Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Clinton Advisers See a Race Through March

By Anne E. Kornblut
All eyes are on Feb. 5, but the Clinton campaign is looking ahead even further: to March 4, when both Ohio and Texas will hold their nominating contests.

Clinton hopes to win the majority of votes in four states next Tuesday: California, New York, New Jersey and Arkansas. But her advisers are already quietly conceding that the delegate count will be close at the end of the day, thanks to Democratic rules that award most delegates proportionally by congressional district.

That means that the race will almost surely drag on. Obama strategists have their focus on Feb. 9 (when Louisiana votes for 69 delegates) and Feb. 12 (when D.C., Virginia and Maryland vote for a total of 238 delegates). Clinton will naturally campaign in the states with races throughout the month (Washington State, Wisconsin and Maine are among the races after Feb. 5). But her real target is March 4, when Ohio (with 161 delegates) and Texas (and 221 delegates) vote, advisers said in interviews this week.

A bit of expectations managing? Perhaps. Any chance she will campaign in the Virgin Islands, whose nine delegates are awarded Feb. 9? Unlikely. For now, Clinton is in California, with a San Francisco fundraiser on Friday night, moving on to New Mexico, Arizona and Missouri over the weekend. She campaigns in Massachusetts and Connecticut on Monday.

By Web Politics Editor  |  February 1, 2008; 6:12 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama Talks Economy in the Southwest
Next: A Big Day for Endorsements

Comments

1. The venom in this conversation is remarkably childish and short sighted

2. Could the commenters here be any more predictable and easily stirred up by such obvious propaganda as Ms Kornblut consistently produces?

Obviously,a large number of the commenters here are imitating supporters of the candidates, badly.

Posted by: zukermand | February 2, 2008 10:14 AM | Report abuse

rebeccajm: I don't know if you are referring to me and my post about Obama and Rezko, but if you are then you need to get a clue.

I have posted extensively for Hillary in these blogs for last few months.

None of the information about Obama and Rezko is racist. It's just facts out of the Chicago newspapers investigating, and continuing to investigate, Obama and his financier Rezko, the Syrian Chicago slumloard.

What's funny is that all of Obama's mentions of non-profits sounds pious but they were required vehicles, bait I would call it, to funnel taxpayer dollars to the slumlord Rezko, tens of millions of dollars.

All with Obama as front man. People want to vote for him for president and they don't even have a clue what he's been doing in Chicago. Everyone who wants to vote for him ought to at least take a look at Obama's $625,000 backyard that Rezko and his cronies own after Obama leaned on Rezko as soon as he got elected Senator, just two years ago.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | February 2, 2008 7:59 AM | Report abuse

I'm for Hillary. Barack Obama seems like a good guy but in my view just didn't measure up vis-a-vis qualification, experience, and policy proposals. I respect those Democrats that feel differently - each candidate has great qualities.

One big turnoff for me on Obama is the insinuation his campaign makes that Hillary doesn't represent change (or as much change). It is insulting.

My wife looks up to Hillary - & having Hillary capture the White House and run an effective executive branch would be a transformational experience for our country & perhaps especially for the women in our country.

My wife attended Hillary's rally this evening at the Orpheum. She sums it up this way: "I'll cry if Hillary loses & I'll be crying if she wins." - It's very personal for her. And naturally it's not just because Hillary's a woman - it's that she is the socially progressive, fiscally conservative common-sense-oriented politician that most of us desperately want. But the fact that Hillary is the first woman to have a real shot at the Presidency is a big deal. If she wins the Democratic nomination we'll all be talking about that a heck of a lot more.

Posted by: drstephe | February 2, 2008 2:22 AM | Report abuse

Now I can see why the NY Times has a more proactive policy of reviewing its blogs before comments go up.

Second the comments that there's been some pretty offensive stuff here tonight. I can only imagine what (if anything) was cut out.

Posted by: fmichaels | February 2, 2008 1:46 AM | Report abuse

To mibrooks27: Why is it that so many people think McCain is such a great alternative? He is pro-globalism, he is a REPUBLICAN -- that means he is owned, lock-stock-and barrel, by Wall Street -- and please -- the gun fight is won -- and you guys won it. Can't you accept "yes" for an answer? Dems have given up any battle over guns!

Learn where McCain stands before you act as if he is some great potential rival to ANY Dem. He is pro-war, kissed Bush's behind in 2004 for GW's "blessing", only repudiated his immigration stances recently for political purposes, and also changed his mind about Bush's tax cuts for these primary races.

McCain is no straight talker -- quite the opposite.

I am SICK of voters who don't bother to learn the facts. Espcially about McCain!

If you want to vote for him -- fine -- but don't say it is for policy reasons. Just say it is because you are in a snit and you don't care who our next Supreme Court Justice is or whether we stay in Iraq for 100 years.

Posted by: rebeccajm | February 2, 2008 1:40 AM | Report abuse

A lot of posters either don't hear or don't want to hear what normally loyal Democratic voters like me are saying - if Clinton is on the ticket, we vote for MCain (and thank God we have him if the wheels fall off). We're sick and tired of Clinton gutter politics, their business transactions with dictators, stinking business deals as they chase money, Bill's philandering and Hillary's ruining the victims, outsourcing and bleeding jobs, and the that soap opera that they drag along and we don't want to revisit it. They're self absorbed and humiliating and pathetic and just plain embarrassing and I'm tired of explaining our country to our European friends... My family actually want to vote for a Democratic candidate for President and Mr. Obama appears, so far, acceptable. But we want to hear his take on outsourcing and all of these Indian and Chinese H1-B guest workers. The Clinton fiasco, outsourcing 60 million jobs, and bringing in 5 million cheap hi-tech workers is sort of insane; so we're waiting to see just how much he owes Wall Street and big business. And, we want to see if he still thinks the Second Amendment is meaningless.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | February 2, 2008 1:10 AM | Report abuse

I don't know whether the folks here are knuckle-dragging, Muslim-hating, tin-foil hat wearing freaks, or misguided Hillary supporters who think they are helping their candidate or -- I hope -- GOP trolls.

But the racist and ignorant information that is being written here about Barack Obama is out of line and would be CONDEMNED by Clinton or ANY decent Clinton supporter.

I also know that Obama would NEVER want one of his supporters to make personal insults to Hillary.

Cut it out!

Our opponents are the Republicans.

Posted by: rebeccajm | February 2, 2008 1:10 AM | Report abuse

Clinton is finished. Here's why:

MoveOn Endorsement Throws Progressive Weight
Behind Barack Obama

3.2 Million Members Nationwide Mobilize to Get Out the Progressive Vote for Senator Obama

Group Has Over 1.7 Million Members In Super Tuesday States

In a resounding vote today, MoveOn.org Political Action's members nationwide voted to endorse Senator Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination for President. The group, with 3.2 million members nationwide and over 1.7 million members in Super Tuesday states, will immediately begin to mobilize on behalf of Senator Obama. The vote favored Senator Obama to Senator Clinton by 70.4% to 29.6%.

Senator Obama accepted the endorsement stating:

"In just a few years, the members of MoveOn have once again demonstrated that real change comes not from the top-down, but from the bottom-up. From their principled opposition to the Iraq war - a war I also opposed from the start - to their strong support for a number of progressive causes, MoveOn shows what Americans can achieve when we come together in a grassroots movement for change. I thank them for their support and look forward to working with their members in the weeks and months ahead."

