The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008


Video Report

The Face-Off

Note: Please upgrade your Flash plug-in to view our enhanced content.
Barack Obama is drawing huge Texan crowds while Hillary Clinton tries to stop his momentum. Bill Clinton says Hillary needs wins in Texas and Ohio to be the Democratic nominee. Jim Axelrod reports.

Posted at 5:48 PM ET on Feb 21, 2008  | Category:  Video Report
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in | Digg This
Previous: Obama Fans Abroad | Next: Clinton Working for Texas Votes

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 >>


Please email us to report offensive comments.


You wanted to know what the difference was between "Mohammed" and "Hussein"? I'm certainly not the one to answer that. I am wondering, however, how someone in America is "starving" (I have to assume you did not mean that literally) but connected to the Internets?

Posted by: JakeD | February 22, 2008 11:36 AM

I'm still waiting for the press to cover Barak's years-long association with Tony Rezko, the Chicago political insider who is now under federal indictment. Rezko was one of Barak's early patrons and served as treasurer for his senate campaign. Barak also bought his home in a land deal with Rezko. You have to wonder why Obama has been so close to a guy like Rezko. I'd also like to see some coverage on Obama's relationship to his pastor Jeremiah Wright and his church that says Louis Farrakhan epitomizes greatness. I'm judging Barak by the company he keeps so I won't be voting for him.

Posted by: play_more_jazz | February 21, 2008 11:56 PM

Clinton comes across as mean and small minded. How does her campaign think this is a good idea?

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 21, 2008 9:03 PM

First off I didn't address your second question. Nobody is talking about 100 years from now. Just trying to live and survive as one of the underprivileged American born & still starving in America.

Posted by: scribby3 | February 21, 2008 9:00 PM

Well, if you can't even remember Rutherford B. Hayes's middle name, then I doubt many people will remember Barack H. Obama's middle name 100 years from now ; )

Next question?

Posted by: JakeD | February 21, 2008 8:45 PM

What's the difference?!?

Posted by: scribby3 | February 21, 2008 8:42 PM


Obama's middle name is Hussein. Quick, what was Hayes's middle name?

Posted by: JakeD | February 21, 2008 8:39 PM

All I can say, unless I've been given incorrect information. I knew that in my lifetime,(I was born in 1965)that I would see a Female,or an African American in the White House. But I NEVER, EVER thought I would see a potential presidential candidate with the name,Mohammed. My understanding is Obama's middle name is Mohammed. If all you Democrats out there keep voting for this Obama, that's exactly what will happen! Make you own conclusion.

Posted by: scribby3 | February 21, 2008 8:34 PM


So, alleged inappropriate relationships are "bad" now? Being up by 2% is not an "overwhelming" delegate lead. Get ready for a bumpy ride and BROKERED CONVENTION!!!

Posted by: JakeD | February 21, 2008 6:19 PM

Adolf Hitler drew huge German crowds too.

Posted by: JakeD | February 21, 2008 6:16 PM

Sen. Obama is surging in the polls in both Texas (now a dead heat) and Ohio (7 points for Sen. Clinton, down from 16 just last week). He has won an 11th nominating contest, that of Overseas Democrats, by a 2-1 margin reported today; he has been racking up labor endorsements and 4 more Superdelegate endorsements this week. Add to all this the imbroglio involving Sen. McCain and an alleged inappropriate relationship with a Washington lobbyist and you have completely diverted the attention of the press away from Mrs. Clinton's message during this crucial time. Thank you, New York Times -- perhaps they did rethink their Clinton endorsement after all. I only hope that if the March 4 states do not overwhelmingly support Mrs. Clinton that she puts the interests of the party and the nation above her own, clearly passionate desire to be president. She can serve the nation ably as a Senate leader a la Teddy Kennedy for years to come should she take the high road in the face of Obama's momentum and overwhelming delegate lead and doesn't tear the party apart trying to reverse the tide. Yes We Can!

