The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Archives

Obama Fires Back at Clinton Debate Ad

By Matthew Mosk
Hillary Clinton fired the first shot -- with an ad attacking Barack Obama in Wisconsin.

Now Obama has answered with a new ad.

The negative exchange may be the first on-air clash between the two Democrats. But it is a decidedly gentle tussle.

Clinton's ad knocked Obama for declining to debate her in the state. His response: "After 18 debates, with two more coming, Hillary says Barack Obama is ducking debates? It's the same old politics, of phony charges and false attacks."

"I didn't find [Clinton's ad] to be the most effective negative ad I've seen," said Ken Goldstein, a University of Wisconsin professor who monitors political commercials. "But she needed to do it."

Why? Goldstein said that though Clinton is already well known to Wisconsin voters, Obama is still introducing himself. "She needs to define Barack Obama."

And what does Obama need to do? Respond quickly to negative attacks, Goldstein said. And with the spot the campaign made public today, that's what Obama plans to do.

Posted at 3:59 PM ET on Feb 14, 2008
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Previous: Clinton's Primary Gift | Next: SEIU to Consider Obama Endorsement


Add 44 to Your Site
Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Trail. This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Trail.
Get This Widget >>


Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



"young nor old is buying her koolaid any more. The intellect soon begins to reject the ingenuois patter of the same voice saying nothing." sO well said jetlone! okay billary you can put the crown down now......

Posted by: teopa | February 15, 2008 4:57 PM

Look at arvir33's post. It says it all. She has not done much in the senate compared to Obama.
What did she do before that? 35 years of experience right? on what public service? Release your tax returns and everyone will see that they spend more time making money than being servants!
When you are a public servant like John McCain, if your campaign goes broke you go to the bank for a loan - not your checking account

Posted by: al_164_1999 | February 15, 2008 2:25 PM

It is so sad to see the level of debate Hilary has brought the campaign to, nothing but false accusations as she is so desperate, this is the same lady who said it would be All Over by February 5th.

It is Hilary who sacked her two top campaign team this week, why? because Hilary will never see the real problem, HERSELF! she has played the joker card with Tears, but you can only do that once.

The Voters in the coming month should vote clearly for CHANGE & HOPE with BARACK OBAMA and bring this to an end for both Hilary & Billy!

Posted by: jaybs1 | February 15, 2008 2:00 PM

GOD help Barack Obama repair this wretched mess.

And I saw Bill Maher on Larry King the other night. There's another one that's starting to get on my nerves. But he's like Lou Dobbs' buttery horse teeth; they might be annoying to the point of distraction, but you still watch him anyway.

People that wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton speaks less about her issues and more about their own? lol Hurrh? Come on, Bill. We've had enough old white farts in the White House. In fact, I think I'm gonna start actually calling it the Old Whitefart House. Why else would this self-proclaimed "Goldwater Girl" look back upon her years of supporting a man who was proud to count the KKK among his sponsorship with any sense of nostalgia? No wonder she keeps trying to make this race about race. Because when she looks at Barack Obama all her big, wide, size 14 baby-boomer butt sees, is in fact a brown person.

Hillary Clinton will make George W. Bush look like the good ole' days. If a buffoon like him can destroy 200 years of checks and balances, usurping all powers unto himself and proclaiming -- unchallenged! -- executive privilege at whim and will, imagine what someone as cunning, deceitful, and self-serving as Hillary Clinton will do.

Farrr from any sense of progression, she basically appears to be a republican in democrats pant suit. She sounds so eloquent talking how she hates George W. Bush and how his policies endanger America, and yet over and over she seems only to vote FOR his proposals. Even though she recently claimed to be against the Iraq war, she still rubber stamps Bush's funding requests with yes votes. She even voted to go to war with Iran -- AFTER claiming to be against Iraq!?

Are you for a national health plan? Me too. Most Americans are. But her health plan will be a disaster. She wants to force every American to purchase a health plan -- and guess who she will allow to write the legislature for that? The INSURANCE COMPANIES. This is the same trick Halliburton CEO Dick Cheney pulled when letting his business partners running ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, Chevron and ConocoPhillips write our nations energy policy. They are going to make the auto insurance industry look like a public charity. Like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.