Eli Pariser, MoveOn.org's Executive Director, issued the following statement on the group's endorsement:

"Our members' endorsement of Senator Obama is a clear call for a new America at this critical moment in history. Seven years of the disastrous policies of the Bush Administration have left the country desperate for change. We need a President who will bring to bear the strong leadership and vision required to end the war in Iraq, provide health care to every American, deal with our climate crisis, and restore America's standing in the world. The enormity of the challenges require someone who knows how to inspire millions to get involved to change the direction of our country, and someone who will be willing to change business as usual in Washington. Senator Barack Obama has proved he can and will be that President.

"With 3.2 million members nationwide and over 1.7 million members in states that vote next Tuesday, we'll be able to immediately jump into action in support of Senator Obama's candidacy. We've learned that the key to achieving change in Washington without compromising core values is having a galvanized electorate to back you up. And Barack Obama has our members 'fired up and ready to go' on that front.

"We congratulate Sens. Clinton, Dodd and Biden, former Senator Edwards, Governor Richardson, Congressman Kucinich and former Senator Gravel on running tremendous campaigns. We thank them for their contributions to the important debate that has gripped our nation and for their ongoing engagement with our members. We're looking forward to working together to bring progressive values to the nation's capitol and to end this disastrous war in Iraq. MoveOn members are committed to putting a Democrat in the White House in 2008 and ushering in a new era of progressive values no matter who wins the nomination."

MoveOn members' comments in the vote reflect the reasons they support Senator Obama:

"Obama's grassroots organizing experience and unifying message combine to show he will work for working people and speak to a broad cross section of the American public. We need this," said Linda Blong of Penngrove, CA.

"There are defining moments in our nation's political history and this is one of them. Barack Obama appeals to the very BEST of the American Spirit," said Estina Baker, Hackensack, NJ

"Barack Obama represents CHANGE in so many levels. He brings HOPE that America can, again, be respected by the rest of the world and that Americans can be proud, again, of our leaders!" Isabelle Mollien, Denver, CO

"Obama has the ability to draw people to him, to energize people who generally don't vote, to create an atmosphere of long-overdue possibility around himself and what he could bring to the office. It is my belief that he can re-establish the lost connection between the American people and their leader, and put our country back on course to be a positive force in the world." Matthew Smith in Columbus, OH

MoveOn's endorsement means a fresh infusion of people-power for Obama in the critical days before Super Tuesday. MoveOn will immediately connect thousands of progressive activists into the Obama GOTV volunteer operation. It will also use the same cutting-edge computer-based phone program that made 7 million GOTV calls for Democrats in 2006 to allow MoveOn members to call other MoveOn members in Feb. 5 states and encourage them to vote for Obama.

Today's endorsement is the first time MoveOn.org has endorsed a candidate for President in the Democratic primary. Over the past year, MoveOn surveyed a rotating sample of 30,000 members each week to determine their membership's preference in the Democratic presidential primary. For months, MoveOn members were divided among many candidates -- as many waited to see who would take bold progressive positions on the issues. As the primary race has gained momentum, the polling showed a consensus forming and, with Senator John Edward's withdrawal from the race, members made their decision in favor of Senator Obama. The vote took place from Thursday, January 31st to Friday, February 1st.

http://moveon.org/press/pr/obamaendorsementrelease.html

Posted by: kevinschmidt | February 2, 2008 1:04 AM | Report abuse

UK chose a fresh faced and enthusiastic young lawyer / politician
That got 10 yers of Sleeze, Back hander, Selling seats in the House of Lords( UK Senate ).... I could go on ....
He also got us into Iraq ... and became GW's Poodle.

US got a fresh face in GW and now we all know what it got us.

Will we ever learn ????? .....

I guess the Dems really are trying very hard to get John McCain as President.

Good luck !!!!!

Posted by: blairite | February 2, 2008 1:03 AM | Report abuse

iowatreasures - you're welcome. While I share your concerns, my main focus is for people to be able to understand Obama as someone who will answer you about a Syrian locked up as a flight risk and awaiting federal prosecution this month as "a client I did about five hours of legal work early in my career" instead of "my friend who I asked to buy my $625,000 backyard for me".

If people can't understand Obama from that, they just don't want to.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | February 2, 2008 12:35 AM | Report abuse

Obama claims to take the high road, but sends out mailers disparaging Hillary's health care program -- which happens to be about the same as his. What a liar! See:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/obama-does-harry-and-louise-again/

Obama dishes out the dirt, but complains bitterly and the slightest hit of negativity by the Clintons.

If Obama wants to be treated with dignity and fairness, he ought to do the same thing himself.

Posted by: bghgh | February 2, 2008 12:29 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton is one of the smartest people in the world and has dedicated her life to helping children, schools, and the poor. The US will be incredibly lucky if she wins this nomination and eventually the Presidency. We will once again have someone in the White House who will take care of Americans and to the best of her ability, all the citizens of the world.
You go Hillary! I can't wait!

Posted by: bghgh | February 2, 2008 12:22 AM | Report abuse

meldupree: I'll address it. I just addressed the illicit Rezko / Obama transactions above.

For starters, Bill will have to put his charitable foundation on hold while Hillary is president. He's already divested himself of business holdings.

Concerning the Canadian friend of Bill's, he's already a very wealthy individual. For example he owned Lions Gate Entertainment movie studios. He gave to Bill's foundation for the work it does.

The trip through Khazakstan was part of a tour to see the foundation donations at work, but also allowed the Canadian to get face time with Khazakstan's president where he had a uranium mining project submitted seeking approval to go ahead.

This would be similar to a foreigner seeking permission to invest in the US who with very good connections get invited to an event at the White House and get to meet the president. The well connected one would mention something about a great investment being worked on for the States, and the president smile and say good news. And then no more than chit chat after that. That's what the connections are all about.

Happens all the time, in every country, at all levels. That's pretty much the sum total value of a lobbyist.

For Clinton, it's at the highest levels of the worldwide rich and famous though.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | February 2, 2008 12:13 AM | Report abuse

Iowatreasures --

I agree with you about Obama's use of the phrase "I know how to win elections", especially since the person who will forever be associated with that line "I know how to win elections" was Huey Long of LA and "All the King's men" fame.

I wonder who Obama's "Jack" is?

Does Obama have Jack, the former, and fallen, reporter, working for him, accusing the other side of spreading dirt on him, when he is actually using Jack to spread dirt on them and destroy them?

It is creepy.

Obama isn't JFK, he's Huey Long.

Posted by: svreader | February 2, 2008 12:13 AM | Report abuse

ralphdaugherty:

Thank you for looking into the Obama/Rezko scandal.

I thought I was the only one who noticed this skulduggery by Obama and Rezko.

You filled in some very interesting blanks for me. I have mentioned that Rezko was "from Syria. I don't know how recently, but I was hoping somebody knew or would find out.

I didn't know Rezko was receiving large sums of money from someone in the middle east.

The question I have asked is - "just who is buying all those bumper stickers from Obama." It was so unlikely when Obama got his first sixty million dollars in campaign contributions and he was an unknown quantity then.

Now the $32,000,000 in Jan. contributions is also suspect to me. The reason the FBI revoked Rezko's probation was because he was "moving large sums of money around."

I am so worried that Obama could become our next president, and have access to our nuclear weapons since he has been cohorting with the likes of Tony Rezko.

We don't know where Obama's loyalties lie. His deceased father is from Kenya, and his step father from Indonesia.

We don't know how Obama feels about Israel or what is going on in the middle east. I just think that it is unconscienable to put someone in the White House who is such a mystery man.

I wish we could put together a time table on Obama.

One thing I learned this week is how Obama became President of the Law Review at Harvard.

A writer was speaking on CSPAN2 and had a book out sub-titled, "Why Obama cannot win.

That writer knew Obama and said the way he won that election to be the President of the Law Review at Harvard because he would talk to conservatives about things that the conservatives liked, and the same with the liberals. In other words, he is a master at pandering.

