Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama Campaign Decries Clinton S.C. Ad

Obama's loyal supporters have made him the poll leader in S.C.

By Matthew Mosk
Barack Obama's
presidential campaign team is crying foul today over a new radio ad that rival Hillary Clinton has begun to air in South Carolina.

According to a transcript and audio of the ad being circulated by the Obama camp, the radio spot presents a clip of Obama saying, "The Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10, 15 years."

A voiceover then says, "Really? Aren't those the ideas that got us into the economic mess we're in today? Ideas like special tax breaks for Wall Street. Running up a $9 trillion debt. Refusing to raise the minimum wage or deal with the housing crisis. Are those the ideas Barack Obama's talking about?"

The line of attack is one that Clinton used during the contentious Democratic debate in South Carolina, and one she and her husband have both repeated on the stump -- though the radio ad drops the Clintons' earlier assertion that Obama said that the Republicans had "all the good ideas" during the 90s.

The Washington Post Fact Checker columnist, Michael Dobbs, examined the Clintons' earlier critique of the Obama remark, and concluded that the Clinton attacks distorted Obama's comment. Dobbs noted that Obama never said the Republican ideas were good ones, and during the interview in which he made the comment, he went on to criticize the Republican obsession with tax cuts.

Here, courtesy of FactCheck.Org, is the full text of what Obama told the editorial board of the Reno Gazette-Journal:

Obama (Jan. 14, 2008): The Republican approach has played itself out. I think it's fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10, 15 years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom. Now, you've heard it all before. You look at the economic policies when they're being debated among the presidential candidates, it's all tax cuts. Well, we know, we've done that; we've tried it. That's not really going to solve our energy problems, for example.

By Web Politics Editor  |  January 23, 2008; 11:59 AM ET
Categories:  The Hidden Campaign  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Pa. Gov. Rendell Endorses Clinton
Next: A Deep-Seated Fear Leads to Questions in S.C.


Barack Obama is running for the nomination of the Democratic Party - a party of Democrats, who believe in Democratic policies and principles. Barack Obama has nothing positive to say about Democratic ideas, Democratic progress, Democratic Presidents .... he reserves his praise for Republicans and has promised to make Arnold Schwarzenegger a member of his cabinet, as well as Luger and Hagel - all three of them Republicans.

God help the Democratic Party and all it represents if Obama is elected. Bill and Hillary know this - they know what he is planning and they are extremely concerned about it.

I hope they are able to stop him before it is too late.

Posted by: audart | January 24, 2008 10:27 AM | Report abuse

hey Bill Clinton 'where is that blue-dress with your semen on it'?

Oh l forgot 'you never had any sexual relationship with that woman'....LIAR!!

Liar, cheats and desperate to be back in the white-house, that is what the Clintons stands for.

Posted by: nkgilb | January 24, 2008 10:25 AM | Report abuse

Perfect exapmle of an Obama supporter(Posted by: nononono7) unable to read or understabd facts...sad..:) Obama's spiritual adviser, J Wright gave Trumpeter Award to a man it said "truly epitomized greatness. Louis Farrakhan. maybe for Wright and some others, Farrakhan "epitomized greatness." For Americans, Farrakhan epitomizes racism, particularly in the form of anti-Semitism. Over the years, he has compiled an awesome record of offensive statements, even denigrating the Holocaust by falsely attributing it to Jewish cooperation with Hitler "They helped him get the Third Reich on the road." His history is a rancid stew of lies. Any praise of Farrakhan heightens the prestige of the leader of the Nation of Islam. His anti-Semitism and particularly his false insistence that Jews have played an inordinate role in victimizing African Americans.
Farrakhan's dream has vilified whites and singled out Jews to blame for crimes large and small, either committed by others as well or not at all. (A dominant role in the slave trade, for instance.) He has talked of Jewish conspiracies to set a media line for the whole nation. He has reviled Jews in a manner that brings Hitler to mind. And yet Wright heaped praise on Farrakhan. According to Trumpet, he applauded his "depth of analysis when it comes to the racial ills of this nation." He praised "his integrity and honesty." He called him "an unforgettable force, a catalyst for change and a religious leader who is sincere about his faith and his purpose." These are the words of a man who prayed with Obama just before the Illinois senator announced his run for the presidency. Will he pray with him just before his inaugural?
The New York Times recently reported on Obama's penchant while serving in the Illinois legislature for merely voting "present" when faced with some tough issues. Farrakhan, in a strictly political sense, may be a tough issue for him. This time, though, "present" will not do.

Posted by: dyck21005 | January 24, 2008 8:05 AM | Report abuse

If all you "life long Dems" and Obama supporters are really who you say you are and will not vote for Hillary Clinton if she's the nominee, I think it's pretty obvious that Obama has the irrational vote all sewn up.

For the record, both of them are pretty okay but somewhat flawed candidates IMO. (Edwards has too much of the "eat the rich" rhetoric going for my taste.) As much as it sounds like repeating a campaign line, the difference really is that a Clinton administration will be much better prepped to deal with most of the issues facing us. Obama should have waited and built a more substantive resume, not just 2 books and 2 years in the senate.

Posted by: ashokr1995 | January 24, 2008 7:02 AM | Report abuse

I just can't believe that a presidential candidate (Hillary) called somebody from Illinois a slumlord. Obama could have slapped back with Hillary's dealings with Norman Hsu. But Obama decided to take the high road and did not want to pick up the mud thrown by Hillary.

Let us look at the facts here.

Hillary's whitewater deals. Hillary was hauled to the courts for that. Remember the Clinton friends the McDougals. They were worse than the Ruzo guy Hillary was calling a slumlord. McDougals spent time in prison for protecting the Clintons.

Hillary's deals with Norman Hsu. The guy tried to commit suicide in a train, when he realized that all the dirty laundry Hillary and Norman shared will be hung out to dry in plain view.

Hillary's travelgate. Hillary fired the whole travel agency that handled plane trips for the white house. Then she put her own people there so that she could make the 80 or so trips with her daughter to foreign countries on tax payer money. All arranged by her close friend Madeline Albright whom Hilary had forced onto the administration as the secretrary of state. Bill had to throw out all other qualified candidates for the post due to the tantrums from Hillary to post her friend.

Now the Clintons want to inject race issues into the election knowing that African Americans are a minority unlike women voters who are more than 50% of the voting population. By making race issues, the Clintons want to create a bad taste of Obama among the white voters.

The Clintons take the American public for fools. Hillary brings race issues in S.C. then runs of to California to get endorsement from Hispanic unions.

It is very despeckable that Hillary is running such a negative campaign. What is worse is the negativity is spewing from the mouth of the whole Clinton family.

No more Clintons.

Posted by: ChunkyMonkey1 | January 24, 2008 2:04 AM | Report abuse

Up until very recently, I have said I would support whatever Democratic candidate was nominated. But I could not in good conscience vote for someone as dishonest and scheming as Hillary Clinton. It is shocking to hear her repeat the same lies day after day, apparently without any pangs of conscience. If she is the nominee I will abstain.

I still think honesty and decency are something we should expect from our elected officials. The bar has been set extremely low as of late, but all the more reason to insist on higher standards. Please everyone, vote for Obama and choose a candidate who represents not just the democratic party but democratic principles.