And is it rude to request rerouting some of that "defense" budget I PAID FOR back into the nuts and bolts of the national infrastructure? I'M TIRED OF MY TAX MONEY PURELY BEING USED TO BUILD AND DROP BOMBS ON THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES. Not one, but TWO bridges collapsed during rush hour traffic in the last two years in major cities, the levees never got repaired in time for a Hurricane they knew was coming, NYC suffered a 4-day power outage about 5 years ago -- where is all the money going?? Oh, ya! To fund the U.S. Army which has been reduced to serve as Halliburton's security service while they built a pipeline to steal BILLIONS of gallons of unmetered oil from the Iraqi people, and then SELL it back to us at record profits!! Even though WE are the ones that PAID TO RETRIEVE IT IN THE FIRST PLACE. Socialzed expenses, privatized profits.

Hillary and her husband Bill Clinton are long-time business partners of the Bushs'. This is why you consistently see Bill and George H.W. making commercials and things together -- all the while snubbing the other still living ex-president, Jimmy Carter. He makes no bones about their public back-scratching, which is why they won't let them in their little club (which basically turns the national treasury into their personal piggy bank.) And also why she has nothing to say on the subject of rendition and habeas corpus; illegal wire-tapping and spying on American citizens; unconstitutional wars and the Downing Street memos; the Geneva Conventions and the EMBARRASSMENT and illegality of Abu Graib and Guantanamo and strange, perverted, torture tactics and murder methods, to name a few. Why break the law, when you can rewrite it?

Screw Hillary Clinton. George W. Bush may have built the coffin America is in, but Hillary Clinton will drive the final nail in it.

I would sooner vote for John McCain than Hillary Clinton, and what's his platform again? Oh ya! lol Absolutely nothing! Although truth be told, I prefer Huckabee and his consumption tax; religious overtones notwithstanding. But since he likely won't get the nomination, better to have someone that won't necessarily fix anything, but who also doesn't appear to have an agenda to make things worse. Cheesus. And on a side note, next time Father Time is giving a speech, somebody might consider poly-gripping his hand to the microphone. Either John McCain's great-grandfatherly 72-year-old arm is clutching the mic harder than Bob Dole's pen, or the man suffers from some kind of geriatric twitching. Also, it would be nice if somebody let the dude know that if he has run out of things to say, it's okay to stop talking. They could change the 'Straight talk express' to the 'Straight talking, and talking, and talking..' and it would make more sense.

But back to Bill Maher. He really needs to stop letting people interview him. Stop being the interviewee, and get back to being the interviewer. When that caller with his question metioned some specifc stats for his county, and Bill, who without the help of his writers was clueless how to respond, to suggest that he wouldn't pay that much attention if he didn't get paid to speaks volumes about HIS OWN issues while your at it, since we now know that apparently for him money and a microphone trump civic responsibility.

Typical.

Posted by: amyeom | February 15, 2008 1:20 PM

It occurs to me when I read these recent republican comments by Kevin Hassett and others that they are completely disrupted by the prospect of an Obama candiidacy. Here they were fully prepared to run against attack and destroy Hillary Clinton. Their base could be galvanized, despite the legarthy of McCain around the prospect of denying Hillary. Now, the bogeyman is fading and they desperately need to get her back.

Posted by: robt66 | February 15, 2008 1:14 PM

Those Obama's fans, ask Obama to publicly identify the "pork barrel" projects he sponsored in the Senate when you kiss his ass next time.

Posted by: hgogo | February 14, 2008 11:32 PM

Or as Hillary has been saying Texas-style: "All hat, no cattle."

Posted by: mjo1 | February 14, 2008 11:00 PM

Doing is much more important than talking. Let me quote GW Bush: it's simple, doing is more important than talking. We need doers and deciders, not great talkers! USA needs Bush and Clinton family, not some new faces!
Clintons have experience and know how to get things done. Look at the great Universal Healthcare coverage we got when Clintons were in the White House for 8 years. Current Healthcare situation is an example, not of talk, but of what they have done. How will Hilary finance the Healthcare in the future and why hasn't she done it already in 1992-2000, since she is so committed to it, and so much better than Obama? " I am so open about my finances and everything is known (talk), but I will not show the records before elected (doing)." -HRC . I wonder why those educated people and those woman-haters don't get it? Have fun Clinton fans, this really is hillarious.