I have also noted Obama is the master at reverse "dirty tricks." He blames Hillary for all of his past mistakes and poor choices. Obama said he smoked pot and sniffed cocaine, in one of his books.

Obama thinks that just because he told about it in his book, he isn't supposed to take any questions about it, and if somebody - anybody asks about those things, it is Hillary's fault.

Obama said, in Iowa, "I know how to win elections.

Obama creeps me out. I say, anybody but Obama. We don't want a crook or a "victim" in the White House. gw.


Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 1, 2008 11:56 PM | Report abuse

response to: (donnyx | February 1, 2008 11:26 PM)

Why is it racist to say that Obama couldn't win a general election, since much of the country is racist? Forget the rightwing-extremists at FOX News who refer to him as Osama. Obama would have a lot of liabilities in a general election that haven't been a factor yet.

Posted by: con_crusher | February 1, 2008 11:44 PM | Report abuse

response to: (Phil5 | February 1, 2008 11:17 PM)

Why would she want to? Reduhblicans can have the South until it realizes that it lost the Civil War already. The Midwest, Southwest and Northwest are becoming very competitive for Dems. Regardless of who wins in November, expect the elctoral college map to look more like '92 or '96.

Posted by: con_crusher | February 1, 2008 11:35 PM | Report abuse

martinwinandersen:

You speak in glowing terms about Robert Kennedy in a way that you believe supports Obama's ideals.

Haven't you seen the t.v. ads out today about Robert Kennedy's children endorsing Hillary Clinton, not Obama.

I used to like Ted Kennedy, but those two elite east coast gentlemen, Kennedy and Kerry are pitiful. They have never had to worry about a dime in their lives.

I have lost all respect and admiration for Ted Kennedy. And as far as Kerry's endorsement of Obama, I heard something the other day that really made me sick to my stomach.

Bill Clinton got out of his sick bed, after having triple by-pass surgery to campaign for John Kerry.

Bill Clinton also used his presidential power to help Ted Kennedy keep searching for John Kennedy, Jr., when others wanted to stop the search. Clinton said he wouldn't stop until he found him.

That just shows how selfish and self-serving Ted Kennedy and John Kerry are. gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 1, 2008 11:34 PM | Report abuse

sjl106

Barack's supporters raised $32 Million in January- we are very serious & very dedicated. The Bush/Clinton regime is going to be tossed into the dust bin of history. Sorry Pal- good riddance.

Posted by: shiva7 | February 1, 2008 11:34 PM | Report abuse

iowatreasures wrote:"Because of Obama's association with Rezko, he has become a millionaire, and lives in a 1.6 million dollar house in Illinois."

This post is a good start, but you have to make clear what Rezko did for Obama two years ago when he was elected to the Senate. All the stuff about campaign contributions is vague and fluffy. Doesn't mean anything.

Rezko donated to a wide range of politicians, including Bush, but not to the Clintons. Not that that's particularly important, because bad contributions are identified all the time and given away, but because the picture with the Clintons is from the Chicago Democratic Convention and not from being close to the Clintons, which is important.

No, what you have to make crystal clear to people is that when Obama was voted to the Senate, he wanted to buy an expensive house in Chicago that he couldn't afford. The house he paid 1.65 million for, which was in ballpark of an earlier book advance, so that's not an issue. It's an adjoining $625,000 piece of property that's the issue. Obama asked Rezko to help him out, and Rezko bought the property, which allowed Obama to buy the house next to it for $300,000 less than the 1.95 million price. That $300,000 alone is serious money, but it is positioned as a "discount" while Rezko paid full price (or possibly picked it up for Obama with property purchase - a $625,000 parcel next to a 1.65 million mansion is a seriously expensive piece of land - seems disproportionate to me).

Now on to way worse stuff. The property was in Rezko's name (his wife's name), but just sitting there. I read quite a bit night beofre last on it, and will try to finish figuring this out this weekend. But from posts on the news sites investigating this, ABC and the Chicago papers, one person said the property has no access from the street and that Obama pays for landscaping because no one else would be able to get to it. But I also saw one reference that it was in front of his house, so I don't know yet.

But what is clear is that Obamna wanted a large mansion and grounds that cost approximately 2.5 million, and he went to his long time business associate Rezko - at least I would describe a 17 year association of carrying the legal and political load for a professional con job of milking taxpayers for tens of millions of dollars for renovating apartment buildings for the poor - and doing such a poor job of it as you skim off everything for you and your cronies that little was left to do any constuction. Heck, Rezko even quit paying the heat but at the same time gave $1,000 to Obama who was the state rep for the district containing these poor freezing people, people who surely pleaded with Obama's office for help - but it is to this long term crook relationship financier of his state and Senate runs that he went to to buy his backyard for him.

Surely that would have been bad enough, but Rezko had also just been publically indicted by the Federal government. But Obama wanted his %625,000 backyard, and who else did he have chits on when it came time to milk someone down but good.

So the property was sitting there, essentially part of Obama's mansion grounds, but then Rezko starts getting wires of millions of dollars from the middle east, Rezko's a Syrian and the wires were coming from an Iraqi billionare who fled Iraq, undoubtedly where some of our countless billions have gone that we "can't find", and this all quietly comes out in bail paperwork filed with the court on Rezko's assets. And all of a sudden, we're now told that Rezko "has since sold it", it being Obama's back (or front, or something he can get to but the owner can't because there's no easement or access from the street to it), and oh never mind, Rezko just went away.

Except that I read another post that the person who bought it was a crony of Rezko's and Obama's, one of Rezko's lawyers. If someone want to try to tell me that a Rezko crony paid half a million dollars of his own money for Obama's backyard that he can't get to, I'll eat crushed glass and nails. No, this is standard deviant behavior and they shuffled ownership of Obama's backyard to a someone not named Rezko because Rezko is going to federal trial in February on corruption charges. Oh, except since he's been caught illegally receiving wire transfers from the middle east against his bail restrictions, he's jailed now as a flight risk awaiting trial this month.

So in addition to what you wote about Obama lying about "oh that was just some guy that I did five hours of clerk work for" early in his career, which by the way, isn't going from law clerk work in 1995 where you're described as too junior to have any decision making responsibilities in these tens of millions of doallars of organized taxpayer theft - Rezko walked away from all 17 properties, Obama was involved with him in nine of them, and the city of Chicago, and the poor people in what's left of those 17 buildings are left holding the bag - but isn't that a long way to come from junior no responsibility law clerk in 1995 to presidential cult leader 13 years later? I think so, but hey, as long as he can preach.

So that's how clear cut you have to make it for people because once they start understanding that this is the first thing Obama did when elected Senator two years ago, and he had the audacity to demand Senate ethics reform, someone would surely ask isn't Obama's whole career with Rezko culminating in Obama's $625,000 back yard one huge pile of ethics violations?

I can't even see Obama weathering a Senate ethics investigation once the stuff hits the fan, but you can betcha the conservatives are ready to take Obama apart on this. And they can get all they need just from reading the Chicago papers.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | February 1, 2008 11:30 PM | Report abuse

response to: (lpeter59 | February 1, 2008 07:16 PM)

You make some valid points. Obama is certainly, uhhhhhh, more articulate than W. But there aren't many solid legislative accomplishments in his legislative record. At the heart of the problem is the fact that people simply don't read as much as they used to. People get most of their political information from TVs, watching it with the assumption that everything aired must be true. But if one were to dig deeper, they'd learn that George W. Bush bankrupted every company he was CEO of. Now he can add every country that he's held the presidency of. Also, Obama talks alot about unity, but his record proves otherwise. He's never made such polarizing statements as, "If you're not for me, you're against me." But he hasn't pushed much legislation through that required bipartisan support. On the other hand, Hillary has a relatively solid, centrist Senatorial record. Her main problem is PR in nature.

