other than: When he ran for Senate he promised to vote against the Patriot Act and then he voted for it. He said in 2002 he was opposed to the war then in 2004 said had he been in the Senate he may have voted for it- and then when he was in the Senate he voted for every bill to fund the war. He said he will never use lobbyists, then he hired one to chair his NH campaign. He voted present 130 times in the Illinois State Senate on bills such as abortion rights and gun control. That is a vote with no decision. He missed the only vote on Iran in the Senate. He never held a hearing of his Senate Sub-Committee.

This to me doesn't inspire confidence. I would urge the people who will vote in future primaries to at least insist that Obama explain all these actions before we put our trust in him.

This election is just too important to trust a neophyte.

Posted by: peterdc | January 8, 2008 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Americans and their media love a "story," and right now the story is the downfall of Hillary Clinton's campaign, just as the story only a few weeks ago was the inevitability of her nomination.

But with Super Tuesday coming up, it might be a good idea to admit that we still can't be sure how this story ends:

http://ajliebling.blogspot.com/2008/01/two-kinds-of-hillary-hubris.html

Posted by: connectdots | January 8, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

For instance, the "alleged" Christian currently in the Oval Office sent over 4,000 American servicemen and women to their deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan, causing untold millions of civilian deaths. Why did he do that?

Posted by: JakeD | January 8, 2008 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Hillary is not going to bring change to a system that they have learned to play so well. Note her comment "republicans who have seen the light." If she is elected, that is a big "if" the partisan politics begin immediately or should I say continue inevitable given our current climate. Thus, she is not an agent of change no matter how bad she wants to be. Sure her ideology differs from the Bush's but her methodology is the same. What is attracting people to Mr. Obama's campaign is not just a new message but a new methodology. Maybe he will fail ... Washington ... corporate America has stifled such ambitions before, but we as American people are touched by the opportunity that there is politician who is willing to stand up for us in a system where our participation is requested but our interests are excluded. Many American's are tired or sitting on the sideline but feeling as if they haven't been invited to the game. The hope for a united America is far greater than hunger to see an experienced politician push a modest agenda through a partisan political system. It is the elites of the country that benefit from divided America. We are attracted to the hope of a watershed change in American politics. We are attracted to a fundamental shift from partisan politics to a true Democratic politics that works the American people, not the corporate interests. I loved Bill Clinton's results. He should not, however, be given credit for a robust economy created by the technology boom of the 90's. He does deserve credit for showing restraint and making a balanced budget a priority. But the Clinton supporters, and it should be fresh in your recollection, know that this policy was the result of the divisiveness of the Clintonian political machines. Bill was a gifted politician that played the conservative democrat role better than history has seen. But he also created the most divided culture Washington has seen in my lifetime. His goal to balance the budget was the result of a stalemate between his agenda and the republican agenda which ultimately resulted in no money being spent. If Hillary actually cares about the American people ... and is not more interested in power, she should help unite the country behind the Obama movement!

Posted by: hakimallen | January 8, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

LightAgent:

Even if he is a Christian, he could do it -- lots of reasons "why" ranging from payola to brainwashing I guess -- I was simply giving ninnafaye ONE possible scenario.

qualquan:

The First Daughters are not old enough to be elected President (yet ; )

Posted by: JakeD | January 8, 2008 11:20 AM | Report abuse

If just being in the White House counts for experience then after Hillary we should get Chelsea or Barbara or Jenna.
What Hillary never mentions is JUDGMENT!!
When the chips were down she sided with Bush and voted for the Iraq war and then saber rattled on Iran.
As Warren Buffet said: Learning from experience is fine but the trick is to learn from other people's.
Unfortunately Hillary learns from neither.

Posted by: qualquan | January 8, 2008 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Obama is a Christian...why would he make the Koran our official religious text?

Posted by: LightAgent | January 8, 2008 11:12 AM | Report abuse

well he won't be worse than Bush, that's for certain...

It's not just dumb college kids that are taking to this guy...i'm 38 and i resent how the previous generation has squandered and plundered to their own satisfaction and we are now reaping the consequences...the bottom line is that Hillary represents all that has gone before...

this primary is a referendum on her and all those associated with the misguided decisions of the past...she is tied to Bill and the baggage of the past...it does'nt matter who voted for what...her campaign managers dropped the ball because they were out of the touch with the current electorate...all the retooling in the world won't change this now...

she does'nt inspire...she is not a symbol of change...she is not the face to present to a world that is looking for us to once again become a force for good...

i particularly resent her comment to Major Garrett about MLK and LBJ...it's easy to run a pen across a piece of parchment but it's a whole other thing to have endured one of the ugliest times in the history of our nation...

i'm pretty darn sure that LBJ did'nt sit at diners, refuse to relinquish his seat on public buses, endure firehoses and beatings for the "simple" right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...

blacks had the courage to lay down their lives for change...how much courage did it require for LBJ to pen his signature on a document...no matter the context, this was a less than presidential statement delivered in a rather condescending tone...

In the last debate, Hillary went on the attack, which was her only choice, and could'nt take what she dished out...she instigated and it backfired on her...playing the victim only makes her look weaker...

Posted by: ccaissa | January 8, 2008 11:08 AM | Report abuse

Well, ninnafaye, ONE such scenario would be that Obama issues an Executive Order to make the Koran our official religious text and starts sending Christians to Gitmo.

Posted by: JakeD | January 8, 2008 11:05 AM | Report abuse

to ray_+1, what scenario do you envision if mr obama is nothing at all like the boy prez bush? do you think there will ever be another disasterous misadministration like the one we are barely living through now? if mr obama sat in the oval office all day and picked his nose, he will still be a better prez that that spoiled cheerleading bully that occasionally occupies the white house now.

Posted by: ninnafaye | January 8, 2008 11:02 AM | Report abuse

ChipShirley:

Good point -- Stephen Colbert also endorsed Huckabee on his show last night -- this should be a very interesting leading up to Super Duper Tuesday.

Posted by: JakeD | January 8, 2008 10:46 AM | Report abuse

Geez... all these sweeping generalizations... Republican's fear... (ALL??) Superficial college students (ALL??) Old Guard (anyone over 30??)

As a former independent, now Republican (in reaction to the incredible damage the LAST (hopefully) Clinton did during his "term"), early 40's WOMAN who votes in every election based on the premise that the person receiving my vote will be the best person for the job - NOT just a member of a party, not JUST a woman, not just a minority; I have a few observations.

*It's not just rumor that students are registering Democrat to vote against Hillary - My 18 year old son - freshman at a liberal arts college in the DEEP south - has done just that. Along the way, through careful study, watching debates and reading is now actually moving towards being a Obama supporter.

*The economy is cyclical (7 to 8 years) and the notion that a president can claim responsibility for it's success or be blamed for it's downturn is uniformed and ludicrous.

