Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Clinton Campaigns in Virginia

Note: Please upgrade your Flash plug-in to view our enhanced content.

By Perry Bacon Jr.
ARLINGTON -- As she campaigns to win here in next Tuesday's primary, Sen. Hillary Clinton made the case against Sen. Barack Obama and for herself in a more concise way than she often does on the stump.

"I ask you to consider, as you think about voting and talking to people that you know, how to answer two questions," Clinton said to a crowd of more than a thousand, mostly students, at the end of a speech at Washington-Lee High School. "Who would be the best president on day one to walk into the Oval Office with two wars going on, with an economy falling apart and so much happening and start solving our problems right away? And for Democrats, who would be our best candidate to stand on stage with Senator McCain and talk about national security, the economy and all the other important issues?"

Much the way Republicans spent 2007 bashing Clinton to prove themselves to their own party, Clinton focused on the likely GOP nominee, Sen. John McCain, more than on her rival Obama, whom she named only once. (She also repeated a familiar critique that his health care plan would not cover as many people as hers.)

"Senator McCain will be the Republican nominee, and I have the greatest respect for my friend and my colleague Senator McCain," she said, "but I believe he offers more of the same -- more of the same economic policy, more of the same military policies in Iraq."

She continued:" He said recently he could see American troops in Iraq for 100 years. Well, I want them coming home in 60 days....Senator McCain has said he doesn't know much about the economy."

McCain earlier this year said Americans would be more focused on the conditions on the ground in Iraq and the number of casualties in the war than how long some troops would remain there, likening Iraq to Korea and other places where some level of American troops have long remained after conflicts.

Clinton stopped in Virginia before a trip to Seattle to campaign for the Washington vote on Saturday.

By Web Politics Editor  |  February 7, 2008; 6:09 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Life in the Bubble: Condi vs. Romney
Next: No Knock-Outs from Here to the Convention

Comments

Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv | April 18, 2008 9:25 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters in general give more bashing comments than Clinton's (if you are O supporter, check all places and you'd agree), an indication that there's more water in Obama's voting results.

Posted by: snakebaby | February 11, 2008 9:02 PM | Report abuse

Obama could have a harder time running against McCain than Hillary:

All the Red States and most of the mountain states he "won" in the Democratic primaries will definitely go to McCain in the general election, so I don't know why he touts his red state "wins" as proof that he is more electable.

Also, surveyusa.com, the best poll company (the only one that showed Hillary with a 10 percentage point lead in California right before the primary), shows in a recent poll that McCain will beat Obama in traditional must-win Big Blue states like Massachusetts and Pennsylvania while Hillary will win against McCain in these states.

Obama just does not resonate with middle and working class rank and file Democrats that constitute the most important voting blocs in big DEM states. Maybe it's because these people cannot afford to get carried away by lofty rhetoric alone since they have to worry about bread and butter issues.

Posted by: upenn1998 | February 11, 2008 7:50 PM | Report abuse

I'm confused. I heard Obama criticize McCain's policies in his speeches this weekend and say that he would be the best candidate to beat McCain. So now the free and unbiased American press is criticizing Hillary Clinton because she is not criticizing Obama and instead chosing to criticize McCain. Your objectivity is very questionable and your analyze is therefore very dubious. At some point, even Perry Bacon, Jr. has to be honest. It's obvious what candidate you are personally supporting but as a journalist you are suppose to write objectively. What is happening to the Washington Post? Surely there are qualified young journalists out there.

Posted by: krutkow75 | February 11, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

I have been very confused by Barack Obama. He points to Senator Clinton as "the establishment" Yet he gladly accepts the endorsements of Ted Kennedy and John Kerry. Are they not establishment?

What specifically are the changes he intends to make?

Senator Hillary Clinton has provided clear directions of what she intends to do. We will regain the respect we have lost internationally.

Hillary Clinton is the president we need. She has the experience, the intelligence, the stamina, and a clear head for facts and details. Vote for Hillary Clinton

Posted by: siewkie | February 11, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Voting for the war in Iraq disqualifies anyone from being nominated by the Democratic Party I grew up with. Period.

Posted by: gmundenat | February 11, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

"You not only have to be ready on day one, you also need to be right on day one." -- Senator Barack Obama, Jan 2008.

Posted by: zbob99 | February 11, 2008 7:18 AM | Report abuse

To Democrats,

Please don't continue to ignore the considerable constitutional issues that come along with another Clinton presidency. It is certainly permissible under the constitution for a former president to be a presidential spouse in the White House. But it was NOT contemplated by the framers of the Constitution. I believe our founding fathers would be very seriously concerned by the prospect of a free wheeling "co-president" or at least an additional high level policy maker whose authority and powers are not circumscribed by law. Regardless of your political views, please consider that this WAS NOT FORESEEN, and is not adequately covered by law. Bill Clinton, as first spouse, would be free to cloak himself under the veil of executive privilege WITHOUT ANY LEGAL OVERSIGHT or limitations on his activities. If you thought Dick Cheney abused presidental powers, you aint seen nothin. By electing Clinton, you would be placing Bill Clinton right in the middle of a HUGE legal black hole. This is uncharted territory in a legal sense, and it is a cause for concern for anyone that cares about the Constitution.