Posted by: con_crusher | February 1, 2008 11:29 PM | Report abuse

Those who say that Obama could not win a general election means only that they are a racist and cannot see beyond their own nose. The truth is that Obama, if likely nominated, will win the election in a landslide against 72-year-old McCain.

Also, since when were presidential candidates experienced? You're not referring to Bush as your shining example, are you? The only experienced presidents are those who were elected to a second term which is when they usually screwed up more.

Posted by: donnyx | February 1, 2008 11:26 PM | Report abuse

mnjam: so people with genetic conditions that may affect their ability to express themselves verbally are always dumber than the rest of us?

I don't disagree with your point, but I think you made a pretty bad case for it.

Posted by: amelia.saletan | February 1, 2008 08:33 PM
----------------------------------

Using the word "dumb," which means unable to speak, as a synonym for "stupid," reflects amelia saltan's intuitive understanding that language and intelligence are deeply linked.

In fact, people with genetic (or environmentally caused congenital conditions) that adversely affect their ability to acquire and use language usually do suffer massive deficits in cognitive function.

Further evidence of the deep link between language and intelligence comes from tragic cases of children deprived of an opportunity to acquire language during the critical period, 2-6. They never recover and are virtually retarded.

Conversely, bilingual children seem to exhibit higher IQ scores than monolingual children.

I could go on and on.

But it is obvious to anyone with common sense that language and intelligence and inextricably intertwined.

Psychologists, linguists, neuroscientists and other types of scientists have confirmed this repeatedly and continue to do so with new and different types of studies and experiments every year.

Posted by: mnjam | February 1, 2008 11:24 PM | Report abuse

It would be the biggest mistake to vote for Obama. He can achieve nothing through the congress. He has no experience to deal with them. He is good sweet talker. Vote for Hillary. I bet she knows what she is talking about.

Posted by: j87vst | February 1, 2008 11:21 PM | Report abuse

Wouldn't it be interesting if one -- just one Obama supporter addressed the issue of Tony Rezko?

That aside, close examination of the Democratic primary vote in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida show Barack Obama decisively winning the black vote and just as decisively losing the white, Hispanic and Asian vote. Thus Obama became the official black candidate for President of the United States while Hillary Clinton became the candidate for most every other Democrat.

Obama, whose campaign has attempted to put him over as the "great uniter," instead was shown by the vote to be the "great divider." It was Mrs. Clinton indeed who was shown as the "great uniter." And once the dust has settled and she is the Democratic Party candidate for President of the United States, blacks will support her just as they did before the skin color of the Democratic primary candidates became an issue with them. Mrs. Clinton is the only candidate of either political party that stands a chance of uniting the country once more following the disastrous Bush-Cheney years. The icing on the cake is the fact that election of the first woman president will cap the long struggle for equal rights for women in the workplace and put an end to the final old boys clubs still standing. That not only means a lot to women but to all other minorities in the country. America United should be Mrs. Clinton's theme because it's a theme she can and will deliver and one that no other candidate running today has a chance of delivering.

Posted by: ram9478 | February 1, 2008 11:19 PM | Report abuse

Hillary can't eat in Mississippi.

Posted by: Phil5 | February 1, 2008 11:17 PM | Report abuse

Mississippi legislators this week introduced a bill that would make it illegal for state-licensed restaurants to serve obese patrons. Bill No. 282, a copy of which you'll find below, is the brainchild of three members of the state's House of Representatives, Republicans W. T. Mayhall, Jr. and John Read, and Democrat Bobby Shows. The bill, which is likely dead on arrival, proposes that the state's Department of Health establish weight criteria after consultation with Mississippi's Council on Obesity. It does not detail what penalties an eatery would face if its grub was served to someone with an excessive body mass index.

Posted by: Phil5 | February 1, 2008 11:16 PM | Report abuse

Iowatreasure, you noted people bashed the Clintons about the MonicaGate thing. Noted. I certainly invite you to comment on the Clinton Kazakh deal as well. Please look it up on the new york times website or google it.

There is no bon fide proof of illicit dealings with Obama/Rezko at this time; if there is I am sure the media will hot-foot it to the presses and the Internet. But this latest stink from Bill Clinton has me very concerned. After you read it, please share with all of us your doctrine on this matter. Thank you.

Posted by: meldupree | February 1, 2008 11:12 PM | Report abuse

It looks as if McCane will virtually wrap up the GOP nomination on Tuesday. Obama simply could not win a general election, and will not win the Dem. nomination. The longer he stays in the race, the more he's going to hurt the Dem's chances in November. There's a lot of parity in the race between Hillary and Obama, but after electing a Texas cowboy with the IQ of a rock, voters will be wary of supporting anyone who lacks real experience on a national level. Conventional wisdom says that Senators don't get presidential nominations, but unlike McCane, Hillary hasn't been in Congress long enough for her record to be a liability.

Posted by: con_crusher | February 1, 2008 11:10 PM | Report abuse

svreader,

Long time no posts from you.

Talk to me about Bill aiding the Canadian mining moguls who got a huge exclusive uranium mining rights deal in the outbacks of Kazakhstan. In grateful appreciation, Bill's Foundation got US$31.3M, with a pledge for an additional US$100M.

I'm not pol but I do know that no one gives you that kind of money for no reason. These guys want access and a seat at the table; if getting access to a President Hillary through her husband is the way to travel, then fine. I'm sorry svreader, this is the same-old bovine scat America rejects. Clinton pardons Marc Rich against the advice of everyone at DOJ. Do you think the Clintons will not offer access to the White House for "consideration" (in plain English, bribes)? Remember the Lincoln bedroom sleepovers and the coffee klatches at the White House for donations to the Clintonian cause? They are mild in comparison to the "FOR SALE" sign being hung by Bill. If you have not read the story, go to nytimes.com or google it.

No thanks, I'm rolling the dice on OBAMA '08!

Posted by: meldupree | February 1, 2008 11:05 PM | Report abuse

sveader: You bring up a very good point.

With Obama bashing Hillary for making a good faith vote for Bush to have authorization to use leverage (threatening war against Iraq),
believing the intelligence agency reports, then Obama would never be able to declare war, if necessary, based on intelligence reports.

We don't know why Bush went to war, except he was hell-bent on doing so. While he was campaigning for the presidency, he proclaimed that he wasn't "into nation building."

However, it turned out the media can take responsibility for having an inept president, Bush, because they thought he would be more fun to have a beer with.

What Bush was saying privately was that he wanted to invade 8 countries, beginning with Iraq and ending up with Syria and Iran.

This time, I want a president that will get down to business and clean up the messes that Bush is going to leave behind. gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 1, 2008 11:04 PM | Report abuse

Obama? Change? What has he done? Nothing! What does he stand for? Zilch! What experience does he have in anything? Nada! He will give amnesty to the illegal aliens. He and most of the rest of Congress have squandered our wealth. The libs are swooning and mooing Ohhhhbammmaa! Ohhhhbammmaa! What exactly will he do? Even he doesn't know! Do you know? I sure don't. Actually I do - he'll continue to spend us into bankruptcy. Just another corrupt Washington Establishment politician. The only candidate who lives within his means as a candidate and will cut spending as President is Ron Paul! Real men vote for Ron Paul!

Posted by: washpost3 | February 1, 2008 11:02 PM | Report abuse

What's all this talk about? It's clear what will happen. Whoever the Democratic nominee is will be the next president. Neo-Democrat/Independent McCain will be the nominee of the Republican party.