Posted by: joseph.hill | January 24, 2008 1:11 AM | Report abuse

Obama is just a big baby, isn't he? Why does he think that he is immune to criticism and campaign ads? For God's sake, it's a *presidential* campaign!!!

I want to see a presidential candidate that digs right in and defines himself, gets down in the mud and slugs it out on the issues. I don't want one that constantly worries about the opposition's ads or statements. The "poor little me" thing is getting old Obama.

I think Obama is really on the defensive now and I don't see this turning around anytime soon, certainly not while he has this big whining attitude all over his sleeve.

Obama, should take some good advice: If you can't stand the heat baby, get your butt out of that kitchen! Remember, Hillary is as tough as nails and heat don't bother the sister!

Posted by: slarsen | January 24, 2008 12:37 AM | Report abuse


Too bad a few more (Democratic) Senators could not be convinced to throw the LIAR out of office when they had the chance ; )

Posted by: JakeD | January 23, 2008 10:55 PM | Report abuse

As someone else said: it's not because Hilary wants to serve the people that she want to be president; she thinks it's her turn. I'm afraid it might happen, and we will miss the opportunity to have a man like Barack Obama in the white house. He is special. He is a breath of fresh air.
A good man. Bill Clinton is a charming man, but he's not a good man. He's a cheat and a liar. Everyone knows that.

Posted by: jhhovey | January 23, 2008 10:08 PM | Report abuse

The Democratic campaign for the presidency has taught me how a disgraced impeached president and his wife behave.

I will vote for a Republican president for the first time in my life in November 2008 if Mrs. (and Mr.) Clinton lead the Democratic ticket.

Posted by: willowbarcelona | January 23, 2008 9:57 PM | Report abuse

I too am totally disgusted by the Clinton's behavior. If the Clinton's win, the party loses. It is one thing to point out your strengths and attributes, and point out your opponents weaknesses, but to deliberately lie and distort your opponents position is unconscionable.

I am a registered democrat and have always voted for democrats -- that is until now. If Hilary is the nominee, I will either sit out the vote or not vote for her. If enough people feel like this, this does not portend well for Democrats keeping the Senate.

The DNC needs to reign these two in and quickly.

I have registered by disgust with the DNC. They can check the records and see that I have been contributing to national and Maryland state democratic parties since 2004. But, I won't contribute another dime until I can be sure that Hilary will not be the nominee.


Posted by: DCNative69 | January 23, 2008 9:53 PM | Report abuse

Hillary: never. Ripping apart the party at a critical junction in the country's history. In the process of setting feminism back years by hiding behind Bill's snarling, carefully calibrated attacks and orange ties and her own fabricated tears (compare her to Claire McKaskill, smart, tough, principled). The one true thing she's said in 2008 is that she's now found her own voice. NEVER.

Posted by: william.noland | January 23, 2008 8:56 PM | Report abuse

Bottom Line:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by: JackSmith1 | January 23, 2008 8:33 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for the link, drama_king. I followed your advice and have sent a letter to the DNC. The text of it follows:

I am writing to express my utter disgust at the conduct of Bill and Hillary Clinton during this primary season. Someone at the DNC needs to reign in these two ASAP. I've been a Democrat since I was old enough to vote in 1978, and I've never before felt that I could not eventually close ranks and support a particular presidential candidate should he (or in this case she) win the primaries and become the Party's nominee. But as of today, I'm forced to declare that, given the abominable conduct of her and her husband--deliberate distortions verging on lies, attempts to hijack the Nevada caucuses, etc.--should Hillary Clinton become the Democratic Party's nominee this summer, I will not cast a vote for president in the general election. Unless, that is, John McCain manages to win the GOP nod, in which case I will vote for him come November.

This is one case where character is the top consideration for me; the Clintons have disgraced themselves and the Party by deliberately taking the low road. I refuse to reward such cynical behavior. We stand to lose not just the White House but the Senate and perhaps even the House if voter turnout is depressed this fall, and the Clintons' apparent strategy of a Karl Rove-style 50%-plus-one win in the primaries will cost us severely later on.

I've contributed time and money to local, state (Maryland) and national Democratic campaign coffers for decades, and been an active campaigner on several occasions. But this is just too much for me to stomach. Somebody read the riot act to these people before it's too late!




As for the posters that claim we Democrats who are totally disgusted and refuse to vote for Hillary in November are just GOP operatives pretending to be Dems, all I can say is that the DNC form required me to enter my real name and address when I submitted my e-mail. You might doubt my lifetime Party affiliation and activities, but they can crosscheck my info and know I'm for real, and that's what matters.

The only scenario that I could see voting for Hillary now would be to prevent a Romney win. Since they're two of a kind with their position-shifting, character-lacking, do-and-say-anything-to-win style of empty-suit politics, we might as well have the one with the (D) after her name. Tweedledum and Tweedle(D).

Posted by: whatmeregister | January 23, 2008 8:23 PM | Report abuse

To Laplume.
I've posted a message recently about hilary the "Goldwater Girl". She had her memoir sealed by the government in which she described herself as a fervent conservative.
What about the Tom Brokaw's book about hilary's admiration for Ronald Reagan as the prophet of the modern conservatism?

Please take the link you mentionned below and post it on as many blog you can. Because I'm going to do the same
No matter from which allegiance we are the american people should know about it

Posted by: rbduval | January 23, 2008 8:12 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, shong31 -- I didn't mean to say you wouldn't vote "against" Clinton -- I was indeed THANKING you (and other Democrats) for promising to NOT VOTE FOR her even if she gets the nomination : )

Anybody but Billary!!!

Posted by: JakeD | January 23, 2008 7:16 PM | Report abuse

We need personal AND political integrity in the White House. Barack Obama is what we need.

Posted by: eSPO1 | January 23, 2008 6:44 PM | Report abuse


Hilarious. Bill Clinton falls asleep at MLK celebration




Posted by: laplumelefirmament | January 23, 2008 6:35 PM | Report abuse


Hilarious. Bill Clinton falls asleep at MLK celebration




Posted by: laplumelefirmament | January 23, 2008 6:34 PM | Report abuse

This post is in response specifically to cveggar's post, but I would like all to consider it. For those who think Hillary being in office is going to help us out in our foreign relations and affairs, you must not understand the world as a whole and how it work.

Anyone who has studied and been in the company of other cultures knows that she will be perceived as dogmatic and will probably send us into more wars than we are currently in right now, which America cannot afford. Senator Obama is already being received internationally and was even considered for a seat in the UN.

I just don't see how a woman that has to fight and use tactics like a dishonest and brute man, furthers any of our causes. She is not gracious. She is not diplomatic. She is not Margaret Thatcher. She is someone who will lie, distort the truth, and get into the White House, "By Any Means Necessary."

And because she is unable to tell the truth and communicate someone's true intentions in their message, I would be fearful that she would lie and misconstrue what another country or nation would say and what their intent would be in dealing with the United States.

Others across the world are already saying (and I know because I have friends all over the world) that if Hillary Clinton gets into the White House, the United States is in serious trouble.