Posted by: maq1 | February 10, 2008 11:03 PM | Report abuse

After watching some of the talking heads of the Republican party I am amazed that they cannot seem to admit they support failed policies, failed commander in chief, and a very failed congress. Both who have said one thing but did another. Those "values" that they try to shove down not only Americas throat but even the world are in fact values that they can't seem to follow themselves.

They know that they will need moderate independents to win the next election and they feel John McCain is their best hope. At one time maybe eight years ago it was but everytime McCain kisses the butt of Chrisrian right, the Hard line conservatives and the current failed policies of GW Bush he will not stand a chance. Many moderate Republicans are jumping ship because they don't like what has happened to their party and will vote for someone outside of their party.

The bottom line is this there is a new sheriff in town and he or she is not a Republican nor Democrat and he or she is not right or left. No the new sheriff is moderate independents who will decide the direction our country goes and its about time.

Posted by: rl5614 | February 10, 2008 9:42 AM | Report abuse

The real crisis facing America is a simple yet provocative question: What is the "American identity"? Obama and the people who support him may not know the answer, but they know what is not the answer. The answer is not liberal or conservative, black or white, certainly not male or female. The answer IS NOT DIVISION.

Posted by: merrilyiroll | February 9, 2008 10:55 PM | Report abuse

All Clinton drama aside(if we are allowed to do that as a country); ..to make a rational decision on who should be president is easier than it use to be.

WE are hunting the chief manager (CEO if you will) of the white house right now, who can assemble the inside teams, gain the respect of all the players, set appropriate policy, look at the books on any long term decision and assume "fully" the personal accountability and responsibility for all actions taken. Period!

Separately, to assume the responsilibility for our International relationships by maturely regaining trust and respect and setting international policy that works, and finally obtain the right person who must assume the responsibility and immediately gain the respect of our military forces, not because they are simply "president", but because it is a burdening task to place our young men and women to die without deep reasoning.

If you read that Russia's new cold war against the US is restartng and we are facing oil shortages, recession issues are mounting, 1 out of every 17 people remain in some kind of financial distress, we are losing our science, engineering and technology resources to "outsourcing off shore" ...it would not take a genius to see, we need a very strong and proactive business and international relationship manger these next four years.

Its not just about abortion and social security and the already failed healthcare plan, there are staff level managers that handle these matters everyday in committee's and present their findings to the President's board for approval.

We face massive issues that need a clear thinking CEO level brain, not emotion nor public distractions to address these issues and certainly no one who will repoint out any failures against others or create "conspiracy" issues. If you are not respected or admired in the background it will always be true that no one likes you or will do things to allow you to fail. Working for any company we all know this.

Now, sit down and make better decisions!

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

HILLARY AND WESTLY CLARK -FORMER IRAQ WINNER GENERAL- FROM IRAQ WAR ONE
WILL TAKE THIS COUNTRY IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. THEY HAVE THE MILITARY EXPERIENCE AND DOMESTIC KNOW HOW. ENOUGH WITH THE WOMEN BASHING AND A SENATOR WITH NO EXPERIENCE TO GET EXTITLED PRESENDENCY FOR MEN

Posted by: crrobin | February 9, 2008 6:53 PM | Report abuse

Why are there so many Clinton suuporters over on this story and so few of you commenting about her attacks on Shuster and MSNBC? She clearly hates that network because, except for Dan Abrams, they have stopped drinking the Clinton Kool-Aid. Go MSNBC!!

As a lifelong Democrat I'm really glad someone in the press may finally stop allowing themselves and their reporters to be bullied by the Clinton campaign. Her people obviously think HIll is God's gift -- the saps! All that puffed up talk about her resume -- 35 years of working for the downtrodden? -- okay, just what did she ever acually get enacted? I've asked this over and over and nobody can supply any public law numbers.

The only number I have that actually corresponds to reality is that she spent less than one year as a low-level staffer at Childrens Defense Fund. Effective? -- NOT.

Posted by: momentum.mary1967 | February 9, 2008 6:37 PM | Report abuse

Check out the picture of Clinton with all the young people. Quite a 'photo op' her camp has set up. She/they know Barack attracts the young.

Barack is not only attacting the young people he is attacting people who want change in the White House. We are backing (not just in 'photo ops')him by donating our hard earned money. Clinton is having to borrow $5 million of her own money for her campaign. Why aren't these young people in her 'photo op' giving up their allowances for her? I feel so bad for her (not) having to borrow her personal $5 mil. She can give me some of that...I make less than $15,000 a year and I'm donating to Barak!!!!!!!!