It's more than amusing to me that all the Republican nominees each in their own way is hated by a large segment of their own party. The fact that the party is so fragmented is because Republicans have been so betrayed by the real controllers of the party--greedy rich people who will use Evangelicals, bigots or whoever to further their greed. The fact is that the Republican heirarchy could care less about them except to get their vote. How much did Evangelicals actually get what they wanted from Bush and a Republican-controlled congress? The answer is clearly NOTHING!

I will love either Obama or Hillary to be the next president.

Posted by: donnyx | February 1, 2008 11:02 PM | Report abuse

"The country is about to undergo a recession. This is a huge concern to me, especially since I am approaching retirement age and worry about my 401(k) and other savings. Will they drop and jeopardize my retirement?"

If Billary is elected, your organs will be sold to the Asians in order to balance the trade deficit. (You only need one kidney and one eye)

Posted by: ben2 | February 1, 2008 10:59 PM | Report abuse

"Life is unpleasant enough without people like you crapping in everyone's soup."

Tell that to the dead Iraqis and the families of US troops that died in part by her support of Bush's Neocon policies.

So does this mean you will tell Bill (the lying hatchet man) to cut the destructive race bating venom and ugly distortions?

And will Hillary stop her "I did not have sex with the vote authorizing the unprovoked destruction of Iraq" causing the unnecessary death of hundreds of thousands, and untold costs to US strategic interest?

Until she comes clean on that vote (and the Lieberman bomb Iran vote) she will not qualify for the vote of many. At least McCain is honest about his war mongering.

Dude, Billary can sure dish it out but they sure are so thin skinned and self pitying when it comes to reminders to voters of their corruption, arrogance and deceit.

Posted by: ben2 | February 1, 2008 10:48 PM | Report abuse

Now it's a fact that Obama was NOT a US Senator at the time of the Iraqi vote. But Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, John Edwards and Hillary were. Now Obama says if he had been there he would have voted NO. Man what a smart Monday Morning Quarter Back that is. Shoulda, Coulda, Woulda. If he keeps preaching that message, more and more folks will surely believe that he CAN walk on water. He can't always vote PRESENT or say he woulda done something when that something is long past. One day he will have to be held responsible for his actions or lack thereof. Lets pray he isn't dealing with our lives when that time comes. You know like any good leader. Accept praise and deligate blame.

Posted by: faray | February 1, 2008 10:44 PM | Report abuse

The country is about to undergo a recession. This is a huge concern to me, especially since I am approaching retirement age and worry about my 401(k) and other savings. Will they drop and jeopardize my retirement?

To me this is the issue in deciding who to vote for president. Does Obama have the experience and knowledge to guide the country through a recession? What has he done in the past to offer us clues about this? Not much, I'm afraid.

That's why I will support Hillary Clinton. She has the experience and knowledge and judgement to help to guide the country through tough times. Give me action and results, not just big talk and words, which is what Obama give us.

Posted by: David2007 | February 1, 2008 10:32 PM | Report abuse

martinwinandersen: You never give up, do you?

You talk about Clinton scandal. Why is his infidelity any more of a scandal than your republican cohorts - Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Newt Gingrich?

They all were messing around with someone else, but people don't rub their faces in the gutter over it.

The Clinton's have worked their way through that infidelity and came up more committed to their marriage and each other.

Can't you let sleeping dogs lie? Can't you investigate and expose Obama for being a crook, taking advantage of poor people in Chicago, while calling himself a "community organizer?

Read all about it in the 100 articles in the Chicago newspapers, especially the article by John Kass in Jan. 27th Chicago Tribute where he says that the 17 year association with Tony Rezko was "significant," and that "Rezko belongs to Obama."

The FBI just picked up Rezko, a Syrian who moved to Chicago, and arrested him, revoked his bail, and is in custody awaiting trial on February 25th.

So far, the biased media has even given Obama a free pass on this scandal, but why are we taking a chance on a guy that could be involved criminally in back room shady deals? gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 1, 2008 10:31 PM | Report abuse

Robert F. Kennedy once remarked:

"All of us, from the wealthiest and most powerful of men to the weakest and hungriest of children, share one precious possession: the name 'American.' It is not easy to know what that means. But in part to be an American means to have been an outcast and a stranger, to have come to the exiles' country, and to know that he who denies the outcast and stranger among us at that moment also denies America."

During the debate Thursday night, Barack Obama echoed RFK when he said, to applause, that arguments about how the inner-city unemployment of blacks is related to the influx of immigration is a case of "scapegoating" immigrants.

Hillary, fresh from her campaign of racial coding in South Carolina, countered by claiming that voters needed to realize that immigrants do take the jobs of low-income Americans.

America is tired of the arrogance, corruption and lack of that elusive thing called grace that characterized Bill Clinton's "co-presidency" with Hillary.

Clean slate !!!
Barack Obama,
'08 !!!

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | February 1, 2008 10:31 PM | Report abuse

Lets see. Mrs Clinton may get at least a million more votes at the poll and not win the nomination... She may have 2 million more votes... That spells trouble for the first black candidate for President in the US...Can you say Mr Obamba will hit the lecture circuit or will he be vain enough to hold onto his senate seat....

Can you just hear Jesse and Al .. Oh my you voted against Mr. Obamba you racist...

Lets face it folks this race is about skin color....

Posted by: robinhood2 | February 1, 2008 10:30 PM | Report abuse

ben2 --

Why don't you try posting something positive for once.

Life is unpleasant enough without people like you crapping in everyone's soup.

Your hatred for Hillary Clinton won't get Obama elected and it sure won't get you health insurance.

Posted by: svreader | February 1, 2008 10:20 PM | Report abuse

"Obama supporters look backwards and spend all their effort trying to drag Hillary down because she had the "balls" to be willing to fight for America and American values."

GMAFB. Marc Rich Cash for Pardons is not about US interests. NYT expose on the major bribe to Billary for his foundation.

Remember Billary selling out US interest to Chinese intelligence officers in exchange for millions in contributions? Billary is not even subtle about their brazen corruption. Billary is more dangerous than Bush/Cheney because they are not nearly as stupid or lazy.

Posted by: ben2 | February 1, 2008 10:16 PM | Report abuse

Obama and his supporters are painting the US into a corner.

If they turn Hillary Clinton's vote authorizing force as a last resort into a way to win the primary, they doom Obama to never be able to declare war no matter what another country does to the US.

Obama supporters look backwards and spend all their effort trying to drag Hillary down because she had the "balls" to be willing to fight for America and American values.

Obama supporters only value is to win. In that way they are a lot like Republicans.

Maybe its what we need.

They are turning the rest of us off to politics, so if Obama wins, I'll vote for him because I want the Democratic Party to win, but I will vote for him with a heavy heart, because his ego and that of his supporters will cost America dearly.

Posted by: svreader | February 1, 2008 10:01 PM | Report abuse

faray; "Who knows how he would have voted had he been a US Senator at the time it was taken and given the same intellegence that Hillary was presented with."

She WAS presented with the full, classified version of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

The 90-page version with all the caveats and agency dissenting opinions that only senators and congressmen were allowed to see.

Unfortunately, Hillary didn't bother to read it before voting on the war.

We know that because the NIE was kept in a little guarded room and senators had to sign in and out when reading it. Hillary never read it.
Neither did John McCain, for that matter.

So even though Hillary had access to secret intelligence, she only saw the much shorter declassified NIE, the same one that we could all read on the Internet ... if indeed she bothered to read THAT.