*While Bush has not been the leader we had hoped for, he can NOT be held responsible for all the woes of the world. Former Clinton's inaction in response to bombings on the USS Cole, embassy bombing, and FIRST WTC bombing were much more responsible for 9/11 than Bush's 8 months in office. Hillary was, as she loves to point out, right there with Bill.

*There are Republican candidates banging the change gong too. Huckabee and Paul are hitting it hard.

*A Hucakabee/ Obama race - while presenting some obvious differences appears to be in the end be a win/win choice. Conversely a Clinton/Guilliani ticket would bring back the unfortunate specter of when Louisiana had to make the Edwards/Duke choice.

* Being from/ living in the south does not make one an uniformed, bigoted racist. We are as well educated, intelligent, well read, and cultured as our northern counterparts. We are in larger numbers a family centered culture, and religion (from Islam, Judisim, Mormanism, to all forms of Christianity) does play a large centralizing part in our lives - as is the case in most agricultural based economies. However we are perfectly capable, and more than willing to look beyond the color of a candidate's skin, gender, or religious choice to focus on electing the most QUALIFIED, Moral, Intelligent candidate. Give us a smart, likeable (sorry it IS important to LIKE the president - he/she has to interact with the world!), HONEST/Moral/TRUSTWORTHY candidate.

Posted by: trucrtu | January 8, 2008 10:45 AM | Report abuse

the former prez clinton is starting to sound desperate and rove-like. voters do not want a candidate because they are young,tall, a man, or "clean". that's not the reason we won't vote for his wife. we don't like her politics, so much like the bush-lite years,high on bravado, very short on substance and good old common sense. you don't knock a whole state, iowa just because they do not chose you.you do not castigate a younger candidate because he is favored by the electorate.and don't blame that candidate because the msm do not ask him the tough questions, believe me they will. also the repugs will do a very good job of swiftboating him. so mr& mrs c. take a break and enjoy your new found wealth, take time off to enjoy your new chums the elder bushes.

Posted by: ninnafaye | January 8, 2008 10:44 AM | Report abuse

Obama is an inspiration speaker and it is refreshing to see younger voters engaged. my concern is that if he wins the nomination, the Republicans and the "freak show" right-wing media will tear him apart. My other concern is that if he somehow survives the general election and wins, he will be confronted by an economy turned upside-down, two wars and a world gone crazy. Not a lot of time for change. Hillary is someone who is a target of the Freak show media every day. She has seen first hand what approachs work and what doesn't. The Clinton administration made its mistakes. Obama would make a better vice-president to continue to speak for change while Clinton cleans up the mess to make it possible.

Posted by: MikePetrucci | January 8, 2008 10:33 AM | Report abuse

Barack Obama first earned my respect around the beginning of the Iraq war. In a climate where opposition to the war was labeled unpatriotic and un American, he spoke out against it. That took a lot of integrity.

In the short time since he entered the Presidential bid, he has created a formidable campaign organization, and gotten voters out that popular opinion said was impossible. So there is affective action and change right there. If he can do this in such a short time, what can't he do as President?

The young voters in this country are not stupid( btw- I'm a 'baby boomer')- they have finally found a political figure that engages them and challenges them to be involved. The country needs this.

As far as Hillary goes, I don't trust her- she voted for the war. She has tossed out all kinds of 'facts' about Obama that skew and distort the truth to serve her own interests. Barack voted for the reforms in the Patriot Act that strengthened civil rights, with a strong caveat that more needed to be addressed. Barack made a deal with Planned Parenthood to vote present as a strategic way of blocking the pro life agenda.

Hillary's peddling dishonesty here, and I don't like it and America doesn't deserve it.

Posted by: arielwire | January 8, 2008 10:30 AM | Report abuse

This young voter knows where Obama stands on the issues aw www.barackobama.com/issues

Fired up Ready to go to S.C.

Posted by: TennGurl | January 8, 2008 10:26 AM | Report abuse

Huckabee is ahead by 5pts in the latest Gallup National Poll and it's not reported anywhere except the Gallup site. Who does corporate America fear the most. It's obvious.

Posted by: ChipShirley | January 8, 2008 10:20 AM | Report abuse

It's Hillary's turn to be president. It's not Obama's. He hasn't earned that recognition yet.

He insults all that are running both democrat and republican that has proudly served and truly has the experience to run this country.

I find him to be arrogant in this that he feels he can serve just 3-years in the senate and now all of sudden can run the country! Someone posted a comment mentioning Jimmy Carter era. Pretty good assesment. Obama will be eaten up by Washington.

He is not a god, only in rock star status as the inexperinced college kids are putting him there. After the high they are experiencing helping to put him in the White House ends, like they say, what goes up, must come down, I'm afraid that's what ths county will feel after putting an inexperienced person in the White House way before his time.

Posted by: scook2 | January 8, 2008 10:18 AM | Report abuse

I'm afraid that the poll showing the young supporters of Obama had no idea where he stands on the issues, says it all. If they are going to vote - and I certainly believe they should! - they need to be informed - as do we all. What I've been reading on here is a lot of vitriolic ....which won't get us anywhere, in the long run.

Posted by: darleneann | January 8, 2008 10:11 AM | Report abuse

This is what we get for making the race for president a beauty contest. Obama is a rock star. He's a good man, but he's winning simply because he's a better media figure than the dull, pragmatic, get-the-solemn-work-of-government-done types like Clinton, Biden, or Richardson. The question Democrats should be asking is: How is Obama going to handle the Roveian Slime Maelstrom when he reaches the general election race; and how is he going to handle a hostile Senate minority if he's elected President?

Posted by: jp1954 | January 8, 2008 10:06 AM | Report abuse

"Dynastification"? C'mon Dartmouth students, you can do better than that!

Posted by: readerny | January 8, 2008 10:03 AM | Report abuse

"For whatever reason, I just don't like her."
oh my god, oh my god, i, like, i just don't like her, okay. like, you know, for no particular reason, i just don't like her. oh my god, they have tacos today!

Posted by: nfbindc | January 8, 2008 9:56 AM | Report abuse

If anyone really believes that Obama can "bring us together", they need to look at why the "Red States" became "Red" in the first place. Nominating a black man (or a woman for that matter) will only solidify the "solid south" even more. If Obama gets the nomination, I'll vote for him, since the last Republican I "trusted" with my vote was Nixon. But he's not my first choice and I don't think he can win.

Edwards.

Posted by: bierbelly | January 8, 2008 9:53 AM | Report abuse

Republicans fear Hillary as a nominee because they know there is nothing new they can scare anyone with regarding her presidency. They're laughing all the way to the White House at the prospect of fresh meat for Karl Rove style campaign against the rhetoric of hope and big promises (I admit it sounds good, feels good, but as they say a lot of folks wanted to have a beer with Shrub in a kinder gentler bar).

The Europeans feared Shrub. They were right. Their opinion now is that Hillary can step in to the oval office and start repairing the damage of Shrub on day one.

In 2000 I would have been happy to vote for rhetoric and hope. That was before 9/11, Shrub damage, Afghanistan, Shrub damage, Iraq, Shrub damage, and this list could go on for a long time.