Posted by: IllinoisDemo | February 9, 2008 6:14 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is THE ONE!!!!!!

OBAMA TALKS THE TALK BUT HILLARY HAS WALKED THE TALK

You go friend

Ella es nos amiga! Tell all your friends and family. HILLARY has our back!!!!

Posted by: cgkchavez | February 9, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Hillary doesn't think Obama is experienced enough to authorize an invasion of Iraq...

Posted by: cjroses | February 9, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

To correct errors on this blog:

Bill Sponsorship & Cosponsorship

According to:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person

Statistics: Hillary Clinton has sponsored 352 bills since Jan 22, 2001, of which 305 haven't made it out of committee and 2 were successfully enacted. Clinton has co-sponsored 1713 bills during the same time period.

Statistics: Barack Obama has sponsored 129 bills since Jan 4, 2005, of which 120 haven't made it out of committee and 1 were successfully enacted. Obama has co-sponsored 535 bills during the same time period.

Posted by: jmlynch926 | February 9, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

If Obama wins the nomination---Hello President McCain.

Posted by: Helen6 | February 9, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

On Legislative Experience:
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 www.thomas.loc.gov and http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=300022)
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 Honor.
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 fact's 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 included
**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.

In all since entering the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096. An impressive record.


Posted by: starbuck1 | February 9, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

tharriso --

What you said to fjstratford is all true.

What you should also know is that 'fjstratford' is not an African-American man.

It is another desperate Hillary supporter, attempting to inflame racial hatred by saying outrageous things designed to anger white people, then claiming to be an Obama supporter so those angered white folks will turn against Obama. Sick, I know. I've seen the exact same post on other sites, using different names. Just above, VeloStrummer caught two identical posts with different IDs. This is a concerted effort on the part of Hillary Clinton supporters -- whether directed by the campaign or not, I do not know -- to flood the comment sections of numerous political websites with pro-Hillary spam, or in this case, fake pro-Obama comments meant to be so offensive that they drive people away from Obama.

This is the kind of cr@p Karl Rove does. Do we really want another President who will say or do anything to win, and change absolutely nothing if she does?

Barack Obama will destroy McCain, if we just have the good sense to elect him.

Posted by: psyberdawg | February 9, 2008 6:53 AM | Report abuse

To Sam, aka fjstratford,

This thread is full of some of the most unkind speech I've read lately. I am a white person who is for Obama. Your language, e.g. "white trash" is not going to help your candidate win any votes among people of any background.

And for the record, Obama does not share any heritage with you of being descended from southern slaves. His father was from Kenya and only lived in the U.S for a few years. His mother WAS, as you correctly say, from Kansas, but also was, as Obama himself describes her, white as the driven snow.

This time last year, Jesse Jackson, among others, was questioning whether Obama was "black enough" in being able to identify with African Americans whose ancestors had endured slavery.

Posted by: tharriso | February 9, 2008 4:43 AM | Report abuse

Hillary is having a hard time getting the democrats behind her and competing against a "rookie" senator.

Do you really think she can rally the country to win the presidency? Against a "war hero" known for reaching accross the aisle and appealing to independents?

GIVE ME A BREAK! In this election, the Clintons are the republicans' dream candidates!

Posted by: baias | February 9, 2008 3:47 AM | Report abuse

To: cooked_pork

What Has Barack done? In case you didn't see the post by davestickler, here it is again. And don't take his word for it, check it out yourself. I did...and, he was 100% "correct".

Here it is...

Let's talk about substance -- preferably with a little substance behind our claims.

Here's a look at what the two candidates did when they had the same job, U.S. Senator:

OBAMA

What has Obama done in the 3 years he's been in the Senate?

Bills authored or co-sponsored by Obama include 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.

In all since he entered the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096.

CLINTON

Senator Clinton, who has served seven years, has managed to author and pass into law exactly twenty pieces of legislation. 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 Honor. 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.

(Thanks to poster p3ng for looking all this up on the Library of Congress site.)

I recognize it's an asymmetric representation of their records, but the point is that Obama has written and passed major legislation, while Clinton has mostly just taken care of her constituents without demonstrating real vision.

So who's the candidate of substance? Who is the candidate who'll be "ready on day one"?

Posted by: davestickler | February 8, 2008 04:05 PM

Posted by: anthonydhoward | February 9, 2008 2:41 AM | Report abuse

There is a huge difference between Congress authorizing a war and Congress declaring a war. If liberals can't fathom the difference, then we deserve another 4 years of Republicans. As much as Obama want to peddle "being right on day 1", he was not a senator in 2002, therefore, he could not have voted for or against the Senate resolution.

Now, ask yourself this... what has Obama done in the Senate in the past 2 years?

For those that view the economy and healthcare are the most important issues of the day, this is a no-brainer.... Hillary is it!