Barack Obama was right, Hillary Clinton was wrong. And Hillary Clinton not only voted to "authorize force", she also voted against a Democratic motion to let the inspectors have another go (the Levin amendment), and a motion requiring Bush get a Security Council resolution before launching war.

Posted by: bourassa1 | February 1, 2008 9:55 PM | Report abuse

hey! don't make fun of us virgin islanders. obama has been here & campaigned. and the lights stayed on!

the last time hillary & bill visited, they had the authories shut down the power for much of the island..."presidential security precaution" y'know. just what we needed, another blackout!

Posted by: dougbob | February 1, 2008 9:43 PM | Report abuse

"Obama may not be too bad but his supporters are the biggest bunch of bashers the world has ever seen."

yes, honky, we are all negros on crack and all we want is your white women

Posted by: ben2 | February 1, 2008 9:43 PM | Report abuse

For Obama to say that he never made a mistake about Iraqi is to simple. I have been told that the person who doesnt make mistakes it the person who doesnt do anything. Oh maybe just vote PRESENT.
Who knows how he would have voted had he been a US Senator at the time it was taken and given the same intellegence that Hillary was presented with. Remember, we learn from our mistakes. That's what makes us wiser. so I challenge Obama on his comment that the would always make the right decision if elected. Give Me A Break!

Posted by: faray | February 1, 2008 9:36 PM | Report abuse

Imagine someone who knew nothing about America and Americans, so they decided to learn what Americans were like by reading the comments posted on the WaPo politics section.

Bunch of winners posting here today.

I particularly like the people who post Obama's middle name in caps. That generally gives away their relative IQ.

Posted by: steveboyington | February 1, 2008 9:33 PM | Report abuse

See Obama Girl take on would-be co-presidents Clinton ...

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4224964

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | February 1, 2008 9:33 PM | Report abuse

The same bashers post over and over.

Obama may not be too bad but his supporters are the biggest bunch of bashers the world has ever seen.

People who bash the Clintons don't do anyone any good.

People reading these posts remember how good life was when Bill Clinton was President.

All we know about Obama is that he's great at kicking other people below the belt but has a "glass jaw" himself.

Obama supporters continue to post personal attacks rather than focusing on the issues.

Thanks to Obama's supporters, their own children will wind up without health insurance.

Smart move guys and gals.

Obama's "new kind of politics" is the oldest kind of politics there is.

Dirty Politics.

Posted by: svreader | February 1, 2008 9:32 PM | Report abuse

Free univeral health care citizens! The fat is oozing out of your ears, nose, and other bodily orifaces. People are slipping and falling on the disgusting fat you drip onto the grocery store aisles. Then John Edwards is bringing multi million dollar lawsuits against the grocery stores! Lose weight and cut health care costs in half all you big fatties!/

Posted by: Phil5 | February 1, 2008 9:23 PM | Report abuse

Q to Hillary:

"What could you possibly have to say to young people, what could you possibly bring to the table, for those who need to hear a message of honesty and integrity, as personal responsibility is the cornerstone of government accountability?"

Answer from Hillary:

(she smiles and chuckles) Well to the young women out there I can offer Bill's throbbing member...

Posted by: ben2 | February 1, 2008 9:20 PM | Report abuse

Hi all you fatties! You great big fat, stupid fatties! Lose somem weight great big fat people!

Posted by: Phil5 | February 1, 2008 9:18 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is obese and wants to lead on health care! The Feds should require all fat people to lose weight. And lets get back to calling them fat so it will hurt their feelings and make them do it. This will prevent most diabetes, cancer, and heart disease. But people don't want to hear that. They want to hear they are getting something 'free' from the government. How stupid the people are! How pathetically, hopelessly, fat and stupid. Does anybody think anymore? Maybe their brains are full of fat.

Posted by: Phil5 | February 1, 2008 9:15 PM | Report abuse

The question that should have been asked of Hillary at last night's debate is this ...

"Ma'am, your husband's presidency was marked by scandals running from the salacious to national security, you've run a campaign based on race coding, and both you and your husband have scant regard for the truth.

"What could you possibly have to say to young people, what could you possibly bring to the table, for those who need to hear a message of honesty and integrity, as personal responsibility is the cornerstone of government accountability?"

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | February 1, 2008 9:15 PM | Report abuse


Oh my.

The nasty, sleazy deceptive Billary's are out in full force tonight.

Just love the race batting. We're all waiting for the Billary ad: "can we afford a crackhead negro in the WhiteHouse".

Hillary got Anne Coutler's endorsement today. That says it all.

Anne and Hillary... Sleazy.... galpals.

If Billary get's elected, she will mandate mandatory castration, beginning with Bill.


Posted by: ben2 | February 1, 2008 9:08 PM | Report abuse

jm917: You say Obama will do well if he doesn't make any mistakes.

Obama has already made the ultimate mistake.

That is the lie he told in the last debate. Obama said he "only did about five hours worth of work" for a church that was making a deal with Tony Rezko.

The lie is this: Obama and Tony Rezko have been friends ever since Obama got out of law school.

John Kass, of the Chicago Tribune, in its Jan. 27th edition, a few days ago, (when asked about the photo of Clintons/Rezko),said: "Rezko belongs to Obama."

When John Kass was on Fox News yesterday, John Kass, the investigative reporter for Chicago Tribune said that the relationship between Rezko and Obama was "significant."

John Kass went on to saya that "Rezko is Obama's guy."

Obama is a self-serving shady back room dealer. Obama calls himself a "community organizer."

But the realistic facts are:

Obama wrote letters on his state senate letterhead in Rezko's behalf to city and state officials that netted fourteen million dollars of taxpayer monies going to Rezko.

Obama also sat in on business meetings with Rezko to influence potential investors.

While Rezko was having fundraisers at Rezko's mansion, and Obama received $200,000 in campaign contributions, the tenants of that slumlord, Rezko, were going without heat during the winter.

Because of Obama's association with Rezko, he has become a millionaire, and lives in a 1.6 million dollar house in Illinois.

Bill Clinton said Obama was a "roll of the dice," and now I know that is true.

Obama has not been vetted, and the biased media has swooned over that guy and given him a free pass at every turn.

If you think Obama was introducing race into this election, just what do you think the meaning of his book, "Audacity of Hope," is referring to?

What do you think all of Obama's references to MLK and "going to the mountaintop" were all about.

And Oprah, going to SC and doing a rally there, invoking passages about MLK. What do you think that was about? It was invoking race into the equation so Obama would win in SC. The Obama's and Oprah were all race-baiting.

As soon as the SC primary was over, they didn't talk about MLK any more - now they are back to wanting to inspire "hope," and "unity."

If the media won't vet Obama, then we, the people, should. There are over 100 articles in Chicago newspapers about Rezko.

The FBI picked Rezko up last week, revoked his bail, and he is now confined, awaiting trial on FEb. 25th. He is charged with influence peddling, etc.