Posted by: streff | January 8, 2008 9:44 AM | Report abuse

"For whatever reason, I just don't like her."

The whims of New Hampshire college kids who have never been in real world will decide this election.

Posted by: ionospherey | January 8, 2008 9:40 AM | Report abuse

Obama is a huge hit with minorities and students clamoring for change. We all want change, but we are falling into the over reaction trap of our own past history. We see that in the reactions we had to Watergate by electing the weak Jimmy Carter, then we elected the opposite in Ronald Reagen, then the failings of Bush Sr led to Clinton, the moral majority then reacted to Lewinskygate by giving us the "Missing Link". After 8 years of the worst President in modern day history, we seem willing to jump into a pool of water without even looking to see if the water is deep enough for the plunge.
I am not convinced Obama is the answer.
He seems to eloquently project views that Hilary has already began working on. Do you honestly think that someone who has no experience in foreign affairs, health care reform, NATIONAL SECURITY, can be effective doing what many people on Capital Hill will only balk at? I seriously think he is cashing in on the ineptitude and the abuses of the current administration.
My only advice to the politically charged is to not only listen but research, study what people have done in the past on reactionary politics. Look before you leap, Then decide.

Posted by: keithlb28 | January 8, 2008 9:30 AM | Report abuse

There are many good reasons not to vote for Hillary. The fact that someone named Bush has been President 12 of the last 20 years isn't one of them. That's a great reason not to vote Republican -- but not to vote for Hillary? A clever gambit by the Republican pundits to hang the incompetence of Family Bush around the necks of the two people they hate most -- Bill and Hillary. Frankly, if I were Bill, and I got this question, my response would have been:

"Excuse me? You can't vote for someone because of their last name? How fair would it be if I didn't vote for you because you're blonde?"

And I'm voting for Obama, so this isn't sour grapes. I just find it an inexcusably shallow way to evaluate a candidate.

Posted by: starthom | January 8, 2008 9:28 AM | Report abuse

MyManGodfrey,

This boomer can put it another way. Hillary embraced Lieberman over Lamont, Carville over Dean, War over Peace, when the party was clearly headed in the other direction. It was her choice. The most important part of leadership is the ability to read the trends that shape the future. She didn't.

I'm The Subway Serenade. You can find me at Google.

Posted by: djteller2000 | January 8, 2008 9:27 AM | Report abuse

Bill lost NH in '92 and couldn't even get 50% of the USA vote in '96 against Bob Dole. What makes the Old Guard think Hillary can top that? Democrats feel they have a shot at winning and they don't want Hillary to blow it for them.

Posted by: tomliddy | January 8, 2008 9:24 AM | Report abuse

Some of the comments say it is wrong to equate Clintons with Bushes. True; but we do not need dynasties of any kind in this country--and that includes the Kennedys or, for that matter, the Borens.

Do not let the distress of the Clintons distract you from what is looming as a real spoiler for the Democrats, an "independent" ticket with Michael Bloomberg for President and ex-Rep. David Boren for Vice President. That is the sense of the meeting yesterday in Norman, Oklahoma called by Boren and attended by Bloomberg, Gary Hart, Sam Nunn, and others. Boren protests that he really wants to save the two-party system but six months ago Robert Novak was already reporting that Bloomberg wanted Boren for his running mate. Talk of Washington insiders--Boren and his father were both Members of Congress and his son is in the House now. David Boren is as far right as a Democrat can be...and, mirabile dictu, like the Bushes he was Skull & Bones at Yale! But the main point is that if this new Spoiler Party goes ahead, it will take more votes from the Democrats than from the Republicans. Be encouraged, Huckabee!


Posted by: peterbridges | January 8, 2008 9:24 AM | Report abuse

mcfield: a lot of what you say makes sense. It is wrong to hold Bush's incompetance against Hillary. But on the subject of change: Change, in and of itself, is not neccesarily good. After all G.W.Bush certainly changed things. Premptive war against non-threatening nations, torturing defensless prisoners,illegal spying on US ctizens are only a few of the real changes he brought about. So, I would be happier if Obama were more specific about the changes he would make. I have a much better idea of the changes Edwards would make, and I agree with them.

Posted by: rj2z | January 8, 2008 9:20 AM | Report abuse

It's surprising to see how superficial these college students are. They are supporting Obama because he is a "new face?" What they don't get is that congress is not going to be impressed by someone who is a "new face." Obama does not have all this magical ability that his supporters would like to attribute to him. To the contrary, he is going to go up against experienced forces in politics and fall flat on his "new face!"...He is ENTIRELY untested. Beyond that, it's clear they are not voting for someone because of the strength of their proposals or their experience in making government work for the people. They are just voting for "a new face." Clinton would be a better candidate, but if you can't stomach her or the Clinton dynasty, recall that John Edwards has experience, viable proposals, commitment to voters, and the drive to get things done. Be forwarned, a vote for Obama is a vote to put "a new face" on an old system.

Posted by: ttj1 | January 8, 2008 9:20 AM | Report abuse

That was the toughest question? No it wasn't, and that question has been around since the campaign started. I don't know why the media never picked up on it, but I always considered it would be hard to get another clinton in there now because of just that. Jon Stewart mentioned it when the campaign first started. Everybody else just declared her the winner, but it was never the case. Beyond her vote for the war and the Kyl-Lieberman saber-rattling, even without all the GOP hating her with such a passion and not knowing why, she stood the biggest problem because it's nothing different. It's all the baggage with none of the jet fuel.

No one's turned on Bill, although they may look like it now with campaigns going on and everything. He's not arguing his own campaign, and it's hard to speak with conviction about someone else. As president you are the most important public speaker. Bill does that superbly, and so does Barack. Hillary does not speak out and reach out as well, and it's an ability no one can teach you.

Posted by: grimmix | January 8, 2008 9:18 AM | Report abuse

IF, AND WHEN, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA GETS INTO THE WHITE HOUSE, WHAT EXACTLY IS HE GOING TO CHANGE? HIS UNDERWEAR?
I HOPE---pun not intended---THAT AMERICANS TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT THIS MAN. VOTE WITH YOUR MINDS, NOT YOUR EMOTIONS.

Posted by: jbh13 | January 8, 2008 9:17 AM | Report abuse

Actually I'm amazed the kids were able to put down a beer and turn off their Ipods to show up at anything.

Posted by: tmcinroy | January 8, 2008 9:17 AM | Report abuse

I am sick of hearing people claiming that Obama has taken no positions, has no policy ideas, etc.

The man has written a book about his policies. He has several position papers on the issues: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

Don't buy into the sound bites, people. Obama is not a stuffed shirt. He is substance. BUT you need to your homework and stop relying on CNN to educate you!

Educate yourself before you speak.