Along with these observations, it would seem to me that since she has been a lawyer, she should understand the value of presenting facts. I don't see how anybody who embraces any facet of truth and American values can justify her candidacy.

Posted by: pureheartwj | January 23, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons and the DLC have been co-opted by the NEO-CON agenda for quite awhile. Now the Clintons are going to take the Democratic Party down with them just when the country found Obama. Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. The Clintons are stupidly ruthless and in this game we will lose.

Posted by: JoJo7 | January 23, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, Drama_King. I sent a message to the DNC.

Look. I'm a 45-year old mom and was very supportive of Bill in the 90's, despite the blatant, finger-wagging lying under oath. I never gave Hillary much thought one way or the other. But I'm a feminist, and I cannot support a woman who is a senator and candidate solely because of her husband's credentials, DLC, political machine and donors.

To Girard, yes I will vote for McCain instead of Hillary, and here's why. I'm told to consider Supreme Court appointments. Given her poor judgment on Iraq, Iran and lying smears of Obama, how do I know she won't throw her principles and values under the bus (again) in order to get her [compromise] nominees confirmed?

Posted by: kurtrk | January 23, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

The media refuses to challenge anything Obama says or does. The media gives this guy a free ride. The Clinton's have every right to challenge him. The voting public deserves to have every candidate's comments, opinions, etc., be challenged.

Some day historians will look back at this campaign and analyzie why the media was so enamored with Obama.

Posted by: badger3 | January 23, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice."
-US Constitution Amendment 22, Section 1.

Lets face it, a vote for Hillary is a vote for Bill.

Posted by: sconradweesner | January 23, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

JakeD, I didn't say I would NOT vote against Hillary. I certainly won't vote for her, and, depending on who the repubs put up, I might vote for the repub. To me its a question of whether I want a repub in the white house with a Dem. congress, or allow the Clintons to win and prove to the whole electorate that dirty politics and dishonesty can get you into the white house. The latter is, to me, the more evil.

Anybody but Billary.

Posted by: shong31 | January 23, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Bill lost the majority in the house and that gave control to Newt Gingrich and then helped move Newts agenda by triangulation remember that? Bill also lost the majority in the Senate and the 2000 presidential election he turned the Democratic Brand into to the SLEAZY brand Al Gore had no chance and he had heart troubles during the 04 election so he wouldn't have to campaign for Kerry so Hillary could run in 08 remind you of someone? Cheney did the same thing in 2000 whenever Al Gore got some good news during the recount Dick had heart trouble and he would dominate the headlines. Billary=Bushlite the same ol same ol! Obama08!

Posted by: gfsurrette | January 23, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

I have no doubt that Hillary will claim there was a "vast Southern fried chicken wing conspiracy" working against her after she loses in South Carolina. I will treat her in a non-sexist way, and describe her just as I would a man who did what she is doing...simply put, she's a lying scumbag.

Posted by: john44 | January 23, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

I dont understand why Obama's campaign is even bothering to respond to hillary's attacks. Even with all the explaining, a normal person can understand what his position is. But, not clintons. If they do, then they have to resort to tears. So, this kind of attack is much better for them.
As for rezko, Obama should take clinton's example of how they stayed away from Norman Hsu, Mark Rich, Saudi contributions. They have a nerve to talk about Obama.

Posted by: v_velagapudi | January 23, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Bill didn't inhale-- never, ever, not even once.
Hillary didn't read the intelligence reports because she thought she was voting on authorizing inspectors to inspect.
And no one is sure which one didn't have sex with which woman.
Taken together, this is what makes them both such innocents.
Which explains why Hillary is convinced she's ready to take over the world on "Day One!"
Sounds good to me.

Posted by: rarignac | January 23, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Yes, count me as another life-long Democrat who won't ever vote for Hillary. What's the point of having a democracy if we don't even make politicians tell the truth?

Posted by: davestickler | January 23, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

By the way...where the hell is Oprah? She needs to calls these fools out and get her fans motivated, especially in California! Let's put a nail in this coffin pronto! They've got that media magnet Bill. Oprah needs to be the positive to his negative.

Posted by: frank | January 23, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

shong31, mgoodwin, and all Democrats who pledge to NOT vote against Hillary:

Thank you!! Better late than never, I always say : )

Posted by: JakeD | January 23, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Despite the fact that Hillary Clinton has been in the public light for decades, it seems as if we are just beginning to get to know her. Her two recent emotional incidents, the tearing up during the "How do you do it?" question and her explosive and undisciplined attacks at Obama during the recent CNN debate, have been very telling. Though for years we have heard speak on a variety of critical national issues we have not witnessed any emotion from her, and yet these two events elicited sever responses from her. It is disturbing that her emotion can only displayed when the topic involves herself and her reputation, and NOT when discussing the dire needs of others. Hillary seems to be possessed by the same selfishness that her husband displayed when he bogged down the country with his self-indulgent affair with Monica Lewinsky. And again the Clinton's selfishness is displayed by the very distorted negative attack statements at Obama that threaten the integrity of Democratic candidates for the upcoming national election. Clearly, neither Hillary or Bill can not prioritize the good of the Democratic Party above there own selfish desires to be 'winners'. It is disturbing that Democrats are just now getting an inside view into Hillary when the primary process is so far advanced. And it is also too bad we can not have a runoff election to resolve this situation instead of a convention.

Posted by: JamesCaroll | January 23, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Are you trying to tell me that Bill Clinton:

(1) "Didn't Inhale"

(2) "Didn't have sex with that woman."

(3) Was disbarred from practicing law

(4) Was Impeached!!!????

(5) Loves HilLIEry

(6) Believes in fairy tales.

Posted by: valskeet | January 23, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Good point about the one liners and humor. I think he should add it to his options, but Obama made another good point that unanswered attacks could be a mistake as shown by Kerry in `04.

Posted by: frank | January 23, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Yet another Democrat who will cross party lines to vote against Clinton if she's the nominee. I feel like all the relevant points have been made, so all I've got to say is--YO establishment Dems that love being right and always losing, vote for Billary in the primary and watch what happens--another eight years of ineffectiveness and deep division. You'll lose the Congress again, but hey, at least that will leave all you cynics with something to gripe about for another decade, right? I mean, where would we be if we actually took a cue from the rest of the country, you know, those red-state idiots with that pesky voting habit?

The only way to unite the Republican party at this point and guarantee more partisan rancor is to nominate Billary.

Posted by: mgoodwin_04 | January 23, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons are lying, dirty old politicians.

I hope to God this backfires on them.

I am one of those democrat-leaning Independents.
I have never voted for a republican in my life (but i reserve the right to).

I am at the point where if Hillary is nominated, i will campaign vigorously against her, regardless of who her republican opponent is. Not because i want another Republican in office, but because i don't want to give the message to the Clintons that dirty political tricks work.

I am beyond disgusted with the Clintons.
Good luck in the general, Democrats, if you nominate her.