If somebody made inquiries about Obama's $32,000,000 in contributions in January alone, it might be interesting how much of that money came from "fat cats" in Chicago. gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 1, 2008 9:04 PM | Report abuse

Here is the change President BARRACK HUSSEIN OBAMA WILL MAKE FIRST
YEAR IN OFFICE:
1 FLY TO KENYAN TO BUILD A TAJ MAHAH LIKE TOMB FOR DAD
2 CHANGE THE NAME OF SENATOR OBAMA SCHOOL IN KENYA (CNN.COM/VIDEO OR
YOU TUBE.COM) TO PRESIDENT OBAMA SCHOOL
3 PROMOTE AGENDA TO PUSH KENYA OUT OF POVERTY BY ASSIGNING TOP
DIPLOMAT TO THE CASE TO HELP WIN AMERICAN SUPPORT
4 AMERICA MEET AND GREET HALF OF OBAMA PARTERNAL RELATIVES STILL
LIVING IN KENYA ON A WEEKLY NEWS BASIC
5 SHUTTLE HALF OF PARTERNAL RELATIVE CIRCLE ON AIR FORCE ONE FOR
WHITE HOUSE SLEEP OVER
6 TAKE AMERICAN POCKET CHANGE TO SUBSIDIZE LOAN AND SCHOLARSHIP FOR
RELATIVES IN KENYA TO ATTEND BIG AND FAMOUS USA SCHOOLS LIKE
PRINCETON, HAVARD, ETC..
7 BUILD ROADS, HOSPITALS, INFRASTRUCTURE FOR RELATIVES IN KENYA TO
PROMOTE FRIENDSHIP WITH AMERICA
8 VISIT INDONESIA TO REUNITE WITH STEP DAD AND REDEEM FATHER SON
RELATIONSHIP
9 PROMOTE AMERICANS TO CHANGE LAST NAME TO MUSLIM TO AVOID ATTACK BY
HOSTILE ARAB COUNTRIES
10 PROMOTE AMERICANS TO LEARN KENYAN AS A SECOND LANGUAGE AND ADD
KENYAN AS ESL IN COLLEGE AND HIGHSCHOOL

Posted by: anthonyhillary08 | February 1, 2008 8:58 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton is the only remaining true DEMOCRAT in the race. Obama is an emperor without clothes.

Posted by: rjwash | February 1, 2008 8:56 PM | Report abuse

i have allways beleved that thee repub,s have been pushing obama and that a lot of the money that he is getting comes from them the clintions,s have all ready beat them twice

Posted by: lgmf | February 1, 2008 8:54 PM | Report abuse

I really beleive that most of the negative and hateful comments on here are by Republicans. Whom ever is selected as our Democratic canidate, they will come out of the woodwork. Like worms out of the ground. It is going to get nastier, you can bet on it. Lets stick together Democrats and Independents. Remember Carl Rove and his dirty politics?? Well he is still alive and well, and you can bet just waiting to attack.

Posted by: faray | February 1, 2008 8:50 PM | Report abuse

mnjam: so people with genetic conditions that may affect their ability to express themselves verbally are always dumber than the rest of us?

I don't disagree with your point, but I think you made a pretty bad case for it.

Posted by: amelia.saletan | February 1, 2008 8:33 PM | Report abuse

IPeter

Dick Cheney had all of the experience in the world and has proven to have caused the most disastrous presidency ever, and by a huge factor.

Obama has extraordinary intellect, judgment and character. He will be on a mission to be the best president ever, and will surround himself with the best and the brightest. He will not be corrupt, he will not suffer from a sense of entitlement and perverted ego, score settling, and a belief that it is time to cash in.

Look how corrupt Billery has been to date even knowing that they face another real election challenge. Imagine how corrupt and arrogant Billery will be with no more need to even appear decent and appropriate?

Posted by: ben2 | February 1, 2008 8:30 PM | Report abuse

P.S.

I don't understand the utterly ludicrous notion that intelligence and verbal ability are unrelated.

Langauge is the hallmark of human intelligence. Verbal ability is the best, indeed the only, measure of differences in human intelligence.

Posted by: mnjam | February 1, 2008 8:27 PM | Report abuse

You will never go broke betting on the stupidity of the American people.

In 2000 we chose a guy that everyone recognized as only having, at best, average intelligence. But, we said, it would sure be cool to have a beer with him. So, we got George Bush for President.

Bush talked us into invading Iraq for nonexistent WMD and got us stuck in a civil war that killed 3000 soldiers. He promised to get binLaden, the killer of 3000 additional Americans, but didn't. The American people rewarded this "success" by reelecting him in 2004.

Since then, Bush has destroyed the economy, spent trillions on a stupid war, mismanaged everything from Katrina to the budget, and conspired with his oil friends to quadruple the price of oil.

Did we learn? Of course not. We are now all excited about a liberal black man with two years of experience at the federal level. He has no management or executive experience. No real record of accomplishing anything. Why? Because he sure talks pretty.

God help this country.
-------------------------------
There's voter stupidity. Including the Democratic kind.

It is self-delusion by Democrats that Bush won because people wanted to have a beer with him. The fact is that Reagan has set the tone in policy and politics and Bush, as hard it may be to believe, was making more sense to more people than Gore.

We need someone to cut through that. The Clintons could not -- otherwise Bush would have lost in a landslide. Obama is the best bet. Anyone can raise $32M in ONE MONTH is connecting with masses of voters in a way no Democratic Politician has since FDR.

Obama is no Bush. He is a graduate of Columbia and Harvard Law School. He was the editor of the Harvard Law School. He is no Bush -- a guy who could not even get into the Univeristy of Texas Law School. He is no Hillary Clinton -- a woman who went to Yale Law School but FLUNKED the DC Bar Exam. His IQ may approach the combined score of HRC and Bush, and I think she is well above average.

Posted by: mnjam | February 1, 2008 8:24 PM | Report abuse

Which is the worse nightmare?

Obama beating Hillary only to get beaten by the republicans in the fall

or

Obama getting elected President and discovering that he has no idea what to do next?

Posted by: lpeter59 | February 1, 2008 8:19 PM | Report abuse

The stakes could not be greater for the Democratic Party and the nation, and the Clintons simply reek of arrogance, deceit and corruption, and have become a major liability to both nation and party.

The Clintons set the tone for dishonesty and cynicism that justified BushCo to say and do whatever they want.... "because they can". As Slick Willie said regarding why he had his intern give him oral sex, "because he could".

Another eight years under the Clintons? Folks, it was not a very good first eight years.....

Heath care reform debacle,

the Republican landslide,

I did not have sex with that women...

depends on the definition of what the word "is" is,

lying to a grand jury,

having sex with a young intern under his employ,

stained dress as evidence, DNA tests,

Whitewater,

Hillary's destroyed documents,

the small investment that magically turned into a fortune,

Marc Rich and cash for Pardons.

All of the missed opportunities and lost years because of THE CLINTON CORRUPTION, DECEIPT AND ARROGANCE.

Don't we deserve a chance at something better? There are times when it is our duty to stand and fight for what is right. This is one of those times. Our nation and our children deserve our courage to take the harder path and not the easier road most taken.

VOTE OBAMA.

Posted by: ben2 | February 1, 2008 8:14 PM | Report abuse

People who have posted comments mocking the name of Barack Obama are the same people who listen to right wing radio...and we've seen just how influential Rush et al have been this year...NOT!

Posted by: bobnsri | February 1, 2008 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Bill, would you stop posting these types of messages. You're not helping me any. Thanks, Hillary

Posted by: Lilly1 | February 1, 2008 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Hillary in Massachusetts and CT on Monday?? What moron scheduled that? Everyone will be talking about the Patriots Super Bowl Win...NOT politics

Posted by: bobnsri | February 1, 2008 8:05 PM | Report abuse

Game over Hillary win, hate too burst your bubble.She do not have to win anymore.she won Mich.& Florida. That will put her over the top.Try to get your Obama for VP.Good luck.

Posted by: dadio4003 | February 1, 2008 8:05 PM | Report abuse

Hey POST,
Why is it that personal attacks on republicans are ok, yet HUSSEIN OBAMA is protected from harsh comments? You want your cake and eat it too? Thats fine, McCain has nothing to worry about come November. Liberals in this country may think they have a majority but the truth is, their majority is only noticable in places like San Francisco. The bulk of voters don't want a negro man in the White House. Oh, excuse me, is it racist to say "White House"?