Posted by: bo7fun | February 14, 2008 10:35 PM

well said mjo1. Unfortunately, Hillary doesn't have a position to come back from. Her house against Obama was always made of straw, her accusations of no substance do not hold merit and are extremely easy to dismantle. Each action taken to try and undermine Obama therefore has to be a gamble on the people being ignorant - which when uncovered for what it is insults a growing number of people. The educated saw it first but the less educated are increasingly able to see it too. That is why she is losing her base and will continue to lose her base.

Posted by: JayKay2 | February 14, 2008 10:16 PM

I think it's amusing how Hillary keeps copying Obama's style on the stump. She's been trying to morph into an inspiring speaker, even adding rhetorical flourishes here and there AND lowering her voice. The problem is, she just doesn't appear genuine. Everything she does or says looks so practiced, so fake. I'm actually finding it painful to watch. She's running a horrible campaign, whereas Obama hasn't really put a foot wrong. Now that's problematic for her, because she's the one who's supposed to have the experience. You know, ready from day one, or whatever today's slogan is. The fact of the matter is, she looks like the newbie while Obama looks like the seasoned campaigner. And that impression will not go away, especially when the best she can do is put out lame ads that accuse Obama of running away from debates when they've already had 18 with two more to go. And she's not even campaigning in the state. Is that really the best she can do?

Frankly, she's finished. Dead in the water.

Posted by: mjo1 | February 14, 2008 9:47 PM

The odds of Clinton failing are nearly 3:1.

Her mendacity will be a liability against this well organized Obama campaign.

We need to be respectful of the Clinton campaign, it is in its terminal stage, dying from failure to understand the electorate which was poisoned by her husband in the So. Carolina campaign. It's not easy for her supporters to face the truth when the candidate feigns vitality.

Posted by: Gator-ron | February 14, 2008 9:32 PM

slaskar: The only problem with your reasoning is that it is driven more by a desire to see a woman elected than it is by more stark realities. I disagree that the rest of the world would want to see a Clinton replace a Bush again and come the 21st of February, when the vote from Democratics Abroad is tallied, I think you will find that Obama will win the day.

It's a good thing that you qualified your statement about other countries who have had female leaders being thought of by yourself as less 'advanced' because in some ways America is very much less advanced compared to some of those countries you listed - particularly in taking care of its own. Go and ask one of the 200,000 homeless war veterans living on your streets about that - then look and see if any of those other countries have the same situation in their backyards. But credit where credit it due - America is more advanced in producing and using weapons of mass destruction against others.

I wouldn't presume that Obama supporters are lacking in analytic or mathematical skills. Odds are on that, given Obama attracts more educated voters, these skills are higher on average in his supporters.

Posted by: JayKay2 | February 14, 2008 9:30 PM

The Clintons are now saying that the media have been tougher on Hillary than Obama, because the US is harder on (white) women than on black men, who are given a free ride in America. This is a dangerous playing of the divisive sexism/racism cards, pitting women against blacks. There are many citizens who will believe the Clintons' distortions of US history and social realities. The Clinton dynasty will throw sticks of dynamite and split the Democratic Party and nation, crush a new generation of Democractic voters just for another 8 years back in the WH. Bill and Hillary have made multimillions out of their political fortunes, so much money that loaning five million of her own money to her campaign was a simple matter for Hillary. And of course with that sob story of going broke, Hillary has already repaid herself out of the donations that poured in from working class women who gave the Clinton plutocrats out of their scanty funds so Hillary can put back her five million dollars into the Clintons' bulging bank accounts. There should be NO more debates until Hillary releases her tax returns, turns over her papers from those 8 corrupt Clinton years in the WH and Bill opens up the books on the Middle Eastern donors who gave multimillions to his library, etc, etc. We want transparency in our presidents, not more concealed corruption.

Posted by: shirleylim | February 14, 2008 9:07 PM

Thank you aravir33 for enlightening us.

If thats what can be achieved with 35 yrs of experience.....

Ill pick results over experience anytime.