Posted by: staxnet | January 8, 2008 9:15 AM | Report abuse

students, it's important to realize that it takes courage to make change. On a reality check, however, can a freshman equate to a grad student in the eyes of corporate executives? You should know better! People will be people...and people hire the best, brightest, & most experienced. Think about it...how's Obama going make an executive decision for change when he's indecisive or lacks the know-how & support of the other democrats. This isn't a popular contest. This is the future of America! Can you assure yourselve that Obama is going to the US Congress to "change it or else?" Then, there will certainly be a completely devided Congress. George W Bush promised the Republican everything they wanted to hear but turned out to be a nightmare. If Obama is a democrat replica of George W Bush, America will be in for another nightmare yet.

Whether you're voting for Obama, Clinton, or Edward you need to do it responsibly. Make an educated statement! Don't make the same mistake the republicans did with GWB.

Posted by: ray_t1 | January 8, 2008 9:10 AM | Report abuse

Dear Bill and Hillary,

Thanks for the bridge to the 21st Century. We'll take it from here. Love You. KK Bai...

Posted by: djteller2000 | January 8, 2008 9:01 AM | Report abuse

The Democrats had better start some serious re-thinking: If Mrs. Clinton has this much trouble convincing the voters of her OWN party, is she still the best candidate to convince the American people in November?

Posted by: dunnhaupt | January 8, 2008 8:57 AM | Report abuse

The young woman at Dartmouth who stated her feelings for Clinton as "for some reason, for whatever reason, I just don't like her" exemplifies why so many people think Hillary can't win. I would absolutely love to see Hillary take the White House - but I fear most Americans still aren't ready for a woman President. ANY woman who is strong enough and committed enough to take on the role will be seen as a *itch instead of being seen as a good leader. Sadly, we still have a double-standard culture that does not reward tough women.

As for the message of change - the U.S. government is not designed for instant change. It has all these pesky checks and balances that are designed for incremental rather than sweeping change. Unless we get another George W. who decides to disregard the rules of law, we're not going to see overnight sweeping change. We'll still be in Iraq for a number of years - we broke it now we have to fix it. Social Security and health care will not be fixed without long, drawn-out Congressional battles. Congress still appropriates the money - so the person we choose better understand the system.

In addition, the person we choose had better have a great understand of world financial markets because the next administration is going to have their hands full on that front. Hopefully we don't get another group of dopes who think we can continue to use our Chinese, Japanese and Saudi credit cards without either raising taxes or cutting programs.

Posted by: lgg123 | January 8, 2008 8:49 AM | Report abuse

What we are witnessing in Round 1 I call "revolutionary politics." This means the standard-bearers of entitlement and privilege are being challenged by the young Turks who shout, "no more!" The standard-bearers did not invite the young Turks to the party, so the young Turks chose to have their own party with a fundamentally shift in the paradigm. This revolutionary politics threatens the status quo to its core, because its standard-bearers stand to lose the most.

HRC and her cronies represent the entitled and privileged standard-bearers; Obama leads a vanguard. Iowa made its voice known loudly (only to be denigrated by the HRC campaign in national press; not cool at all). The New Hampshire Granites can make their clarion call for change as well.

America needs the change; America needs Barack Hussein Obama!!

(Disclosure (for the lawyer-types): this post is not sponsored by any campaign or 527(c) organization; this is post by a private citizen, an ex-GOPer of twenty-plus who will vote for change and OBAMA!)

Posted by: meldupree | January 8, 2008 8:47 AM | Report abuse

I am SO sick of hearing about Hillary/experience. a) the 35 year bit is a lie. She's been a senator for seven, her only elective office. She lived in the White House for seven years before that. So did Jenna Bush. b) Dick Cheney is _experienced_. How ANY Dem can support someone who is basically a female version of Joe Lieberman is beyond me. All these goals she says are so important, how come she hasn't enacted any legislation about them?

Posted by: gbooksdc | January 8, 2008 8:45 AM | Report abuse

"I actually tried to talk Hillary into leaving me when we were in law school, that's the God's truth.."

Maybe this is another reason for that rather persistent bimbo eruption phenomenon.

Posted by: billmosby | January 8, 2008 8:38 AM | Report abuse

I'm just posting because I would hate it if commenters like Anne9, who claims to have voted in the Iowa caucus, were able to convince any of you of the bizarre Clinton talking point that evil Republicans were invading the Dem caucuses in droves to thwart Hillary.

In my small-town caucus district, the Obama supporters -- all of them, as far as I could tell -- were sincere, informed, passionate liberals.

They were also very young -- which is something you Baby Boomers would actually be excited about if you weren't all so narcissistic. An influx in passionate young voters is the equivalent of a political party winning a lottery jackpot; IT IS THE SINGLE BEST THING THAT CAN HAPPEN TO A PARTY.

Honestly, do you folks realize how curmudgeonly and out-of-touch you sound? How smug and condescending? Are you truly missing the irony in, e.g., condemning young voters as ignorant by posting the illiterate and credulous stuff on this thread? ("Lou Dodds [sic] on TV said Obama voters didn't know nothing about politics! Yung voters is dum-dums!")

We young voters aren't stupid, ignorant, or indifferent to the significance of this historical moment. As those Dartmouth kids in the interview explained: we just don't like Hillary Clinton!

Why should we vote for someone we don't like? Why should we be shamed for it?

I'm happy to explain why Obama is substantively a much stronger candidate than HRC -- but in my experience of the past two weeks, the maudlin, self-pitying Baby Boomers don't really want to have that conversation; they just want to lament the fact that young voters have seized control of the party's destiny.

Well, start getting adjusted, old folks: we ARE in control. And we aren't giving that control back to you -- ever. It's our party now, and our movement. And Obama is going to be our young president.

The good news for you is that the powerful progressive movement Obama's arrival presages will mean that you'll get the health care you need over the next 30 years. It will also mean several -- not one, but several -- woman presidents in the country's near future. (Who knows: maybe one of them will be a lesbian! The young voters who are storming the gates of the Democratic party certainly wouldn't mind.)

In spite of the condescending "heart-over-head" line that the punditry has been repeating ad nauseam, we young voters know exactly what issues are important to us, and who is likeliest to make some headway on them.

And I'll be frank: the "dynastification" that the student in the article worried about is a substantive political concern, one that's connected closely to the alarming class divisions that began to open up under Bill Clinton and grew wider under Bush II.

HRC's cynical, cowardly support for the Iraq War is also a substantive argument against her leadership. Her support for the resolution naming Iran's armed forces a "terrorist organization" proves that she's learned nothing from her catastrophic error, and cannot be trusted at the reins of American foreign policy.

Stop resisting and belittling the Obama revolution. This train's leaving the station with or without you. We'd rather have you all along for the ride -- but we're ready to make history without you.

Posted by: MyManGodfrey | January 8, 2008 8:27 AM | Report abuse

dyck21005, you are entitled to your opinions but not to your own set of facts. Obama is not a Muslim. He is a Christian. He should be admired for keeping his own name and not taking the easy way out years ago of changing his name to sound more "acceptable" to people like you.