Posted by: julieds | January 23, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Obama had a good message, I'm still a big supporter but am feeling a little weary from all the infighting. He shouldn't come out and attack right back, what he should do is hire a team of comedic writers to write zingy comebacks and one liners in response to Clintons attacks. That would put everyone back on his side, the clintons are not fazed by negative attacks. But people allready associate them with being the butt of many jokes, so by turning their attacks into humor Obama would merely be transitioning the negative focus from him to them. Humor is the way Obama can survive the GOP style tactics being deployed by the Clintons. From a good one liner Obama could make their attacks a non-issue and quickly move on to something of actual interest.

Posted by: formlessness | January 23, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons are going to take the Democratic party down if Hillary gets nominated she will lose the general(she's polarizing) and she has POISON coat tails. Look at the 06 election the D's took both the house and Senate all the conventional wisdom said the D's would take the house but not the Senate but than a really well liked Senator showed up on the scene Senator Barck Obama he was the most asked for Democrat out on the trail NOT BILL NOT HILLARY every Democratic candidate wanted him to come out and stump for em in places like RED Missouri RED Virgina RED Montana and the D's won every seat Obama's GOLDEN COAT TAILS Obama practically lived in Virgina and Gov. Kaine and Senator Web are endorsing Senator Obama he can bring the Country Together and move it forward instead of backward to the political fights of the 90's. Obama 08!

Posted by: gfsurrette | January 23, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Raising your voice doesn't make something true. The Clinton's had their time...its done...its over. Watching them is like watching another rerun of Seinfeld...enough already! Its time for a fresh start! Just look at the groundswell of negative responses to the Clintons. I've never heard so many democrats say that they will not vote for her now, even against a republican. That's pretty bad. I really think the Clintons and the pundits have underestimated how turned off people are by their constant distortion of the facts. Vote for Change - Vote Obama Baby!

Posted by: frank | January 23, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

"John Kerry won the Congressional Medal of Honor and had it used against him."

See, this is the whole problem. The Clintons find any way that they can to rationalize why they're lying.

Do you honestly believe that practicing Swift Boat politics is morally fine? If you don't, why are you refusing to stand up against it?

Posted by: davestickler | January 23, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

That dishonesty exists hardly justifies dishonesty. Liars are. The Clintons lie. We should accept these basic facts. But to abuse what someone said is despicable. To isolate words and transform the meaning a speaker invested in them and then maintain that you are merely quoting and challenging the thoughts expressed, is worse than a simple lie. That jpendlet can't see why cheating should be out of bounds kind of defines jpendlet's critical abiliities. This is a case where someone's words should indeed be used against them.

Posted by: rarignac | January 23, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

I am not sure how using your own words against you is out of bounds. In fact, most of you who claim you will never vote for Hillary, etc. because of these tactics will deserve what the nation gets if the Republicans win again.

This is politics at the highest levels. Challenging eachother on what they said and what they did is part of the process. Obama seems to be sticking up for himself just fine. The reality is some of you are upset because his poll numbers in many super tuesday states are down and you are frustrated. Please dont make decisions based on emotion, but instead think about the consequences of your choices.

These are petty complaints leveled by a candidate and his supporters who are getting their feelings hurt by someone having the "audacity" to challenge him. The Republicans will not shy away from challenging him or anyone else. John Kerry won the Congressional Medal of Honor and had it used against him.

Posted by: jpendlet | January 23, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

The answer to the question of whether or not Senator Obama can win the nomination and the office of president is given to us by The Clintons: "Yes, he can!" That's why they are doing everything they can to rip him up and tear him down. That's why Bill's back to look you in the eye, wave his hands around, lean into the camera, and lie to you and make you feel guilty if you doubt him. That's why they are making collages of Obama's words, taken out of context, and putting them up on the radio -- to make it seem as if Senator Obama has been saying abhorrent things. Those abhorrent things are coming straight from The Clintons' imagination and their audio engineers' editing. They've got nothing else to run on but platitudes. That's why they have to put words into Obama's mouth.
When Hillary ran on being Hillary, the voters rejected her straight out--10 points down behind Obama, and straggling behind John Edwards--and with her name recognition.
If Americans can show that they are better than the narrow-minded fools that The Clintons have pegged them for, by, for example, voting for Obama, especially if you're not black, then The Clintons will have been proved to be pure low-life and unworthy of high office. If The Clintons are right, and the Americans vote for the past and their prejudice, scandal and money, then they and the public deserve each other. And, that's the truth. It's the voters choice, don't let The Clintons make up your mind for you. Don't listen to their lies but do the right thing.
By the way, Obama can do more for women's rights because he can win the White House. Hillary will just activate the Republicans and all the Democrats and Independents that can't stand her and hand the presidency to some Republican conservative. Everyone will just say that he, the Republican, can't be half as bad as Bush. This election is about the White House, but also about the Supreme Court. Hillary and Bill could also help the Democrats take a hit in the House and the Senate, like they did in the 1990s when they gave the Congress to the Republicans and gave the country gridlock.

Posted by: rarignac | January 23, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Suggestion for Constitutional amendment. Change to 1 Senator per state, and cut the number of Representatives in each state in half. Immediate results would be (a) half as much supporting their worthless butts and their lifestyle, (b) fewer wasteful programs pushed through Congress because their would be half as many elected people pushing them through in order to get re-elected, (c) improvement to the climate due to less car, bus, plane travel to go around to get elected and spewing out carbon dioxide, (d) add your own ideas as to why you think this would be good for the country and the TAXPAYERS here. Oh, and the average temperature in Washington, DC, should go down simply because there will be half as much hot air coming out of all those worthless elected officials.

Posted by: john44 | January 23, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

I would not give my vote to the Clintons. Bill used the white house for sex gratification. He even lied on TV for the whole world to see!! Incredable. That was enough for me to part with a man I once held in high esteem. I do not trust the them with anything. Democratics be aware, the wolf is wearing a sheed's skin.

Posted by: jdaveuk | January 23, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

One word for the Clintons - - - - -Velociraptors

velociraptor (və-lŏs'ə-rāp'tər) Pronunciation Key
A small, fast, carnivorous dinosaur of the genus Velociraptor of the Cretaceous Period that was about 2 m (6.5 ft) in length. It had long curved claws for grasping and tearing at prey, walked on two legs that were adapted for leaping, and had a long stiff tail used as a counterweight. Velociraptors were a kind of raptor.

While one gets your attention, the other comes in for the kill. Remember all the times Bill would be accused of "inappropriate behavior" and how Hillary would "stand by her man" and blame others?? Now turn the table and Bill goes in for the kill. Sounds like the school yard bullies who cry foul when they get caught. Enough is enough. Seek and destroy is not the motto I want to see for the leader of our country. So much for change, HRC!

Posted by: bvfornan | January 23, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Obama just needs to say that Reagans' ideas are and were bad ones, and the case is closed.

Come on, obama is playing word games, he implies reagans ideas were good ones, but gets upset and hysterical when called on it.

oh, and BLAH BLAH,.. obama has missed more votes in the senate than any democratic canidate.

Posted by: newagent99 | January 23, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

To giub99: On the surface Bush may have used some message of hope, but he also used surrogates to send lying e-mails about John McCain during the primaries and influenced lots of people through lies. I've had enough of that type of campaigning.

Posted by: elong1 | January 23, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

We've had seven years of a President who thinks it's "part of the game" to mislead the public. Now Hillary and Bill Clinton are proming more of the same.