Happy Voting

Posted by: election_watch | February 14, 2008 8:23 PM


Senator Obama has a very dynamic and well spoken wife campaigning with him, but he is running as himself, on his ideas and his policies. We would have never heard of ccndidate Hillary Rodham. How would one explain how she moved to our state, NY, and carpetbagged a senate seat having never held public office. She married a political winner and for this she deserves to be president???? I don't think so.

Posted by: jstratt2 | February 14, 2008 7:59 PM

There are many things that Obama and Clinton have in common, and a few where they differ (in my opinion, mostly in the categories of diplomacy, rhetorical skill, and personal appeal). However, if we must stretch so far for differences that we paint Senator Clinton as an emotional (read manipulative) campaigner, let's just have a look at her voting record and look at Senator Obama's as well:

"Senator Clinton, who has served only one full term (6yrs.), and another year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law, (20) twenty pieces of legislation in her first six years.

These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress (www.thomas.loc.gov), but to save you trouble, I'll post them here for you.

1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site.
2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month.
3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Hon
4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall.
5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson.
6. Name post office after Jonn A. O'Shea.
7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death.
10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program.
13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda.
14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death.
15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty.
Only five of Clinton's bills are more substantive:

16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11.
17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11
18. Assist landmine victims in other countries.
19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care.
20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system.

There you have it-the facts straight from the Senate Record.

Now, I would post those of Obama's, but the list is too substantive, so I'll mainly categorize.

During the first (8) eight years of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced:

233 regarding healthcare reform,
125 on poverty and public assistance,
112 crime fighting bills,
97 economic bills,
60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,
21 ethics reform bills,
15 gun control,
6 veterans affairs and many others.

His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These inculded:

**the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 (became law),
**The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, (became law),
**The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate,
**The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, (became law),
**The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, (In committee), and many more."

Posted by: aravir33 | February 14, 2008 6:11 PM

The way Obama has conducted his campaign speaks volumes about his leadership skills. Clinton had all the advantages going in, but now who has more votes, more funds, more enthusiastic support? He is obviously doing something right.

Posted by: DoTheMath | February 14, 2008 6:02 PM

It's long been clear that what's good for the Clintons trumped what was good for the Democratic party. It took us 12 years to recover from the 1994 elections! What did the Clintons do? Welfare reform and triangulation. Split the party over NAFTA and GATT, which allowed them to pass. Gee thanks, but pardon me if I decline more of the same.

Posted by: gmundenat | February 14, 2008 6:01 PM

As the game seems to be approaching the final it is also becoming clear and clearer. The Clinton couple's egos had been growing to unimaginable proportion since Bill escaped impeachment. They decided to conquer again by all means at any cost the White House that the couple's motto today is HILLARY PRESIDENT OR McCAIN PRESIDENT BUT NEVER OBAMA. Especially when she is loosing. They prefer Democratic Party loosing to the Republican Party, rather than Democratic Party winning with Obama in the White House. GOOD LUCK TO THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND GOOD LOCK AND COURAGE TO OBAMA

Posted by: benjamin.lawson | February 14, 2008 5:54 PM

Hillary is down 134 delegates and about to take yet another thumpin' in Wisconsin and Hawaii. That will be 10 straight. She now needs to win every state by 20% at least, or she will have fewer delegates than Obama heading into the convention. That is the math. The supers will abandon her long before then. Pelosi and the SEIU are about to come out for Obama now, too. It's over.

Posted by: gmundenat | February 14, 2008 5:44 PM

Ah Well - as bill Clinton says "you do what you gotta do". In politics, as defined by the Clintons, it is open warfare and anything is OK. Yet, Hillary keeps saying she can bring the nation together, Yeah Right.
The scary part is if she wins the White House We get Bill as the real acting president and Hillary as the mouth piece.

Posted by: lallen16 | February 14, 2008 5:31 PM

I do find it interesting how the press seems to want to create a conflict where none really exists. I think Clinton and Obama, though having quite different personalities, are likely to have very similar policies. I think both of them are pushed by their campaign managers to make these very minor attacks as a way of creating some distinction between their platforms. Should we care if Obama of Clinton was the one who came up with the idea for healthcare reform, I don't see why I would care.