Posted by: CPCook | February 9, 2008 1:24 AM | Report abuse

Does anyone recall another liberal antiwar Decomcrat who we are all excited about in 72? The big "O" is not JFK (who only got to be POTUS because of the Daley machine btw. Daley was to JFK as the Supreme Court was to the shrub). I am seeing a McGovern year if we don't take off the rose colored glasses. While not perfect, and hold your nose if you have to, but Clinton is all we have to save us from a 3rd Bush term. Obama can jump in next time.

Posted by: ggregoryreid | February 8, 2008 11:35 PM | Report abuse

Thank you to VeloStrummer, davestickler, & carlanicoleg for the factual information when so much hooey is floating around

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

CAN MRS CLINTON LOSE?...YESAMAZING ARTICLE OF THE WALL STREET JOURNAL.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120241915915951669.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

Posted by: laplumelefirmament | February 8, 2008 7:24 PM | Report abuse

You really have to wonder about the wisdom of anyone who would not vote for Hillary Clinton because she supported going into Iraq, but would vote for McCain, who intends to keep us there...

Posted by: MaryLouR | February 8, 2008 6:51 PM | Report abuse

Senator Obama enthuses a lot of people.
I listened to his speech at the 2004 convention. I really liked it and him.
As the primary season began, I watched debates, listened, and read about the candidate's positions on the issues.
I have been watching this campaign very closely.
It has, over time and observation, become clear to me that I no longer like Senator Obama. He is just empty, but for his arrogance, his enormous ego, and his sense of entitlement. I know there are millions of people who adore him. Adoration is nice. Since the Kennedys I have wanted to adore a candidate. I cannot adore Senator Obama. I do not like the content of his character, not at all.
I hope people vote for whomever they trust to protect the American people and the US Constitution. That takes a lot of hard work and know-how. It requires a person intent on getting things done and knowing how to manage huge numbers of people at once. It requires someone whom world leaders know and trust. Who will that person be? I hope you know the answer by the time you pull the lever, or check the box next to your candidate's name.

Posted by: fishpucky101 | February 8, 2008 6:42 PM | Report abuse

Where did she get the $5 million to donate to her cause?

And if she only raised 1/4th as much as Oabama, then how can she be a good leader and defeat McCain?

Obviously not too may dems like her.

Sit down Hillary.

Posted by: obee1 | February 8, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

So many Jews/Israelis, East Indians and Sikhs, and Latinos/Mexicans are voting for Hillary because she has promised them one thing or another.

But only true Americans, both White and Black are voting for Obama.

Posted by: obee1 | February 8, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Hillary voted for the war against Iraq. She will not get my vote.

If Obama loses, I will vote McCain.

Posted by: obee1 | February 8, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

I need to go, but I wanted to mention how much I dislike the party officials trying to shove one candidate or another into being "The Dream Team.

I am sure most of us do not want one or another of them on their dream team - I don't want to see McCain or Obama on my t.v. for the next four years.

And I am sure Obama supporters feel the same way.

I say, leave the voting to the people, I don't even think the super delegates should vote, leave it to the people to decide, then we can all know we did the best we could, for our candidate. gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 8, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Yesterday, I saw a comment where it was said that Obama's church is pro-black and anti-Israel.

I have spent a little time trying to research this statement, and found that among other things, Obama got his title for his book from that church's preacher, his name is Wright - and Obama got that title "The Audacity of Hope," from a sermon that Wright gave.

I also learned that Wright performed the marriage ceremony for the Obama's many years ago, so it is possible that this is Obama's church. It says it is Christian, but it also says it is unpologetically linked to their motherland, Africa.

Some of what I read was disturbing, and you should probably read the comment for yourself. I do know that not long after that article was on that post yesterday, that post was taken down. I sent that comment to myself, before it was taken down, and I have never trusted Obama, but you can come to your own conclusions or do your own research. I can send a copy of that comment if anyone wants to read it. Iowatreasures@Hotmail.com

Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 8, 2008 5:16 PM | Report abuse

Martinwindandersen:

The Obama girl didn't even vote for Obama - she went out partying instead. Saw that on the news today. gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 8, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

nkgilb: You say you want peace and not war.

If Obama is out nominee, then McCain will be our next president - which means we will stay in Iraq for 100 years and our young people will be inducted into McCain's army whether they want to go or not.

Why? Because McCain is not like the swooning, biased media - he will go after and roll over Obama with everything he can find.

McCain will leave no Rezko stone unturned, he will expose Obama. You don't have to take my word for it - Read the Chicago Tribune paper for Jan. 27th, this year, or any of the other 100 articles written in Chicago newspapers.

Obama is going down in the pits with the rest of the Presidential wannabees. McCain will see to that. You notice that the cable networks never say a word about the 17 year Obama/Rezko friendship relationship.

At the least, they could have showed the public how Obama lied in a recent debate when he acted like he barely knew Rezko, saying "I only did about five hours worth of work for a church that was doing some kind of business with Rezko."