And for the record, Muslims in this country are citizens too. The overwhelming majority of them have nothing whatever to do with hostile acts against this country. It's amazing how some people feel so free to cast aspersions on a group of their fellow citizens whose only "offense" is belonging to a particular religious group.

Even our elected representatives throw around words like "radical Islam" as if it's a mantra, totally disregarding the feelings of millions of fellow citizens. It's quite possible to do what's necessary to protect the country from hostile forces and groups without repeatedly taking gratuitous swipes at one's fellow citizens

Posted by: shovetheplanet | January 8, 2008 8:21 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton will do anything it takes to get what she wants. When her wants align with everyone elses, that's great. But when her desires are contrary to other peoples, she is willing and able to commit attrocities to get where she wants to be. She's about the most amoral candidate there is.

I arrive at this opinion based on her "experience" in the White House Travelgate situation. For those of you who are unfamiliar with it; the Clinton Administration orchestrated a frame up of Mr Billy Dale, head of the White House Travel Office, with the sole intention of creating a reason to remove him from that position and replace him with with Clinton cronies. This resulted in a legalistic nightmare for the entire Dale family before they were completely vindicated. Toward the end of this witch hunt, Ms. Blanche Dale, wife of Billy, suffered a stroke from which she remains partially disabled, most likely brought on by the stress of this inquisition.

Oh yes, Ms. Hillary has a lot of experience. She was a key background influencer in all aspects of the Clinton Administration. She will use and abuse people to get her way, and when she is done with them, if they are lucky, she will discard them like useless trash; if they aren't lucky, she'll do her best to bury them to keep the stench from reaching the noses of her next victims.

Posted by: mhoust | January 8, 2008 8:17 AM | Report abuse

Senator Barack Obama won the Iowa Caucuses. New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson placed fourth. But did they really earn their finishing positions? The answer may be surprising. In the now past ABC New Hampshire debate before the January 8th first-in-the-nation primary, the rules were that only the candidates who finish in the top four slots in Iowa could participate, meaning that second-tier candidates who placed fourth could live on to continue their campaign another day. In the last hours before the Iowa caucuses Obama, who wanted to pad his victory and hedge his bets, approached Joe Biden with this, proposal: In precincts where Biden had a local official loyal to him, and if Biden wasn't viable, then Senator Biden would tell his organizers to move his supporters over to Obama en mass. Conversely, in precincts where Obama had more than enough supporters, he would lend people to Biden to ensure Biden a fourth place finish so that he could,continue Joe Biden actually considered the proposal. An anonymous source close to Biden told the Washington Post that the strategy could be "viability for victory."When the media found out, Obama's camp admitted that the conversation took place. Biden, who when asked about the proposal at a campaign event said that the deal could "probably" help both campaigns; however he later rejected the deal on "moral grounds," a source in Biden's Iowa organization told the Rev. Rob Times on condition of anonymity. History recorded that Joe Biden placed fifth in Iowa, and subsequently dropped out of the race. On January 4, the day after the caucus, the New York Times reported strong rumors that Obama made the same deal to Bill Richardson that he previously offered to Biden, only this time the deal was accepted.The Times article describes not only the rumors, but gives an eye-witness account and confession of an Obama official telling Richardson supporters that a pact had indeed been made between the two candidates. "That's what the leadership has said," admitted Deb Copeland, an Obama volunteer as reported by the New York Times. "What we're concerned about is we heard of a few people going to Hillary. And we want to keep you together," she told the Richardson supporters at the 64th precinct. Volunteers for the Biden campaign told the Rev. Rob Times that Obama organizers used the same speech about a "pact" to lure supporters in at least two precincts where Biden was only a few supporters shy of viability.Representatives from both the Obama and Richardson campaigns deny that such a deal was ever struck, yet first hand testimonies clearly paint a far different picture. The Effect in the end, the effect of backdoor wheeling and dealing between campaigns is that Richardson's fourth place finish could be artificial, and Obama's victory margin is larger than it would have been in a democratic system. Our democracy is based, in part, on the concept of "one man, one vote," and a vote by a secret ballot, free from the judging eyes of neighbors and the media, free from bribery, and free from the influence of political activists. Had the Iowa contest been based on a ballot, and had caucus voters cast a single vote for the candidate of their choice as is the most fair method of picking a president, then Obama may have come in second and Richardson in fifth. If Obama's victory margin had been smaller, or if he placed second, then the dynamic of the race would have changed drastically. Edwards, Clinton, and even Biden may have all come out of Iowa in stronger positions than any of them have.In part, the system is to blame, but those who took advantage of it and exploited it for their own purposes, namely Barack Obama and Bill Richardson, are not without culpability and their misdeeds should be remembered in the minds of voters.

Posted by: dyck21005 | January 8, 2008 8:08 AM | Report abuse

Well the young voters are looking mighty STUPID! they have been fooled!**CNN last night Lou Dodds said they polled the young voters supporting obama (which is how he is winning the recent caucuses) NOT ONE COULD SAY WHERE HE STOOD ON ANY ISSUE?? With the country at odds with so many foreign countries, it is horrifying to think of Barrack " Hussein" Obama ( Muslim) running our country. You think we are in trouble with bush/Chaney!

Posted by: dyck21005 | January 8, 2008 8:08 AM | Report abuse

Uclazy, Steveboyington, etc., you write in a well meaning but extremely foolish manner, apparently based on total ignorance of how the U.S. system, including the media, works, or perhaps doesn't work. The media and much of the public revile the Clintons because they committed the most unpardonable sin; they defied, at least up to now, the media's power, and the sociopathic right wing. So for sixteen years those two elements have had as their singular mission--destroy Hillary. Most of you who won't vote for her don't even know why. Ill tell you why; you're sad dupes of the vindicative media. I'll tell you what will happen after Obamba gets nominated. You will witness the most vicious, dishonest wave of anti-Obama smears, and you'll say "gosh" I didn't know those terrible things about him. Many of you will end up not voting for him yourself, and the election will conclude with another dishonest Republican president. You poor, pathetic suckers. Have happy future. ODUG

Posted by: odug | January 8, 2008 7:39 AM | Report abuse

The major problem with a President Hillary Clinton is that she would be a divisive influence when our country needs to come together. According to some polls, 48% of Americans say they will never vote for her. Even if the other 52% will and she became President, she could never be a unifying force. Most people now have no experience of our country being led by moderates of both parties. There was always disagreement between the parties but never the mutual disgust and even hatred that has existed the past 20 years. It really is time for a change and a return to a coming together to accomplish goals that our people cry out for. Hillary Clinton, for all her experience and good intentions cannot do this.

Posted by: barlsieg | January 8, 2008 7:24 AM | Report abuse

No matter who the Dem. candidate is, the Repubs. will go on the attack to distract people from their own failures. So people can't vote in the primaries based on the fear of "what the Republicans will say." That's how you get a candidate like Kerry who inspires no one but is intended to blunt Republican attacks. And totally falls on his face in the general election.