No thanks, Hillary - I've had more than enough of spin and lies and contempt for American citizens. Go away.

I want change. Go Obama!

Posted by: TomJx | January 23, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

I'd like to point out that the Clintons are not known for their honesty or transparency and if people who support them accept that, the rest of us would be much less disgusted. Bill Clinton lied under oath and was debarred. He smoked pot and pretended it didn't really count because "I didn't inhale". Hillary won't let people see her whitehouse files so we don't know what exactly she did those 8 years. Maybe they believe that they would be great for this country and that the ends justifies the means. Their ends may be better than Karl Rove's (I doubt it and that's another discussion), but their means are exactly the same.

Posted by: elong1 | January 23, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is dividing Democrats like Bush did to conservatives. I am a life long democrat. I will never vote for her spineless say anything to win political machine. I would rather have a Republican in office.

Posted by: sugarbox | January 23, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

WHO IS BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA going to run to when he is confronted with the world's big boy issues?

He needs to put on his BIG BOY PANTIES and stop the crying game.

If he cant handle it move over and let someone else do it.

Posted by: fballfn | January 23, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons only like blacks who are subservient and kowtow to them. Blacks who go against them and dare to challenge them are the enemy and will be crushed by any means. Lies to the Clintons are like a scalpel to a surgeon. Watch out Obama, the Clintons are going at you with multiple scalpels.

Posted by: john44 | January 23, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

WHO IS BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA going to run to when he is confronted with the world's big boy issues?

He needs to put on his BIG BOY PANTIES and stop the crying game.

If he cant handle it move over and let someone else do it.

Posted by: fballfn | January 23, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

This type of campaigning cannot be defended by any reasonable person. I am a life long democrat and if Hillary is the nominee she will not receive my vote. At some point honesty and integrity mean more than party affiliation.

Posted by: hillharris | January 23, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Barry Obama's PROBLEM is because he chose this "HOPE" mask with generic chants and stage-play antics INSTEAD OF tackling the real issues and defending his record...
I knew this wouldn't work from the beginning; this is what Bush did in 2000 and look what happened. It's fair that we now get to see the real deal and how he is actually a disappointing candidate.
I COMMEND HILLARY for her honesty and refusal to play these games; this country is too damaged to play games with candidacies.

Posted by: giub99 | January 23, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

the ad asks: "Aren't those the ideas that got us into the economic mess we're in today?"

I thought it was NAFTA and the policies of stores like Walmart that have landed us in the mess we're in.

Posted by: starbuck1 | January 23, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons will never go back to White House. America is tired of the same old lies. Obama should just stay on message. These are pathetic old people with tired and old ideas. Anybody but the Clintons.
I wouldn't want t relive all those scandals.
White Water Gate, dead bodies (e.g. Foster) in the White House back yard, Monica Lewinsky, impeachment, the list goes on and on. Anybody but the Clintons.

Posted by: RobertOzel | January 23, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Count me as another life-long Dem who will NEVER vote for Hillary.

Posted by: gandalf12345 | January 23, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

If Hillary were a man, how many women would vote for him? Ladies, if you're voting for Hillary because she's a woman, and can't say you would vote for her if she was a man with her background and programs, then you simply shouldn't vote for her. Voting for or against anyone based on skin color, sex, age, party affiliation, their last name, or anything other than the answer to the simple question "Is this the best person for this office?" is just plain foolish. Hillary is corrupt, dishonest, and just plain MEAN...i.e. she's just like Bill. If I were a parent of a male intern in the White House I would get him out of there right away if Hillary takes over. Ditto for a female intern. Ahhh, four more years of sleaze...just what we need to polish our global image.

Posted by: john44 | January 23, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

The Obama comments and Clinton's response to them go to the heart of the difference between the two candidates. There's nothing unfair or inappropriate about Obama's comments or Clinton's ad.
Obama is essentially the candidate of the compromisers, who believe it is possible to find common ground with the Republicans. By finding a way to praise Reagan Obama reaches out to them.
Clinton is the candidate who wants to keep fighting, who believes the Republicans will not agree to any reasonable compromise, who thinks the only way to get what we want is to win.
Myself, I find the Democratic primary a serendipitously appropriate way to choose between these points of view. If Obama wins, he will have shown that there are enough people willing to compromise and that it is possible to defeat greedy, opportunistic politicians with their help. If Clinton wins, she'll have shown that there aren't enough people in the middle, but it is possible to achieve what we're trying to get by head-on, aggressive confrontation. Sometimes politics works exactly the way it is supposed to.
By the way, all you people who say "I'll never vote for Clinton now, she is being too mean" -- what do you think this is? One of these two people will very likely become the most powerful single person in the world. Do you really want someone who is not able to dish it out and take it in that role? Imagine a confrontation with any other nation. Our President will be representing us. Sometimes the only thing preventing us from using real force is the rhetorical strength of the President. A President who is strong and confident and who has been tested is less likely to get into a shouting match that escalates into war. Do you really want someone who pulls their punches?

Posted by: jonawebb | January 23, 2008 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Wait, the Hillary ad doesn't claim that Obama said they were "good" ideas either. It lists examples of Republican ideas and asks if those were the ideas Obama was talking about. Get it right, WaPo.

Posted by: jtorres138 | January 23, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

I am appalled and discouraged by the Clinton's mud-slinging tactics. They'll stop at nothing to win, even if it means destroying the Democratic Party's chance to retake the White House. Debating policy issues and questioning the candidates' records is one thing - deliberately distorting the facts is quite another. The American people deserve much better than they're getting from the Clintons. If Hillary is the nominee, I suppose I'll have to vote for her . . . four years of more of the same failed policies would be too much to bear . . . but I won't be happy about it and I certainly won't participate in any organizing or get-out-the-vote efforts as I usually do. Go Obama!

Posted by: nolamarion | January 23, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

I'm tired of Clinton race baiting to get her way. Of course she's going to try to discredit Obama when he wins in SC. She's dividing this party just so she can lose it for us in the general.

Posted by: ndkintzel | January 23, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

There is an old saying, "There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics." I would change that a bit to say, "There are liars, damn liars, and then there are the Clintons."

Posted by: john44 | January 23, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

There is an old saying, "There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics". I would change that a bit and say there are "Liars, damn liars, and then there are the Clintson."

Posted by: john44 | January 23, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse

New National Zogby poll

The survey found only marginal support for a potential independent candidacy by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has flirted with the idea of a third-party run for the White House while officially denying any interest.

Clinton, a former first lady who would be the first woman U.S. president, held a 21-point edge over Obama in October. He cut that to 8 points by last month, and the new survey gave her a 39 percent to 38 percent edge.

Her 1-point lead was well within the poll's margin of error of 4.7 percentage points.

Obama, who would be the first black U.S. president, and Clinton were essentially deadlocked among a variety of groups, including men, women, Democrats and independents. Obama led substantially, 65 percent to 15 percent, among black voters.

Obama barely led among voters under age 24, a substantial drop in support from last month, but led Clinton among voters aged 55 to 69, normally one of her strengths.


"This is an unbelievably close race at almost every level," Zogby said.