Obama lives in a 1.9 million dollar mansion now, because of Rezko's help.

Obama wrote letters on his state senate letterhead on Rezko's behalf that netted Rezko fourteen million dollars in taxpayer monies.

Obama calls this "working on community projects."

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

Rezko, from Syria, continues to receive huge amounts of money from the middle east.

Rezko has now been brought back in by the FBI - they were concerned that he was moving large sums of money around - so they brought him, incarcerated him and he is awaiting trial on, of all things, influence peddling. Go figure. gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 8, 2008 5:03 PM | Report abuse

The comments on these blogs are truly pitiful. I seriously doubt they are being written by people voicing their independent thoughts, but are instead just paid shills typing the crap spouted by teh campaigns. Here's a fine example of what I am talking about from the Clinton camp. Two independent young liberals voting for Hillary with identical posts. Nice work.

____

As an independent liberal that has spent his short life living abroad, I cannot figure out why, after Bush II, the country is willing to vote again for someone based on character, rather than substance. It makes me wonder if the past eight years have had the profound effect it has had on me... Also, having lived abroad I have seen my share of extremely intelligent and unifying candidates in many countries, and yet many (if not all) have fallen flat on their face. While many people claim in these posts that they are "sick and tired" of the "Washington Establishment" et al; however, I am tired of broken promises and unrealistic goals. By no means am I claiming that senator Obama is the perfect candidate, but he definitely the best candidate and I will vote for the person who I believe is the most competent and best qualified.
Posted by: matthewcrow | February 7, 2008 10:45 PM
As an independent liberal that has spent his short life living abroad, I cannot figure out why, after Bush II, the country is willing to vote again for someone based on character, rather than substance. It makes me wonder if the past eight years have had the profound effect it has had on me... Also, having lived abroad I have seen my share of extremely intelligent and unifying candidates in many countries, and yet many (if not all) have fallen flat on their face. While many people claim in these posts that they are "sick and tired" of the "Washington Establishment" et al; however, I am tired of broken promises and unrealistic goals. By no means am I claiming that Senator Clinton is the perfect candidate, but she definitely the best candidate and I will vote for the person who I believe is the most competent and best qualified.
Posted by: jepelletier | February 7, 2008 08:07 PM

Posted by: VeloStrummer | February 8, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Sorry for the multiple posts in a short time, but I wanted to post a video because I think it shows just how much the "experience" emperor has no clothes.

Watch Hillary claim that her visit to Bosnia was a significant foreign policy triumph, before she gets called on the fact that she went there with Sheryl Crow and -- drum roll, please -- ... Sinbad!

Here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddgom0QWvLs

I don't mean this to be personal to Clinton supporters who've posted here, but I really think the people who think HIllary Clinton has a record of major accomplishments are being taken for fools.

Posted by: davestickler | February 8, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

matthewcrow, and I can't figure out why, after Bush II, we're prepared to assume that someone is qualified by virtue of sharing a last name with a former president.

Posted by: davestickler | February 8, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Let's talk about substance -- preferably with a little substance behind our claims.

Here's a look at what the two candidates did when they had the same job, U.S. Senator:

OBAMA

What has Obama done in the 3 years he's been in the Senate?

Bills authored or co-sponsored by Obama include 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.

In all since he entered the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096.

CLINTON

Senator Clinton, who has served seven years, has managed to author and pass into law exactly twenty pieces of legislation. 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 Honor. 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.

(Thanks to poster p3ng for looking all this up on the Library of Congress site.)

I recognize it's an asymmetric representation of their records, but the point is that Obama has written and passed major legislation, while Clinton has mostly just taken care of her constituents without demonstrating real vision.

So who's the candidate of substance? Who is the candidate who'll be "ready on day one"?

Posted by: davestickler | February 8, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

-We want peace and not war.
-We want a united America.
-We want affordable health care.
-We want inclusiveness and transparency in our government.
-We want love not hate.
-We want to fight the right wars and not the dumb ones.
-We need to bring our troops home in a responsible way.
-We want to stop the use of torture because it is not our America policy.
-We need new ideas and direction to clean out the mess of Bush.

-We need barack Obama!!!

Posted by: nkgilb | February 8, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

As an independent voter, I have watched from afar as Mrs. Clinton distinguished herself as an effective legislator from N.Y. It seems obvious that Senator Hillary Clinton is a tough, politically astute legislator who understands how to fight for her priorities and help to shape voter perceptions on issues she sees as important. She is especially tough when it comes to dealing with those she characterizes as the "right-wing conspiracy" ...including the Republican "machine."

To counteract the Right-wing Machine, Mrs. Clinton and her husband, have built a Clinton Machine... which seems to this independent voter as every bit as hard-nosed and dedicated to beating the "right-wing" as the "enemy" is to beating her national aspirations.