The way to win is to nominate the person people believe in. How does one believe in a scripted, triangulating, calculating and secretive individual like Hillary?

Congratulations to the students at Dartmouth and elsewhere who are getting involved in the process and have seen through the phony "inevitability" of Hillary. And as for Bill, he needs to give it a rest before he loses all credibility.

Posted by: shovetheplanet | January 8, 2008 7:24 AM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton wants intensely to get back into the White House, and sometimes he acts as if he wants to asterisk a Hillary presidency: to append a footnote to the historical record referring to his co-presidency during the Hillary years.

Bill's own presidency was admirable in important ways, and Hillary was undoubtedly a part of that presidency. But Sebastian Ramirez at Dartmouth puts it well, and other students agree: Now it's time for a fresh start.

Posted by: FirstMouse | January 8, 2008 7:21 AM | Report abuse

I understand that Clinton supporters are despondent that their candidate is losing, but please do not shrug off the loss as due to the voters being idiots. I voted for Bill, and thought he was a very good President. I am, however, an independent and have the ability to see the big picture over partisan emotion. Bill was good, but his and his wife's actions led to a takeover by the Republicans that has devastated our country in many ways. Do not criticize us if we don't want another helping of that. The Clintons and their supporters need to realize: it is not about YOU. It is about the country.

Posted by: steveboyington | January 8, 2008 7:14 AM | Report abuse

this is a great quote: "Added Smith, also 21: "I'm from New York. I think Hillary has done a good job as a senator, but it was just her stepping stone. And, for some reason, for whatever reason, I just don't like her."

I just dont like her....Wow, this is great substance. And being a Senator as a stepping stone to higher office. What how novel. I guess the fact that Clinton's male challengers are Senators is merely a coincidence. The sexism in these observations are just too obvious.

Posted by: darrren12000 | January 8, 2008 7:11 AM | Report abuse

These kids who want something "fresh" are simply showing their culture. In a land of "google," 24-hour news, instant downloads of everything imaginable....things become old in 2 seconds. But they do not even question policy. Fresh is not policy. Fresh is not governing. Fresh is what I want in my bread and seafood. I want my president to be rich and solid like an aged wine. God help this country.

Posted by: darrren12000 | January 8, 2008 7:09 AM | Report abuse

First of all, Hey bokonon13, while I still stand by my statements, I appreciate the civil disagreement that you have posted against my post, compared to the rancor I have found among those who disagree in other postings. There is one thing that I would like to point out (for now).

If you cast aside Hillary's attempt to "pass" healthcare as "meaningless" because it failed, then one of the major pillars of Obama, which is that he would have theoretically voted "no" to go to war with Iraq is also meaningless. It did not stop the country from going to war, and it wasn't even registered as a vote because he did not have the ability, nor responsibility to vote for against it. When he did have the ability to make a statement on the Iraq war and stop funding it, he voted to provide money for the war. I understand why he did it, but when the "rubber hit the road" he did not vote against it...until later.

As far as the "agents of change" bit, common now, if you read the papers or watched any TV the pass week, the phrase seems to get into your head. And no I am not, as evident by my writing/typing skills, a "Clinton plant" or writer....but she does need better writers.

Posted by: mcfield | January 8, 2008 4:42 AM | Report abuse

We Forget What It Was Like Under the Clintons
http://www.alternet.org/story/72336/

...The historical fact is that when Clinton took office, the Democratic Party controlled both houses of Congress and a majority of state governorships. By the time he left office, the Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress and two-thirds of the governorships. By the numbers, it was Clintonism that relegated the Democratic Party to the shadows.
...The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was the first major overhaul of United States telecommunications law in nearly 62 years. The broadcasting industry couldn't get the legislation through under Reagan or George H.W. Bush, but it succeeded under Clinton. The day he signed the bill into law, Clinton boasted, "Landmark legislation fulfills my administration's promise to reform our telecommunications laws in a manner that leads to competition and private investment, promotes universal service and provides for flexible government regulation."

The Act removed the legal barriers to local and long distance phone companies acquiring each other. The results were immediate and massive. In 1996 there were eight major U.S. companies providing local telephone service and five significant long-distance companies. By 1999, these 13 companies had merged into five telecommunications giants, in a series of record-breaking merger deals.
...And then there is healthcare..It was Hillary who concluded that it was politically impossible even to argue for a single-payer system. Whether a single payer initiative would have won is unclear, although the national educational effort around it would have been of unparalleled value. But as it was, Hillary's political miscalculation led not only to the idea of universal health care coverage being taken off the table for the next 13 years, but the loss of the House of Representatives and the coming to power of Newt Gingrich and the Republican right.
--------
Enough is enough. Just say No to the baggage, scandal, and shame that a Billary presidency would bring back to the White House.

Posted by: OceanDog | January 8, 2008 2:48 AM | Report abuse

mcfield, are you a Clinton plant?

but seriously -

actually, yes, in a democracy, Bush Clinton Bush Cliton IS a bad thing. Think of the other members who would fill out a Hillary administration.... some who have already worked in Washington for eight years.

You ask:
"What... you don't like balanced budgets?"

These were the result of her husband's political skill, his willingness to reach needed compromise with the GOP Congress, and circumstances unique to that time - the Cold War had just ended, we were emerging from a recession, and perhaps most importantly. the Internet and all the increased commerce and new forms of business associated with it was just starting to gain popularity. These factors combined to produce a boom economy like we had never seen before and may never see again. Hillary had nothing to do with it.

"Strong dollar?"

[see above]

"Healthcare?"

This is the only area she was closely involved in, and with what result? The number of uninsured grew, drug prices spiked, and universal coverage was off the table for 15 years. Her secretive approach turned off the legislators she needed on her side. Hillary killed universal coverage almost singlehandedly back in 1993.

"The Family leave act?"

This was not her doing.

"Why are the Clintons, the only people who actually balanced the budget in over forty years, not seen as agents of change?"

A few points... first of all, "the Clintons" did NOT balance the budget. BILL Clinton did, under economic circumstances which were far more favorable than those we have today.... and he had constant encouragement and prodding from both parties in Congress. Secondly, how curious that the somewhat awkward phrase 'agents of change' rolls off your tongue so easily... you may work for the campaign?

"I don't get it. Why is the woman who actually tried to PASS healthcare reform in 1993, and not in 2008 (like the other candidates are trying now to do), not seen as an agent of change?"

The key phrase here is "tried to pass." Tried... and failed, and made it a political hot potato for nearly 4 successive presidencies. And if you recall, Hillary was the LAST major Democratic candidate to unveil her plan this summer, and even with the extra time she took, it was basically the same as Edwards' and Obama's - who had released their plans months earlier.

And again with the 'agent of change'! Hillary needs new writers.