Posted by: cakemanjb | January 23, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is our best hope of defeating the R's - as a staunch D, I'll vote for McCain over Obama if that's my choice. Hillary has the substance to be president from day one, Obama will be a re-run of the chaos of Bill's first few months - we cannot afford that and regression on congressional gains.

Posted by: SW-DCWaterfront | January 23, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Hey girard73, count me as another long time Dem. that is not going to vote for Hillary in the general. You guys just don't get it, do you? You really have no idea what Hillary and Bill is doing to the democratic party right now? Four more years of a Repub. white house is terrible...but we need to exorcise the Clintons from politics. Seriously. Enough is enough.

Posted by: shong31 | January 23, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

I think what the Clintons are doing is sleazy. It's typical of the shallow, vindictive "spin" that characterizes mainstream politics. If they were truly democratic minded individuals with some degree of integrity they would stop these attacks on Obama.

They obviously must think people are stupid to be misinterpreting -- deliberately -- his comments about Reagan. Hillary looks so smug and self-righteous it is sickening.

The Clintons had 2 runs at the White House and what did we get? It's time for someone new.

Obama is original and authentic. He speaks his truth and he's calling a spade a spade when it comes to the spin-meisters of the Clintons and their ilk. I just hope enough people realize that.

Hillary and Bill do not deserve a third term. Let them go back to Ar-Kansas and Walmart.

Posted by: cauld | January 23, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons are like playground bullies. They play dirty and point fingers at others to avoid getting into trouble. If they win the nomination, I'll be voting Republican.

Posted by: itsaname | January 23, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

I now know why Karl Rove left the White House - to run Hillary's campaign.

By helping Hillary become the Dem nominee, he unifies the Rep opposition vote.

By making sure no Obama voter supports Hillary in the general, he secures victory for another Rep president.

Posted by: CAlady | January 23, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Why in the world no one has ever investigated the fact is, in 1963, not only was Hillary Clinton a republican, but she was also a staunch supporter of republican Senator Barry Goldwater, well known as a segregationist and one of the most vocal senators adamantly against the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is why he lost in his presidential bid to Lyndon B. Johnson?
She described herself in her memoirs as 'an active Young Republican' and 'a Goldwater girl, right down to my cowgirl outfit.'

Posted by: rbduval | January 23, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

girard73, I am a Dem and have been voting for Democrats since 1980. (I'm one of those who didn't follow the tide and vote for Reagan either term.) And for a while, I thought I would suck it up and vote for Clinton if she were the nominee, precisely because of the judicial appointments you refer to. But now I think I've changed my mind and not because I think she is being mean to Obama. I would do it for the sake of the Democratic Party. Her obvious willingness to distort and dissemble in order to gain power(against a fellow Democrat) ensures that if she will distort and dissemble to hold power. That means that the public will be as sour towards Democrats after her term as they are towards Republicans today and a huge opportunity to build a longer term working coalition will have been lost for the rest of my lifetime. 1 term with McCain and that opportunity could still be salvaged.

Posted by: 62across | January 23, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons have always been slash and burn campaigners- just ask Bob Dole.

Say whatever it takes to get elected or as Bubba told Bob Dole after the election: "You gotta do what you gotta do."

Posted by: cjroses | January 23, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Whoops, I meant where statements are NOT taken out of context.

Posted by: AC98894508 | January 23, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

The fact that the ideas were good is implied, so is a criticism of President Clinton's timein office. The Clinton's have every right to refute this assertion and defend Bill's Presidency and Democratic ideas. Every right. Good for them.

Posted by: slbk | January 23, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

right on drama_king! Done and done!

Posted by: malesa1842 | January 23, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

More distortion from the Clinton camp! So much for running a positive campaign. The Clintons really seem to be relishing in this gutter politics, and it does this country no good. For us to solve our problems, we have to have a serious and honest discussion where statements are taken out of context and hacked to death for political gain. We need new leadership, we need Obama not Clinton!

Posted by: AC98894508 | January 23, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

I agree with the majority of comments here... although I'm an independent and was looking forward to a different party in the Whitehouse, I will never vote for Hillary in the primary. My vote will be for anyone but Hillary - mainly because of these dirty tricks they use to win. It's time for a change..

Posted by: jsingh99 | January 23, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

It is distracting to have Obama and Clinton doing this back and forth. I do think,however, it is a sort of test for the candidates and provides a look at how, if elected, the caniddates will stand up to China on global warming and Darfur, negotiate peace in the Middle East, take on Russia - in that regard, strength is integral. Hillary clearly holds that skill, has the tenacity. Unfortunately, Barack Obama is still too inexperienced for the reality of world we Democrats and Republicans will be inheriting from Bush/Cheney. Let's urge our candidates to take the high road, suck it up and vote for Hillary.

Posted by: vcegger | January 23, 2008 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Gennifer Flowers.

Paula Jones.

Monica Lewinsky.

"I never had sex with that woman."

"I didn't inhale."

Do you trust what he says????

Posted by: mauialoha | January 23, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

For all you Democrats who will vote Republican or abstain before voting for Hillary, might I suggest that you let the Democratic Party know of your intentions?

They can't necessarily do much to sway voters, but I am sure that they can sway the superdelegates, and right now, the only lead that Hillary has is among the superdelegates. If they stop flocking to her, or, better yet, defect from her camp, she'll be lost.

Posted by: drama_king | January 23, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

I mailed my absentee ballot in today for BARACK OBAMA -- I will never vote for Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: JakeD | January 23, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

girard73, read my lips. Yes, I would rather see a Republican (name-calling is just plain juvenile) in the WH than vote for HRC. And there are legions upon legions of people behind me. I hate to say this, but if Clinton is the nominee, the Democratic Party will shrink, not grow.

You can call me a child if you want. If refusing to vote for the lesser of two evils for the umpteenth time is that, then I guess that's what I am. I just can't do it again. I'll probably stay home. And that would be a first for me.

Posted by: kathleen.mcgee | January 23, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

Obama NEVER said the ideas were good. He was simply commenting on how he respected Reagan's leadership ability. If you believe that Obama is praising Reagan's good ideas, then CONGRATULATIONS, you are GULLIBLE and easily fall for Clinton's lies...

You are as bad as the Republican lemmings mindlessly following Bush...Do us all a favor and stop being told what to think by the Clintons, research it yourself!

Posted by: tpicadman | January 23, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton lied under oath and was impeached for perjury. Why would anyone believe anything he says? The Clintons will do and say whatever it takes to win and regain their power. Unlike Democarats who defend them, the Republicans are onto them and ready to attack if Hilary wins the nomination. Democarats, please realize that a vote for Hilary is a vote for the Republicans--again!

Posted by: maryadalbey | January 23, 2008 1:41 PM | Report abuse

I have donated money to the Clintons since 1992. Worked on both campaigns and even contributed to the Presidential Library. Hillary and Bill have betrayed us with their win at all costs mentality and it truly is destroying the party. She will never get any Republicans to vote for her and is turning off Independents. Now after sixteen years of support I have decided that I will not vote for her under any condition. I feel that Obama can still win this nomination and that his message is so transformative that he will attract alot of Republicans and Independents in the fall. But if this weak Democrat party (which I have always been a a member of) is stupid enough to elect a loser like Hillary, then we deserve the disaster of another eight years of Republican rule. Why can't people see its time to change polarizing politics and let a new generation take its place!