The Clinton machine can match the Right-wing at every level...hitting back mercilessly when attacked and working the "system" to gain every advantage in what both sides think is a struggle for America.

BUT - it is not a struggle for America....

It is a struggle to win - at all costs.

It is a struggle to crush the other side using every dirty trick in the book. It includes filling these posts with robo-rumors and phony accusations. Just look on this page...nasty rumor and outright lies.

Both the embedded Democrats and the Republicans do it..They are the opposite sides of the same nasty coin.

I am tired of this zero-sum game approach to national politics. I'm tired of the Tom Delays and Dick Cheneys, and - I'm tired of the Clintons. These two warrior camps seem to epitomize the "no-holds-barred" approach to national politics which has emerged over the last decades.

The effect is "zero-sum." The country just oscillates around an increasingly meaningless mid-point - the machine goals - to win at all costs - are irrelevant to national purpose.

And, they will never recognize national promise ... a people united. That's us folks...together again with a rational purpose and pride in our country.

We've just seen what happens when one nasty, fear-mongering side suddenly gets into power...the neo-con approach to Iraq has failed miserably because the warrior camp under Cheney and Rumsfeld had no thoughts beyond the first step - crushing the enemy.

I fear the same will be true if the Clinton Camp returns to power...swept along by the nation's disgust with the stupid Bush administration. The Clinton pendulum will swing too far in its quest to crush the enemy. It has always been so.

Left to her own devices, Hillary might be a good President -but she will never, ever be left to her own devices...she is part of the machine warfare that practices what might be characterized aptly as the politics of rage.

And, her husband, the former President, will play the "Cheney role" in her administration. He's gone over the edge -unrestrained by the limits of his former Office, he is degenerating into a mean spirited "attack" dog for the "machine."

Bill Clinton wants to win - at any cost. And that motivation includes crushing Obama - if he stands in the way.

I think that a Clinton Presidency will just add to the politics of hate and rage that is poisoning our national political dialogue. A Clinton Presidency will merely add to the level of nastiness that have caused many, many elected officials on both sides of the aisle to attempt to distance themselves from the machines.

In this first decade of the 21st Century, highly partisan politics is not going to help America, either domestically or internationally. We need to disarm the haters - take away their raison d'êtres.

Enough is enough.


Posted by: gandalfthegrey | February 8, 2008 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama IS the most experienced candidate. It's so weird how people buy Senator Clinton's 35 years of experience. Obama didn't just jump onto the national stage on the back of his spouses' name recognition. He paid his dues at the state level in the Illinois legislature. Before that he produced extraordinary results both in getting out the vote and community organizing. He knows the constitution inside and out. He's a tough but careful legislator.

This election really is about whether you want to see another run-of-the-mill, polarizing, hawkish, Democrat establishment candidate or do you want to try someone who is equally experienced but much more innovative and clever in his approach to politics.

Posted by: mrhamham | February 8, 2008 10:26 AM | Report abuse

"Sen. Hillary Clinton made the case against Sen. Barack Obama and for herself in a more concise way than she often does on the stump."

If there is one thing I've learned in these months of reading the Washington Post's campaign coverage, it's to NEVER rely on the reporter's characterization of the candidate's remarks. It is invariably baseless novelization.

Posted by: zukermand | February 8, 2008 9:38 AM | Report abuse

I would vote for Obama if he had 10 more years experience and that's what I tell anyone who asks me. How can i send a freshman senator to the white house whose only piece of legislation he's solely sponsored and passed is a bill labeled "Aid and Relief to the Republic of Congo" - what's up with that and WHAT does that have to do with AMERICA???? He will be eviscerated during the general...this country is not LEFT - and it is still afraid of its own shadow. Hillary is our BEST shot of taking back the WH.

Posted by: ivana_perry | February 8, 2008 7:53 AM | Report abuse

I am voting for Barack. This country has taken advantage of black people for too long and it is OUR TURN!

The white trash who married Bill Clinton is not worthy of the black vote. They have not improved the lives of blacks when they were in power. Who can help me more? Barack.

He, like me has experienced the stigma of being a descendant of southern slaves (Kansas) and I know that he will fo the right thing when he is in office.

To anyone who is willing to listen, let us put Obama over the top again in Virginia, DC and Louisiana. Let us vote for our interests - like the good folks in South Carolina, Alabama and Georgia did!

Let's show the white trash Hillary that BLACK FOLKS OWN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY!

Sam

Obama '08

Posted by: fjstratford | February 8, 2008 7:22 AM | Report abuse

There are only a few persons available who are capable to enter the office of president of the United States. With her experience as a Senator, and also as a wife to a former president, I can not see any other individual capable of meeting the criteria essential to being the the most powerful Leader in the world. Perhaps it is time that a woman was given this job. It may bode for a new and refreshing change!¬

Posted by: paulmcgowan83 | February 8, 2008 6:21 AM | Report abuse

I'm glad people find Sen. Obama so personable and a "fresh face," but how will this correct our lagging economy, our position in Iraq, social security, health care, etc?