Posted by: Omyobama | February 21, 2008 6:15 PM

Will Hillary do the Right Thing?

To my fellow Democratic Party American citizens; what is best for the Democratic Party? No matter what side of the Obama/Hillary debate you may fall on, and by my previous posts it should be clear whom I would like to see as our Party's leader, there are questions that supercede my own desires in this race. Questions I feel, that may very well effect to future of our Party.

When does a Party members personal goals and aspirations cause more harm to our Party, then the benefits that they would bring to it? Is there a limit to the destruction of one of our own Parties candidates, by another of our Party's candidates? Can we justify it as being part of the election process, or is it just the way it is, with no need for a limit on internal Party member sabotage? As members of our Party, is there no limit to our eating of our own young?

We face a growing situation within this nomination race, where it seems more and more as if the actions of one of our Party's own, along with their surrogates, "friends", and now 527's, are pulling out the stops. They are acting against one of our Party's own, with the old Machiavellian "end justifies the means" approach, with seemingly no care as to the overall and long term effects on the Party that these actions may incur.

Is the Democratic Party the party of the status quo, uninterested in possibilities of Party expansion, unity, diversification, as well as governmental control? Is it wise to cut our nose off in spite of our face, and continue to let slide the destruction of our Party?

The nature of, in this case Sen. Clinton's campaign, is becoming a most divisive wedge for our Party. The encouragement by her campaign, in unison with the Republican nominee challenger, into forcing Sen. Obama into accepting a "pledge" that would tie his financial hands, is in my opinion far across the line of Party spirit.

It is understandable that the Republicans would want Sen. Obama to do such a thing, considering that Sen. McCain's financial resources will be severely limited during his campaign. Yet, it is even more so repugnant that the Clinton campaign would do such a thing, when the call by McCain to "honor" such a pledge by Sen. Obama is ludicrous in the first place.

The facts of this pledge are this. Sen. Obama, along with other candidates, were given a questionnaire where one of its questions asked that if they were the nominee, would they accept public campaign financing and it's limits, thus forgoing private financing? The boxes to check were either yes or no. After checking yes, Sen. Obama's spokesperson, Bill Burton said, "It would be a situation where if the Republican agreed to opt-in to the public financing system, it would be something we would explore, and that, if nominated, Mr. Obama would aggressively pursue an agreement" with whomever his GOP opponent was.

On February 17th 2008, Sen. Clinton surrogate Lanny Davis, said on CNN's Late Edition, "Senator Obama's words are contradicted by deeds. He said he would -- he pledged to take public financing as now Senator McCain has pledged. He has just reversed that pledge." This is, besides attempting to confuse the American people by changing the meaning of what Sen. Obama said, just blatantly wrong. And the nature of this statement is evermore so destructive and dirty, because as of Feb. 11th 2008, McCain, a self proclaimed advocate of campaign finance limits, had turned down government matching funds.

As of Feb. 11th, Sen. Obama would have no call to opt-into the government financed campaign funds. Yet, both McCain's people, along with the Clinton campaign were in line with the old-school political ways of the past, and both accused Sen. Obama of going back on his so-called pledge.

We can understand the reason's behind McCain's unfounded attacks, but what would be the justification of outright dirty politics on the part of the Clinton campaign? Is it justifiable in an election race to out and right lie to the members of the Democratic Party (read: you and I), about one of our own? It is understandable that Republicans would do such a thing, for they are the party of Bush and Cheney, but to sit with them, as Sen. Clinton has done, leads me to wonder what is more important to her? Is she fighting for the power, strength, and ideals of the Democratic Party, or is it the cushions of the top seat of Party power that she craves? Is there a feeling of self-entitlement within Sen. Hillary Clinton, or a blind lust for power, or is it just another mismanaged step made by the candidate whom claims to be ready on day one? You decide.

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 21, 2008 6:13 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.


© 2009 The Washington Post Company