Posted by: drgiggles06 | January 23, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Iron my shirt Hillary

Posted by: cyyoungchamp | January 23, 2008 1:35 PM | Report abuse

No way will I vote for Hillary. As a Democrat, I will abstain. The clintons are destroying the Democratic party. I hope Democrat party officials read these blogs and do something before these two manage to wreck havoc in their bid for their own power.

Posted by: katharinestavrinou | January 23, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Obama...he just wants to be understood. He never meant what he said? Good grief...he knew what he said when he brought up those comments.

Very smart use of his own words being used against him. Even during the debate, Obama tried to back away from his original statement by stating "I never said they were good ideas". So why even make the original statement. Too bad this so-called great orator is tripping on his own words.

Posted by: tmcinroy | January 23, 2008 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Fellow Democrats, do we really want this couple with no relationship to the truth back in the Oval Office? Please vote NO..Enough lies brewed and steeped in Washington!

Obama 08!

Posted by: maelisa | January 23, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: peterdc: "Why would the Clinton's not go on the attack against Obama?"

It's one thing to attack, another to lie. The Clintons, knowing their base is less educated than Obama's, according to polls (and the Clinton's are poll-driven), rely on scurrilous attacks because they know their base isn't aware enough to look at the record and make their own decisions. The attacks are disingenuous at best, and are lies in reality. What people hate about the Bush years are the lies. Bill Clinton is a convicted liar, a suspected rapist, a serial philanderer and a sexual predator. Those are facts. Perhaps Obama should use them. Meanwhile, go get yourself an education.

Posted by: edwcorey | January 23, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

To all you clueless, clueless Dems (if you're really Dems), are you telling me that you would rather see a Repug in the White House instead of whoever our nominee is? A Repug that will be choosing Supreme Court justices? Get a life, and forget about that and vote for whoever we nominate.

Posted by: girard73 | January 23, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

I would watch my house burn to the ground before I would cast a vote for Hillary. I am a black man from New York City and I voted for Bill twice and Hillary twice. I was all ready to see her as president and perhaps a dream ticket with Obama as vice-president. Now I would vote for John McCain in a hot second before I pulled the lever for her. And this is coming from someone who was STAUNCHLY Democrat!!! Obama has shown that he can really heal this country and work with other people to get things done. Hillary is running for President because she believes it's her turn.

Posted by: gtownes | January 23, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

If Hillary so easily lies to the American people and so easily skews the truth just to get into the White House; how can anyone trust that she isn't lying to us about what her current positions are on any of the ideas she tries to tell us she is for?

Posted by: tpicadman | January 23, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

dyck21005 hmmm like your candidate stop misconstruing facts and spreading lies. Obama was never a muslim and never interjected race in this campaign. It is your candidate and her spouse that are using innuendos and veiled racial attacks to try and weasel their way into the white house and avoid an embarrassing defeat. Stop spreading hate and lies and stick to the issues and fact. In other words stop being a dyck

Posted by: nononono7 | January 23, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Some of Barack's problems are due to the fact that he's highly intellectual and likes to think and talk about ideas. The Reagan comment was based on his interest in the various trajectories of political movements but those people who think simplistically can only absorb a sentence about Reagan, rather than the whole concept. Same with voting 'present' which has a complex reasoning behind it that some people don't want to hear about.

Posted by: kathy | January 23, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

I think Clintons are going too far in campaigning against Se. Obama. Specially, Bill Clinton seems to be using Rovian tactic, in his hurry to get back into White House. Sen. Clinton has lost my vote.

Posted by: Dilsad | January 23, 2008 1:14 PM | Report abuse

I'm happy that so many see Hillary as I do.

The "frustrated" one is Bill Clinton, who wants to ride around in Air Force One for another eight years and supervise the Whitehouse interns.

Obama must be pulling his punches because he's not mentioning Vince Foster or any of the other myriad skeletons in the Clintons' closet.

The trouble is, people are buying Hillary, crocodile tears and all.

Posted by: mplark | January 23, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Lies and Dirty Tricks once more from the join campaign from Hilary & Bill Clinton - when are Voters going to wake up and kick these two in touch.

CHANGE & HOPE can be delivered by BARACK OBAMA and the Country I Believe can be UNITED!

Posted by: jaybs1 | January 23, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

I'm the sort of voter Hillary will never get in November, but Obama certainly will -- an independent.

I detest the complete lack of integrity that Hillary and Slick Willie display.

In a way though, I'm starting to think that maybe it's good thing that Hillary and Bill are doing this right now.

In the wake of the Bush administration, the Clinton years started to look really rosy. Bush II was the best thing that ever happened to Clinton I.

But I think a lot of people probably forgot what those years were like politically.

The endless distortions, the tortured relationship with the truth. Whitewater. Monica. It depends on "what the definition of is is."

Obama's success has pushed the Clintons to reveal their true and ugly natures again.

Hopefully with that on display, people will rethink whether that is the sort of experience they want to have again.

Personally, eight years of Clinton distortions and eight years of Bush distortions is enough.

Time for someone new. Time for Obama. And if the Democrats are insane enough not to go with Obama, then time for McCain.

I don't agree with everything either man says or believes, but at least they are people of good character and that would be a real nice thing to have in the White House for a change.

Posted by: wappinne | January 23, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Mrs. & Mrs. Obama have tried to use race as a defensive mechanism to deflect any criticism of Obama on any issue during the campaign. This strategy has begun to backfire both with demorcrates ordinary Americans. Is why you have obama crying foul last few days.
Why does Michele Obama constantly draw distinctions between white and black voters? I thought her husband's campaign was supposed to be color-blind. Thanks to educated researching voters. We are seeing that Michelle Obama is dragging her husband by the nose using RACE. Michelle Obama said that "as a black man, you know, Barack can get shot by "a white racist going to the gas station."black America needs to wake up, According to Mrs. Obama, her husband isn't polling better among African-Americans because blacks think "others" are better. I wonder: what would the reaction would be if a white Republican suggested that African-Americans didn't support black candidates because they doubted that blacks could do it and they believed that someone else "was better"? It gives [blacks] very little credit to suggest that the decision [not to support Obama] is based solely on a psychic lack of faith. No seems to recall Mrs. Obama campaigning for Michael Steele. I don't recall her saying blacks must vote for Kenneth Blackwell because he's black. I don't recall her calling for support of Justice Clarence Thomas." She is optimistic about his chances in South Carolina primary because black will be first factor in that election. South Carolina has become a must-win state for Obama who has lost the essence of his candidacy as the first black man to run as himself. Even a win in hotly contested South Carolina on Saturday is seen as actually hurting Obama because watching blacks block vote for Obama and his wifes insistant racist remarks is triggering a white/minority backlash.