Posted by: bava84 | February 8, 2008 5:52 AM | Report abuse

I'm not about to let my parents, who've worked grueling hours to ensure the welfare of their family, bear the burden of reckless "CHANGE," which is exactly what the middle class is going to get if it doesn't start wising up to America's future under the leadership of such a rookie.

Posted by: bava84 | February 8, 2008 5:46 AM | Report abuse

Obama's campaign is merely employing the character over substance strategy, which will only get him so far...

All this "CHANGE" is gonna cost people loads of money. Obama's too lily-livered to admit it, but the burden of his initiatives would fall on America's middle class.

Posted by: bava84 | February 8, 2008 5:40 AM | Report abuse

Dyck21005/Phoenix4:

Barack Obama has fought for transparency in office even as a state legislator. His and Michelle's income tax returns are out in the open, the Rezko deal are all disclosed, almost every aspect of his life has been disclosed to the American public (thru interviews, his books, speeches) and God knows they are all in the internet. The problem is, if one really wants to pull a person down in a contemptous way, they would use anything, take Obama's words out of context, twist the facts or do anything to make their own candidate look good. Are you not tired of the vitriol that symbolized American politics for so long?

The truth is, Obama have the MOST HONEST, the CLEANEST and the MOST TRANSPARENT record among all the candidates. (with the exception of Ron Paul because I have not studied/ assessed his life and his documents)

I am a staunch supporter of honest and clean elections. No mud-slinging, no vitriol, no circumvention of election laws, just plain and honest contest.

And Phoenix4, don't take the media reports too seriously. NY Times is pro-Hillary. WashPo is pro-Obama, make your own research. Tap government offices where we file our documents, examine, scrutinize, speak with the candidates if you can - our company did.

In the end, we have no choice but to support Barack Obama. And we feel better knowing that it is a reasoned choice.

Posted by: carlanicoleg | February 8, 2008 5:36 AM | Report abuse

We don't need someone with a learners permit running our country.

Posted by: amtrekkie | February 8, 2008 2:58 AM | Report abuse

Hillary will say and do anthing to get elected true or not just look at her hug that sleze Bill the liqr who did not take sexual advantage of the teen ager Monica or so he swore to the American public.

Posted by: grip | February 8, 2008 12:45 AM | Report abuse

..what a no brainer here: Hillary Clinton = the most qualified candidate of this decade!!!
Go Hill !

Posted by: aboyzboi | February 8, 2008 12:20 AM | Report abuse

Here is a poll to keep an eye on...

"Which Democrat does John McCain stand a better chance of beating if he is the GOP nominee?

Hillary Clinton (70%)
Barack Obama (30%)

Total Voters: 10,469"
http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/#ViewPollResults


So over 2 to 1 the readers at FoxNews.com think Hillary will be the easier democrat to defeat.

Guess all that vetted talk only takes you so far...

Posted by: IndependenceEveWonderlandBallroom | February 8, 2008 12:03 AM | Report abuse

This just in from the Atlanta Constitution:
"Clinton leads race for Georgia's superdelegates"

Since she can't win it, she is going to steal it.

Posted by: johnjonesmt | February 7, 2008 11:50 PM | Report abuse

"Who would be the best president on day one to walk into the Oval Office with two wars going on, with an economy falling apart and so much happening and start solving our problems right away?"

Answer: The person with the intelligence and judgement oppose the Iraq war from the beginning- Obama. The person with a different mindset, willing to practice diplomacy- Obama. And the person who is capable of running a long campaign without running their finances into the ground- Obama. And someone who actually remembers what it's like to HAVE a mortgage, student loans, and credit card debt- again, Obama.


"And for Democrats, who would be our best candidate to stand on stage with Senator McCain and talk about national security, the economy and all the other important issues?"

Answer: (This one seems obvious to me, but anyway...)
How about the person who is COMPLETELY different than McCain? (Obama) Someone who did not vote for the Iraq war and who did not support the war just up until last year. Someone who offers a dramatically different way of addressing our foreign policy- Obama. Someone who stands in contrast to McCain and the old ways of Washington- Obama. Someone who can win independent voters- Obama.

Hillary is absolutely right...

OBAMA '08!

Posted by: julieds | February 7, 2008 11:49 PM | Report abuse

We need someone who will work in the oval office--not just someone who will make pretty speeches. Hillary Clinton will be one of our best presidents.

Posted by: lorihebel | February 7, 2008 11:26 PM | Report abuse

Turns out that the news about Hillary Clinton donating $5 million of her own money while her senior staffers faced a loss of their paychecks may be just a ploy to win sympathy, again.

At first, the news of Hillary's financial difficulties struck me as odd, but not because her outside funds were drying up.