Personally I believe the biggest problem with government in the US is not the particular policies of the politicians but the prevailing way of doing business. Money is the driver of everything in Washington, because so much of it is needed to run campaigns. People don't give away money for nothing, and big companies don't give away money for any other reason than to make more money. We really should care about where a candidate has been getting their money, because the people giving money will need to be repaid. If the donars are a large number of divergent individuals then the candidate will be forced to consider the interests of all these people. If the money comes from a small number of lobbyests or corporations then the candidate will have to disproportionately consider their interests. I believe the Obama will not take any money from lobbyests of corporations, I know Clinton does, I don't know about McCain of Huckaby.

Posted by: bjuhasz | February 14, 2008 5:31 PM

Everyone knows Obama dodges debates and cannot stand up to Hillary!!! When it gets down to the nuts and bolts.....he bolts!!!!!

Posted by: cbl0213 | February 14, 2008 5:30 PM

People are totally fooled by Obama's speeches. Except being good at saying "Change" this word, Obama is also good at copying Hillary's policy as his own. That's why he does not want to debate any more, since what he can say is all Hillary's idea.

Doing is much important than talking. Do NOT be fooled by Obama's speeches any more. Take a look at what he has done for this country, Nothing!

Be a smart person. Support Hillary!

Posted by: hgogo | February 14, 2008 5:29 PM

Ricardo wrote:

The USA and world is in dire need of Statesmanship! And quite frankly, Senator Obama has demonstrated that he is a Statesman, fulfilling a non-political vacuum that represents the interest of All. He is leading In the same vein as the following visionaries with extraordinary Statesmanship.

* A great statesman is he who knows when to depart from traditions, as well as when to adhere to them.
- John Stuart Mill

* And statesmen at her council met Who knew the seasons when to take Occasion by the hand, and make The bounds of freedom wider yet.
- Lord Alfred Tennyson,

* Peace. commerce, and honest friendship with all nations-entangling alliances with none.
- Thomas Jefferson, in his first inaugural address

* We say that someone occupies an official position, whereas it is the official position that occupies him.
- Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

* Honest statesmanship is the wise employment of individual manners for the public good. - Abraham Lincoln

Posted by: ricardo_rose | February 14, 2008 5:29 PM

Obama will tell you one thing and do another; he failed to speak up for Maytag workers while taking contribution from the owner of Maytag. Hilary delivers the tools to build our own lives. We that support her, Latinos, women, and working people, ask for help and offer help when needed by those that stand by us. She has been there for us and we need to be there for her now. In the memory of my mother and my grandmother whose burdens were heavy and for the future of my sons and daughters whose world is in peril, I support and join Hilary in her struggle for real and meaningful change. To my brothers and sisters in the Latino community, thank you for standing with Hilary to build the new coalition for change.

Posted by: nurseratchet | February 14, 2008 5:28 PM

The number of people who are afraid of the old dirty clinton machine diminsihes hourly and the ability to suspend belief for their lies is languishing at an excelerated pace. Does anyone remember that clinton has changed her 'message' 18 times in the last few months--Ha---Now she is part of a "MOVEMENT" when the only the movement is the tsunami coming toward her.
The educated HAVE chosen and it is not her- young nor old.is buying her koolaid any more. The intellect soon begins to reject the ingenuois patter of the same voice saying nothing.
We need vision, character, a nimble mind and a uniter...Not old prattle.
Go OBAMA

Posted by: jetlone | February 14, 2008 5:26 PM

Read this article on Clinton/Obama how both are slimy in their own way.

Posted by: washpost | February 14, 2008 5:25 PM

Hillary is completely outclassed. She better direct more energy toward her plans to steal the nomination using superdelegates, because she can't win the vote. The people are no longer fooled.