Posted by: bokonon13 | January 8, 2008 2:45 AM | Report abuse

Like anne9, I've voiced my concern that Obama 's campaign is starting to sound like a re-run of the 1972 McGovern campaign, which I was involved in up to my then-21 year old eyebrows. See "Deja vu all over again?" http://irregulartimes.com/diaries/2008/01/deja-vu-all-over-again-1972-replayed/
Of course, I got immediately panned by young Obama supporters who found me, like Hillary, cynical for even pointing out the possibility that the Republicans would prefer to see Obama run rather than Hillary. (Oh, and of course, a conspiracy theorist). Thanks Anne9 for the info suggesting that this is more than a mere possibility, at least in Iowa.

I guess I just don't get why Hillary draws so much hatred, and hatred really does seem to be the accurate word for it. She's hysterical; demonic and fascist, not to mention ambitious -- which I guess women still are not allowed to be in the USA. She's too harsh; she's too wimpy; she's too political - not political enough; too much of a Washington insider - doesn't really have any real experience, etc etc.

Obama's supporters take umbrage with ANYTHING that even approaches criticism of Obama, yet they are quick with a snipe at any action or reaction by Hillary. Let's keep the contest civilized.

I'm also bewildered by the equating of the Clintons with the Bushes. The Clinton don't even belong in the same sentence as the Bushes. Bill balanced the budget and we'll need Hillary to rebalance it now that Bush has spent the billions of surplus that Bill left us with a deficit in the 100's of trillions. The Obama supporters whose comments I'm reading here make the 1990's sound like ancient history. Just 10 years ago, folks; very recent history and history is something that the "changers" are going to have to learn something about so they know what they're changing.

Wake up Obama-niks. The boomer generation did not invent partisan politics; the Clintons are not the Bushes; idealism alone will not change anything. Some of us have been there (in 1972), done that, and saw how disastrous it turns out.

Most mystifying to me of all: just how non-partisan will Obama be if he gets the Democratic nomination? Can you even "run" for president as the Democratic candidate without being partisan? The Republicans, who have held the majority in Congress since the 1990's, have shown their expertise at partisan politics, their unwillingness to break out of lockstep and budge an inch away from George W.'s "my way or the highway" approach to governing.

If you don't think partisan politics is the forte of current Republicans, don't worry. They're just waiting to demonstrate their affinity for it once a candidate wins the Democratic nomination.

Posted by: cilka | January 8, 2008 2:42 AM | Report abuse

This idea that, "...Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton..." is a somehow inherently bad makes NO SENSE.

It was not Bush versus Clinton Each time. It was Bush versus a democrat not-named-Bush; Clinton (who became only the SECOND democratic president in 24 years, 1969 to 1993) who won versus an actual Bush, Bush versus Gore (it should read Bush-Clinton-Gore-Bush? -Clinton...), and now it may be Clinton versus a non-bush. Do you want it to say, ...Bush-Clinton-Bush-McCain? That would not be so bad. But how about a ...Bush-Clinton-Bush-Giuliani? Democrats want change, but the change is from Bush not Clinton. What... you don't like balanced budgets? Strong dollar? Healthcare? The Family leave act? The line could read, "deficit, balanced budget, huge deficit, balanced budget...

Why are the Clintons, the only people who actually balanced the budget in over forty years, not seen as agents of change?

I don't get it. Why is the woman who actually tried to PASS healthcare reform in 1993, and not in 2008 (like the other candidates are trying now to do), not seen as an agent of change?

Please do not give me the "only a first lady" BS, I remember the times and Hillary from the get-go was a prominent player in the Clinton WH as evidence by her taking the lead in Healthcare reform. I know now many young people do not realize this, but many people in the United States (men and women), were p**sed that she was so prominent. She was forced to tone it down outwardly and literally bake cookies, but you knew she was a prominent player in shaping policy, especially with regard to healthcare and family issues. Even when he was running for Office Clinton always said it was a "two for one". Bill Clinton clearly signaled that his wife Hillary would be prominent member of his team; however, the sexism of the time forced them to have to make her bake cookies and do her work behind the scenes.

Please before you go off on the personal drama, I prefer any personal drama to a deficit, weak dollar, NO healthcare, high unemployment, and high interest rates which will force many to be unable to pay their mortgages or student loans.

And PLEASE don't use the tired rhetorical phrase, "Are you a Clinton plant?" I am not. I am just a U.S. Citizen.

Posted by: mcfield | January 8, 2008 2:10 AM | Report abuse

"Words are not actions," Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said Saturday night during a Democratic debate in New Hampshire, as she called for a "reality brake" on her rivals' rhetoric. "As beautifully presented and passionately felt as they are, they are not action."

"He believes he's a game-changer, but I don't believe the game has changed," said Rep. Tom Cole (Okla.), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, dismissing Obama's transformational pledges as naive. "It's captivating. It's intoxicating, but it's not going to last."

You would think these politicians would be for change like Obama , and talk the same way , instead of both coming out against Obama , and saying that Washington will never change .........hummmmm. Washington needs real Change , and if these who say it can't be done maybe don't want it to change ....hummm, maybe its to their best interest to be polarized rather than bipartisan , so they can keep pulling the tricks they have been .....humm....

Total Public Debt Outstanding; http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway

01/03/1994 US Treasury Debt under Clinton 4,512,315,337,989.71

12/31/1999 5,776,091,314,225.33
12/29/2000 US Treasury Debt under Bush 5,662,216,013,697.37
12/31/2007 9,229,172,659,218.31
And the Debt dollars stop at the door of the US Consumer , and the Government , which still is relying on the US Consumer , and the Only beneficiaries from all these years are who ,,, WTO Trade partners , Government Officials , and Financial Organizations , that the Fed keeps pumping dollars back into every time Credit defaults loom , go figure ........Its time for some new Directions , that pack along with it some real Solutions . Go Get em Barack, hes the only one thats neutral , and won't be bought off by Big Money . And don't forget to tell everyone that the idea that Corporate Employees could Integrate their Work to their Home , and cut down the Driving on a weekly basis , and cut the gas consumption by 35% - 45 % in 2008-2010 , cut the Emissions , and Improve the quality of Life , and Profit from it to Boot , there is no reason that this would not work , with Secured Server Systems like today , and the Technologies that Corporate America uses today that could be used at Home to accomplish the same things , it would allow more people to stay home more days out of the work week , and cut the road travel down thus reducing Costs even in healthcare just because of the lower stress on Society . Just think what the money saved by the people that are able to practice this type of work function , the overall benefits would create solvent solutions . Rock and roll . Thanks and have a Great day in the USA

Posted by: ajironworks | January 8, 2008 1:45 AM | Report abuse

I'm one of those Dartmouth students who "walked out on" Bill earlier. What the Clintons don't understand is that the "change" is not about George Bush. Its not enough that she is a Democrat who represents new ideals and a return to positive policies of the 90s. What Obama has tapped into is a general dissatisfaction with this divisive Washington culture that doesn't work for the people.

I like Bill, but there is only so many times he can make faulty arguments for Hillary's candidacy before it gets tiresome. (For example, why should I care that a poll of Europeans showed that she has the most "support" abroad?)

See you at the polls!