Posted by: 102060 | February 1, 2008 7:54 PM | Report abuse

If the country moves the way of Florida because of its demographics, obama doesn't have a chance. He lost to Hillary by over a quarter million votes, that is big if you think they weren't paying attention, your out of touch.

For me, I will vote for Hillary and only Hillary, I don't find obama credible or qualified to be the President of the United States. I also find him very arrogant even after last nights debate, where the clear winner was Hillary. I continue Hearing obama say Hillary's supporters will DEFINATELY support me, but I don't think mine will support her. Sorry bud, not this Hillary supporter, I would vote McCain, he unlike you is experienced and not a player, like yourself.

Posted by: sjl106 | February 1, 2008 7:51 PM | Report abuse

As an Arkansas Republican, this will be the first time I vote in the Democratic primary. I wasn't sure for a long time, but I think Barack Obama is the way to go this year. He's got the support of me and my family.

Posted by: Chris28 | February 1, 2008 7:50 PM | Report abuse

As much as I would like for Hillary to win hands down next week, if she comes to Texas we will show her a win as big as Texas!!!

Posted by: ChieBukuro | February 1, 2008 7:49 PM | Report abuse

It is so laughable to see all the neo-dems whinning about how 'mean' the Clinton's are to HUSSEIN Obama. Ha, Ha, Ha. It just goes to show that neo-dems will even eat each other raw to gain power and destabilize the US. Destabilization and ruin is what will come to this country if either HUSSEIN or Hillary are elected. Bring the troops home and hand the muslim fanatics a victory. Yea, thats the way to show those poor terrorists we are tough! Even soldiers in the hospital with legs blown-off wish they could go back and maintain what we've accomplished to date. How sad it will be to have a neo-dem in the White House pulling all our troops off muslim land - which is just exactly what Osama whats and demands. American must put forth strength, not cow-down to the godless terrorists.

Posted by: 102060 | February 1, 2008 7:46 PM | Report abuse

don't forget Florida -- it's not just Ohio that the Clintons might be counting on

Posted by: hermanSF | February 1, 2008 7:41 PM | Report abuse

Lpeter59, this man had pretty substabcial record of accomplishments. i am from Illinois, I know for sure. My comments above summarize, on the contrary, Mrs. Clinton's accomplishments.

Posted by: aepelbaum | February 1, 2008 7:37 PM | Report abuse

Excuse me, lpeter. You mean you want to vote for the person who was so sure that she knows all that she voted For the war???Then when the inspectors had to get out, what did she do? Continued to support Bush and his intentions to go to war. Then when Saddam Hussein fled what did she do? Cont to sup the wr. Then when it was found there were no WMD, what did she do? Cont to sup the wr. Then when Saddam Hussein was hung, what did she do? Cont to sup the wr. Then when years later and thousands of soldiers had died and who knows how many Iraqis had died and the massive destruction, what did she do? cont to sup the wr. It wasn't until the majority of Americans got fed up that she did her u-turn and decided that she was really against the war. You see, Hillary is really a neoconservative. The same breed that got us into the war. She is of the mind that wars lead to democracy. Wars are like spankings to her. And this is where your vote is going to go?
GEt with it . Vote Obama.


excuse me

Posted by: Howcouldthishavehappenedtosuchanicecountry | February 1, 2008 7:34 PM | Report abuse

You are fully crazy, trisha, as these people, especially female, tricked you once with disastrous consequences. Why, for the sake of god, do you let them to do it again? Does this country have a bit of self-respect or of any feeling of self-protection? It looks like -not. So, each country deserves its own leaders and subsequent disasters.

Posted by: aepelbaum | February 1, 2008 7:34 PM | Report abuse

Clintons are really amazing , like the full scale illustration to, "You fool me once, shame on you! You fool me twice, shame on me!". REally, they promised universal health care in 1992 and, therefore, got elected. They screwed up the biggest possible way. Now , when the situation is much, much tighter because of the great deficit and much higher cost of healthcare, Mrs. Clinton again promises universal health care, and argues with Obama that he doesn't offer the universal coverage. Of course, Obama is accustomed to stick with his promises, and she was by now able to get away ruining all her promises, and still being on the top. How come this country still has these outrages swindlers, especially female, on the top?

Posted by: aepelbaum | February 1, 2008 7:28 PM | Report abuse

Clintons are really amazing , like the full scale illustration to, "You fool me once, shame on you! You fool me twice, shame on me!". REally, they promised universal health care in 1992 and, therefore, got elected. They screwed up the biggest possible way. Now , when the situation is much, much tighter because of the great deficit and much higher cost of healthcare, Mrs. Clinton again promises universal health care, and argues with Obama that he doesn't offer the universal coverage. Of course, Obama is accustomed to stick with his promises, and she was by now able to get away ruining all her promises, and still being on the top. How come this country still has these outrages swindlers, especially female, on the top?

Posted by: aepelbaum | February 1, 2008 7:27 PM | Report abuse

I HOPE it comes down to Ohio. Don't worry; this Ohian won't let you down; my vote is going to Hillary.

Posted by: trisha2 | February 1, 2008 7:27 PM | Report abuse

Clintons are really amazing , like the full scale illustration to, "You fool me once, shame on you! You fool me twice, shame on me!". REally, they promised universal health care in 1992 and, therefore, got elected. They screwed up the biggest possible way. Now , when the situation is much, much tighter because of the great deficit and much higher cost of healthcare, Mrs. Clinton again promises universal health care, and argues with Obama that he doesn't offer the universal coverage. Of course, Obama is accustomed to stick with his promises, and she was by now able to get away ruining all her promises, and still being on the top. How come this country still has these outrages swindlers, especially female, on the top?

Posted by: aepelbaum | February 1, 2008 7:26 PM | Report abuse

You will never go broke betting on the stupidity of the American people.

In 2000 we chose a guy that everyone recognized as only having, at best, average intelligence. But, we said, it would sure be cool to have a beer with him. So, we got George Bush for President.

Bush talked us into invading Iraq for nonexistent WMD and got us stuck in a civil war that killed 3000 soldiers. He promised to get binLaden, the killer of 3000 additional Americans, but didn't. The American people rewarded this "success" by reelecting him in 2004.

Since then, Bush has destroyed the economy, spent trillions on a stupid war, mismanaged everything from Katrina to the budget, and conspired with his oil friends to quadruple the price of oil.

Did we learn? Of course not. We are now all excited about a liberal black man with two years of experience at the federal level. He has no management or executive experience. No real record of accomplishing anything. Why? Because he sure talks pretty.

God help this country.

Posted by: lpeter59 | February 1, 2008 7:16 PM | Report abuse

God, can you imagine things coming down to Ohio again?

Posted by: cmss1 | February 1, 2008 7:08 PM | Report abuse

Super Tuesday now looks likely to yield a mixed result, with Hillary and Obama roughly dividing the delegate take and Hillary probably winning narrowly in popular votes. But then the campaign moves on the LA (Feb. 9), VA/MD/DC (Feb. 12), WA/WI/ME (late Feb), and finally OH/TX (Mar. 4). The longer that battle goes on, the more chance that Obama's strength in national polls grows and that additional major endorsements break his way: Edwards, Richardson, Biden, Dodds, maybe even Gore, and certainly some more governors and members of Congress.

A major driving force here is going to be the likelihood that McCain will be the Republican nominee--that should be pretty obvious after Super Tuesday. And McCain has too much potential appeal to independents, and even to disappointed Obama supporters, to make Hillary a strong Democratic nominee. That could very well tip the balance.

If Obama doesn't make any serious mistakes over the next month, he's going to be the Democratic nominee.

Posted by: jm917 | February 1, 2008 7:03 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company