Posted by: brooksofsheffield | February 14, 2008 5:13 PM

I think it is time for Democrats and independents, particularly educated young voters to be more educated, analytically/mathematically.
This election is the only opportunity to elect a woman president for the first time of the history of this country, and validate ourselves as a progressive nation which we claim ourselves to be. The best part is Hillary Clinton brings a huge value in this candidacy, which i doubt another woman candidate can bring in sooner in the near future. Hence, this is our best shot. Many other countries, including England, Germany, Canada, and even Philippines and Bangladesh whom we consider not to be as advanced as ours have had woman leaders/presidents already.
I think Hillary is the best tested and tried out candidate compared to Obama, who is a great guy himself. Obama has a lot to give to this country, but he still needs to be challenged and we still need to see how he handles his mistakes as senator, which we are yet to see due to his limited experience. There are bound to be mistakes as they are both humans, but i think Hillary had her share from which she has learned many lessons, and hence she will be less disposed to making any as President. With Obama, he hasn't even started, and it'd be dangerous if he starts to make the honest mistakes during his Presidency. I'd definitely like him to be the President after 8 yrs, as i think he sure will be then.
The best part is that way the Democrats can keep the Presidency for the next 16yrs, guaranteed!

The challenges facing this country are too many and too enormous in terms of our moral standing in the world, likeability by the world citizens, economy, healthcare, terrorism, problems in Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan, immigration, etc.

One thing for sure, the Clintons are the most loved throughout the world, and i've seen it through my trips in China, Europe, Australia, India, and i'm sure they would be more disposed to listening to Hillary Clinton, thus making it much easier for an American President to make the tough deals that would be necessary from not making us a poor nation of the world, but the richest nation as we are now.

If people are wondering how we could even think of the possibility of becoming a poor nation, than just see the budget and trade deficits! We all earn our livings, and we earn our credits because we work in certain public/private companies, unless we own them.
Now imagine the scenarios of those companies moving out not only to China, Russia, India, and other European and Asian countries, but now the trend has already started where those countries are moving to Canada. And the reason is as simple as healthcare. These companies can no longer operate with rising costs of medical benefits for employees here in USA. I don't even want to bring in other reasons in the equation!
If there are no companies to work, how do we earn our living in this country?
So my request to all the educated young voters of this country is to take up little more Math classes, which can help us all to decide things more analytically, and not just sheer out of emotions.
We've been emotional twice before in the last 8yrs in our selection process in this country, and we have seen the results!!
Can we really afford to make the toughest decision of our generation and future generations, just based on the calling of our heart..."NO", it is the time of the big brain to help us out.
I'm also one of the young educated ones like you, but i've also done lots of math :-)

Posted by: slaskar1 | February 14, 2008 5:00 PM

Clinton Debate Ad??
The Clinton's have nothing else to say? How about one reason why she should be President! Obama has put forth several and the people have responded with their votes. It appears that trend will continue especially with Hillary making herself look more unattractive. She needs to have a debate with her campaign staff.

Posted by: dmscontractor | February 14, 2008 5:00 PM

It is very hard to say whether Hillary is a democrat or a republican. Hillary's father was a republican. Hillary was a republican. Then comes Bill Clinton. She marries Bill and now she claims to be a democrat (by association). But she still votes like a republican. Her votes on the Iraq war biil, the bill to tag the Iranian military as a terrorist organisation as well as a number of other bills she has consistently sided with the Bush administration.

Hillary is now complaining about not getting enough debates with Obama. What she needs to do is talk to the people of Wisconsin, rather than run away to other states. She feels Wisconsin is not a crucial state for her campaign. If that is the case why does she need a debate there? Everyone in Wisconsin have seen her and heard her over te past 35 years she claims she has been in public service. Why one more debate?

Posted by: ChunkyMonkey1 | February 14, 2008 4:59 PM

The only thing I remember Hillary delivering on was her 6 years on the board of directors of Wall-Mart.

Posted by: celticman245 | February 14, 2008 4:58 PM

Obama is substantive. While I'm a Ron Paul supporter, I have been following Obama for several years now. I used to watch him on C-Span, and listen to his weekly senate podcasts. I even read his recent book. While I often disagree with the man, I find him to be very thoughtful. If he becomes president, I will not be unhappy. On the other hand, I do not want to stomach another Clinton era. I have had my fill of Clinton's and Bushes.

Posted by: uniteunderthecross | February 14, 2008 4:55 PM

Dear Clinton Supporters,

Please join up with the Obama camp. This isn't about ego - its about the future of the party. Obama is growing the party leaps and bounds over anything we've seen since before Reagan. We are on the brink of a Democratic consensus for the first time in a long long time. Obama is the one to lead it. Hillary is an accomplished person due respect, but she can't build the consensus as he can. Please join up and help us get out of the 51% era of partisan warfare and lead us into the 65% era of consensus politics.