We had a miraculous victory in Iowa," Michelle Obama said. "Ain't no black people in Iowa! Obamas constantly talking about color. With blacks, they should vote for him because he is black. Anything they don't like is racist against him. "

Posted by: dyck21005 | January 23, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

POOR CRYBABY OBAMA, STOP TAKING ABOUT ME! BOO HOO....Its time all you obama supporters stop blaming all his problems on the Clintons, its really SAD and desperate...Its fine for axelrod and obama camp continuing to making up stories about the Clintons and mis-quoting them to keep the race card alive in the election as in attempt to keep attention off his poor senate record and his religious beliefs and that he fails miserably in every debate, where he has no pre written speech. The media bashes Romney for his beliefs why is obama any different, because he's 1/2 black...Poor excuse! Is why the VOTERS not the Clintons are researching and bringing out facts. This is solely because Obama supporters are a little nervous that he cant win in a state that isn't mostly black voters, that his in-experience, poor judgment in the senate and backing bush several times to support the war are all coming to the surface. Did anyone really think he would continue his free ride in the press? Its not the Clintons, its the VOTERS who care about the country and not voting based on his skin color doing the job the media fails to do and research obama. Quite allot of bad, but true information coming out that the VOTERS are entitled to know. He and David axelrod are in a panic... He may be claiming to be a Christian at a black racist church now, I think we all have concerns that he was raised a Muslim. His father was step father were Muslims, were does his loyalty fall. I think it's sad that he is ashamed of his parents and heritage. Where's his pride? He also is half white correct? Or is he denying that too! He is a grown man, "STOP CRYING OBAMA, its proof he isn't ready to lead. If he hadn't turned this election in blacks against whites and his wife's continued racist stumping (as she was booed out of NV) he would not be having these issues. I'm glad it's all coming out!

Posted by: dyck21005 | January 23, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton salivates about fighting with the Republicans. She brags about waiting for them to attack her. That's an opinion based in fact.

With that said, how can anyone recognize the ineffectiveness of our government due to insane partisan bickering and believe that Hillary Clinton will be able to get anything done as POTUS with her mentality of demonizing Republicans? How in the world will she be able to carry Democrats in Congressional races across the country in to office with her brand of polarizing politics?

Wake up! Democrats can not win the WH with just Democrats and Hillary's rhetoric proves that we will see a continuation of the same type of "politics as usual" from not only the last 8 years, but the wars and hyper-distrust from the 90's if she is elected. Where's the attraction in that for Independents and Republicans disillusioned with their own party?

Obama offers the best hope to lead a unification of our country around healing our many divisions, achieving the big goals needed to move our nation forward domestically and internationally, and he has the proven legislative record and campaign success to show that he can draw Independents and Republicans to join in that goal.

Cynicism is not the answer, nor is hardened loyalty that diminishes if not outright ignores reality. We need that "working coalition" or else we'll sink deeper in to the depressive malaise that has effectively paralyzed our once great American spirit.

Posted by: Eyzwidopn | January 23, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

For a campaign that long claimed it wanted to talk about policy and have a thoughtful discussion of each campaign's proposals, the Clintons sure are spending an awful lot of time and money misrepresenting the opposition. Can't they win on the merits of their positions?

Posted by: bsimon | January 23, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Hillary has missed more votes in the Senate than Obama voted "present" for in Illinois. Look it up.

Posted by: BlahBlahBlah314 | January 23, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

I used to have a very high opinion of Bill Clinton, and was even prepared for taxpayers to subsidize a "first concubine" to meet his needs in return for his solid leadership.

Back in '92 we were told to vote for Bill and we would get Hillary as a "two for one". This year, they don't say so, but clearly if we elect Hillary, Bill is an equal partner in the package. Hillary's Senate career has really only been a staging point for her to lay claim to another round at the White House.

It is pathetic (to use Hillary's depiction of Bush's recent mid-east trip) to see her plastic, poll-driven pseudo-emotions emerge in such scripted fashion.

Worse is the ex-president's attempt to take down Obama by twisting his words and parsing them in ways Clinton himself decried when his detractors did so to him.

Any of the three remaining Democratic potentials are far superior to any of the Republicans... but it's time for the Clintons, of all people, to emerge from the mud rather than dragging our country through it yet again.

Posted by: fertig | January 23, 2008 12:53 PM | Report abuse

I vigorously support Edwards and Obama but will not vote for Hillary under any circumstances. Her record and rhetoric indicate that she believes in nothing other than her own entitlement to power. Bill has truly disgusted me lately.

Posted by: BlahBlahBlah314 | January 23, 2008 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Why would the Clinton's not go on the attack against Obama? Should they follow the lead of the Washington Post and much of the liberal media and treat him with kid gloves? Surely the Republicans won't.

They all feel comfortable challenging the Clinton's remark's when the former President calls Barack Obama's claim to have always fought against this war a fairy-tale, and tried to turn that into a racial remark and then said the Clinton's need to be carfull not only of what they say but the perception of what they say.

Well how does that not apply to Obama. You can take his words here on Reagan and the perception to the average American is that he is complimenting Reagan.

Obama needs to be taken to task for what he says and what he does. Even John Edwards who has consistantly defended Obama in the debates and participated in a tag team against Clinton finally had enough and began to question Obama in the SC debate. 130 "present" votes, no real Universal Health Care plan, complimenting Reagan and the Republicans for having ideas.

It's all a little much to take and if the press doesn't call Obama on it the Clintons should.

Obama has given Republicans so much to use in their ads already. That is because he is naive and hasn't ever had to run a serious campaign where he was really challlenged.

He clearly does want it all both ways and the kid glove approach will be over and the Repbublican's will make mince meat of him. They won't let him have it both ways.

Posted by: peterdc | January 23, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

For the first time in my life, I may have to vote Republican, or abstain from voting altogether. I have always trusted the Democratic party to represent truth and integrity, and this is the perfect time, politically and socially, for the Democratic party to rise up and unite for a better America. If Hillary Clinton is our candidate, a candidate who represents lies and deceit, emptiness and division, then I pray for the future of our country. Anybody or any organization who stands behind blatant lies shall NEVER have my support. If we do not come out against the spinning, the lies, the Rovian tactics, we are no better than bible-thumping, bigoted, right-wing extremists, and we will fall apart. This is our time to stand up and be strong; we have been waiting for this. Don't throw away this chance to do something GOOD for our country.

Posted by: schencks84 | January 23, 2008 12:49 PM | Report abuse

The American people are seeing through the Clinton's and there gutter politics. Hillary is un-electable in the general election , she won't get the Independent vote , and everytime Bill opens his mouth , another Democrat becomes willing to cross party lines to keep Clinton out of the White House.

They have shamed this country enough , time to turn the page !

Posted by: cakemanjb | January 23, 2008 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Rollercoaster of disaster waiting to happen to Democratic Party come November 2008. I hope the DNC operatives read this comment, i promised not to vote for Hillary Clinton if she becomes the nominee.

How can they lie like this when facts doesn't back up what they are suggesting

Posted by: gbuze007 | January 23, 2008 12:34 PM | Report abuse

That's right -- Dobbs noted that Obama never said the Republican ideas were "good" ones -- he never once used that word, but he implied it. Dobbs also ignores where Obama said in that same interview: "I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it."

Obama's intentional appeal to Reagan Democrats was obvious -- at least to me -- why can't the Washington Post admit it?

Posted by: JakeD | January 23, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company