Posted by: gofarbeyond | January 8, 2008 1:36 AM | Report abuse

Its so sad to see this particular group of people(students)being suckered into Obamas'
empty promises. What exactly is this man for? He's a snake oil salesman with a slick, 1940'style of oratory that has played well with people who don't really examine what all these catch phrases and airy rhetoric are covering up -such as lack of specifics on any subject from economics, a possible recession, to global warming. From the beginning of this campaign I have watched with absolute horror as people
gravitated to this man who has no substantive plan for the direction of our country and our place in the world and who gets a free pass from the press on what constitutes his platform . It looks like mass hysteria, not a thoughtful decision about who can best lead us. I am a retired teacher, who supported my students to be independent thinkers and to never hesitate to be the only one on a side of a particular subject. I see a herd mentality emerging in these primaries that has a chilling effect.
A candidate who has specific domestic and global goals they can begin to activate early in their administration, without gaps for on the job training ,is an absolute must in these perilous times.

Posted by: Kavanaugh1 | January 8, 2008 12:44 AM | Report abuse

anne9: you are the only one I am aware of who has actually said what I feared/thought might happen with some Iowas Republicans voting for Obama to stop Hillary. Was it only on Iowa blogs this was noted? I wonder how extensive it was, and could this happen in New Hampshire?

Posted by: rdklingus | January 8, 2008 12:24 AM | Report abuse

What have we come to? Even if you dont agree with what they say....you have no right to disrespect them. If you behave that way to others....it certainly doesnt reflect what you are sooo trying to convince the public. I dont see that...as ..Hope. You are repeating exactly what you say you are against. Just more to validate my belief that these young people are being led by a pied piper. How tragic. I live in Iowa. If you take time to read the comments...and the blogs in Iowa newspapers...you would be amazed how many Republicans changed party affliation to cast an anti Hillary vote. They only cared about her not being in the White House. They have no intentions of staying with the Democratic Party...and are joking about voting for the Republicans in the general election. They see Senator Obama has an easy target due to his his past voting records. He does not represent the vast majority of the middle of America. He will be defeated in the general election. Just like so many other Democrats....who had the same message in the past.

Posted by: anne9 | January 8, 2008 12:04 AM | Report abuse

joycerems: you are so right. I am a Hillary supporter too.

Posted by: rdklingus | January 7, 2008 11:57 PM | Report abuse

You guys are right...It would have been Great if it had been Bush, Clinton, Clinton...what's fresh in a young person mind today is the past 7 years with George W...but what you don't understand, is the country was on a better track when Bill left office, but we needed someone to continue, adding or making little changes along the way. It takes more than 8 years to change the direction of our country. We as Democrats keep making the same mistakes over and over again, we make it very easy for the Republicans to take back the White House, and then by the time we get it back, we have to start over again. We were all young once, and thought we could conquer the world...and we CAN...but Experience Counts, so we don't have to waste so much time doing it. I am a Hillary supporter.

Posted by: joycerems | January 7, 2008 11:48 PM | Report abuse

As a Canadian watching the U.S. media, my take on the race will be that Obama and McCain take Super Tuesday, and Clinton leaves shortly afterwards.

Events in Pakistan and perhaps the Taiwan Strait will put a spotlight on Obama's and McCain's ability to manage international crises.

We shall see:

http://mungobah.blogspot.com/2008/01/predictions-for-new-hampshire-super.html

Mungo

Posted by: mungo70 | January 7, 2008 11:27 PM | Report abuse

Lilzthepill-- Based on your "tired life tending to your family and paying your bills". you are refreshed by turning to Obama because you "don't have time to dwell on what is really wrong with their (your ?) lives". No politician, even one as charismatic as Obama, can fix someone's life if the person himself doesn't know what is wrong. And stop with the Hillary looks like a witch stuff because you didn't like the way her face looked in the debate. Not a very critical thinker are you?

Posted by: rdklingus | January 7, 2008 11:16 PM | Report abuse

Dear Dartmouth students, dear NH, please turn the page on the Clinton dynasty and the baby boomer sense of entitlement to hang on to hegemonic power. Turn the page on old, mean, divisive, negative politics of personal destruction. To tear up misty-eyed and then immediately tear down Senator Obama's long distinguished record of fighting for the dispossessed, his intelligence and position as constitutional law lecturer at the University of Chicago, to use the Karl Rove politics of fear is NOT what we want in our first woman POTUS. Hillary is a feminist like Bush is a an intellectual. Turn away from the 1990s and send the Bush-Clinton elders to the history books and make history yourself. Turn the page.

Posted by: shirleylim | January 7, 2008 10:57 PM | Report abuse

This post - like many of the rest here - reads like something out of Pravda. In the current case, we're informed that the (now disfavored) person is OK, but the new favorite is better and, in fact, that's who the vanguard is voting for.

Posted by: LonewackoDotCom | January 7, 2008 10:49 PM | Report abuse

I was at Dartmouth back in the early seventies. I worked on Gov. George McGoverns's campaign. Dartmouth students felt the urgency for change then as they do now. I am glad to read that "The Big Green" is still championing for what might be the best change for this county. I am truly hoping that this prestigious college will be a fulcrum to propel Obama into the arena to be nominated. I think many people feel that the "Clinton Dynasty" is rife with too much baggage. I was leaning toward Hillary until I started really listening to Obama. Even her face during debates is looking like the witch in the Disney film: "Snow White"..."Mirror, Mirror on the wall...am I able to fool them all?"
Most Americans wake up, tend to their families, go to work and come home to tend to their families. They pay taxes, day care fees, insurance premiums and pay their basic bills. They don't have time to dwell on what is really wrong with their lives. What's wrong is that most Americans are too tired to sit in the front row at a rally and fight for change. Obama has given most Americans an alternative to that. He just speaks like what over-worked, tired and disgusted Americans do at their dinner tables. How refreshing is that?

Posted by: lilzthepill | January 7, 2008 10:37 PM | Report abuse

Check out this picture of another bored Bill attendee.
http://jtaplin.wordpress.com/2008/01/07/clinton-depression/

Posted by: Trumbull | January 7, 2008 10:16 PM | Report abuse

I feel very similar to the students in the piece. We all like Bill but as a more idealistic group Barak Obama has more appeal with a message of hope and opportunity. In the debates the other night clinton used the words "false hope". That is a message of cynicism and she evokes the past when she speaks of 35 years of experience.

The young people want something other than traditional democratic establishment candidate and as hard as Clinton tries that is what she is and what she knows. The American people have repeatedly expressed a displeasure with Washington insiders, we like to elect governors rather than senators, and clinton's candidacy is based on 35 years of insider experience.

Posted by: uclazy31 | January 7, 2008 9:50 PM | Report abuse

Wow . . . that must have burst Bill's bubble!

Posted by: diksagev | January 7, 2008 9:39 PM | Report abuse

Booing Hillary, walking out on Bill: How far can the poor 'ol Clintons far?

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

Posted by: parkerfl | January 7, 2008 9:37 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company