Obama is person for the job. Please give your support to Obama.

Posted by: maq1 | February 14, 2008 4:55 PM

check out this cartoon on obama.

Posted by: washpost | February 14, 2008 4:52 PM

check out this cartoon on obama.

Posted by: washpost | February 14, 2008 4:51 PM

No kiddin'. More and more people are seeing through it everyday. In the right corner: Barack "The Giant-Killer" Obama. In the wrong corner: Hillary "The Once and Forgotten Queen" Clinton.

Posted by: frank | February 14, 2008 4:42 PM

"Obama Fires Back..."
"... the first on-air clash..."
"...it is a decidedly gentle tussle"


Fires? Clash?

Gentle tussle.

Silly news people. Always looking to stir the pot. Would it kill you people to just do your jobs?

Posted by: zukermand | February 14, 2008 4:41 PM

You guys are really desperate...(sic)

Posted by: claus.riis | February 14, 2008 4:41 PM

hey frank, where have we seen this kind of Rovian/Clintonian snark before?

Posted by: meldupree | February 14, 2008 4:37 PM

You know it is bad for Hillary when McCain's economic advisor supports Hillary. The Republicans want to run against Hillary so bad because they are afraid of running against Obama! More disturbing news for Hillary!

NEWS FLASH: Taxpayers for Common Sense released their rating of earmarks for congressional members. Out of 103 Senators, Hillary ranks 8th with $343 million, Obama ranks 81st with $91 million, and McCain ranks 97th with zero.

Posted by: ajtiger92 | February 14, 2008 4:35 PM

This is how the Clinton camp operates until the people hear the words of a real candidate, then their undertones of racism and division fall under the onslaught of hope, unity, and a better tomorrow! Check it! It sucks to be on the wrong side of such an amazing social movement. America Rocks! Can you smell what Barack is cookin'? Goodbye relics!

Typical:

Governor says some Pennsylvanians likely to vote against a black man
A Clinton supporter, Edward G. Rendell cites his huge win over Republican challenger and former Pittsburgh Steelers star Lynn Swann in 2006. A spokesman says he meant no offense.
From the Associated Press
February 13, 2008

HARRISBURG, PA. -- Gov. Edward G. Rendell, one of Hillary Rodham Clinton's most visible supporters, said that some white Pennsylvanians are likely to vote against her rival, Barack Obama, because he is black.

"You've got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African American candidate," Rendell told the editorial board of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in remarks that appeared in Tuesday's paper.

To buttress his point, Rendell cited his 2006 reelection campaign, in which he defeated Republican challenger Lynn Swann, the former Pittsburgh Steelers star, by a margin of 20 percentage points.

Rendell, chairman of the Democratic National Committee in 2000 and previously Philadelphia's mayor, endorsed Clinton on Jan. 23.

Pennsylvania holds its primary April 22.

Later Tuesday, Rendell's spokesman said the governor did not mean to offend anyone.

Posted by: frank | February 14, 2008 4:35 PM

"'Speeches don't put food on the table,'" she said. "'Speeches don't fill up your tank, or fill your prescription, or do anything about that stack of bills that keeps you up at night.' Hillary Clinton"

Posted by: Susan9 | February 14, 2008 04:27 PM

Neither do distorting and lying about someone else's record and positions. Dirty politics and Rovian tactics do not help people who are in need, Susan9. Do you really think Hillary wants to help someone beyond herself? -- meldupree

Posted by: meldupree | February 14, 2008 4:35 PM

"Speeches don't put food on the table," she said. "Speeches don't fill up your tank, or fill your prescription, or do anything about that stack of bills that keeps you up at night." Hillary Clinton

Posted by: Susan9 | February 14, 2008 4:27 PM

Hillary is digging deep now. Although negative is not the way to go (iMhO), her campaign may be getting desperate.

Barack vs. Hillary- The Google Effect:
http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=47

Posted by: davidmwe | February 14, 2008 4:18 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2009 The Washington Post Company