After all, Barack Obama is showing us all that Hillary can't even win a fixed fight, and "smart" money is not, well, dumb.

Still I asked myself, how was it that someone of once modest means who claimed to have worked tirelessly for 35 years ("fighting for YOU!") in the notoriously badly-paid public interest sector had become so wealthy?

Sure there's been some financial scandals.

And as the late Sen. Everett Dirksen used to say, "A million here, a million there --it adds up to real money."

But why focus on the negative? What does the skelton of a scandal or six rattling around in your closet matter, when you have so much experience and a well-tested finger to the wind?

Then, suddenly, a tune entered my head and I thought, maybe if I offered a tailored version of it to the Clinton campaign, they'd use it to replace that awful Celine Dion song that used to be Hillary's campaign anthem.

(Ya know, 99.999 percent of those recently surveyed also say they prefer the Obama Girl to that uni-sex Hillary Eunuch that popped up trying to imitate her.)

Anyway, compensation shouldn't been a problem, if the most recent report that Hillary is back in the pink of financial health is true.

For sure, I wouldn't ask what account at Clintons, Inc. the money came from, or which lobbyist forked it over.

(I'm sure if it was the latter it was in a gesture of sheer generosity--why think evil of people, K Street lobbyists have hearts too, no?

(After all, wasn't it those caring medical insurance lobbyists who hired that nice couple, Harry and Louise?)

If you ask me, it's like Bill with that race card thing. How unfair those critics, who you can be sure all belonged to that Vast Rightwing Conspiracy! (And how slick he was, no? ;D )

Always leave just a little wiggle room, small enough to fit the word "is" through. (Or a cigar.)

Anyway, remember that girls' song, "It's My Party," written by Wally Gold, John Gluck and Herb Weiner and recorded by Lesley Gore?

Well how about this version for HRC?

IT'S MY (DEMOCRATIC) PARTY

Nobody knows where my Bill has gone
Monica (Gennifer/Kathleen/Paula/etc.) left the same time
Why was he holding her/their hand(s)
When he's supposed to be mine?

It's my Democratic Party, and I'll cry if I want to
Cry if I want to, cry if I want to
You would cry too if it happened to you
(For that's what victims do-o-o-o).

Playin' my constituents, flip-flopping like a Wallenda,
Leave me alone for a while
'Till Bill's dancin' with me
I've got no reason to smile

It's my Democratic Party, and I'll cry if I want to
Cry if I want to, cry if I want to
You would cry too if it happened to you.

(lead break)
Monica (Gennifer/Kathleen/Paula/etc.) and Bill just walked through the door
Like a queen(s) with her/their king
Oh what a Dogpatch surprise
Monica (Gennifer/Kathleen/Paula/etc.) is/are wearin' his ring(s)

It's my Democratic Party and I'll cry if I want to
Cry if I want to, cry if I want to
You would cry too if it happened to you. ...

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | February 7, 2008 11:22 PM | Report abuse

Turns out that the news about Hillary Clinton donating $5 million of her own money while her senior staffers faced a loss of their paychecks may be just a ploy to win sympathy, again.

At first, the news of Hillary's financial difficulties struck me as odd, but not because her outside funds were drying up.

After all, Barack Obama is showing us all that Hillary can't even win a fixed fight, and "smart" money is not, well, dumb.

Still I asked myself, how was it that someone of once modest means who claimed to have worked tirelessly for 35 years ("fighting for YOU!") in the notoriously badly-paid public interest sector had become so wealthy?

Sure there's been some financial scandals.

And as the late Sen. Everett Dirksen used to say, "A million here, a million there --it adds up to real money."

But why focus on the negative? What does the skelton of a scandal or six rattling around in your closet matter, when you have so much experience and a well-tested finger to the wind?

Then, suddenly, a tune entered my head and I thought, maybe if I offered a tailored version of it to the Clinton campaign, they'd use it to replace that awful Celine Dion song that used to be Hillary's campaign anthem.

(Ya know, 99.999 percent of those recently surveyed also say they prefer the Obama Girl to that uni-sex Hillary Eunuch that popped up trying to imitate her.)

Anyway, compensation shouldn't been a problem, if the most recent report that Hillary is back in the pink of financial health is true.

For sure, I wouldn't ask what account at Clintons, Inc. the money came from, or which lobbyist forked it over.

(I'm sure if it was the latter it was in a gesture of sheer generosity--why think evil of people, K Street lobbyists have hearts too, no?

(After all, wasn't it those caring medical insurance lobbyists who hired that nice couple, Harry and Louise?)

If you ask me, it's like Bill with that race card thing. How unfair those critics, who you can be sure all belonged to that Vast Rightwing Conspiracy! (And how slick he was, no? ;D )

Always leave just a little wiggle room, small enough to fit the word "is" through. (Or a cigar.)

Anyway, remember that girls' song, "It's My Party," written by Wally Gold, John Gluck and Herb Weiner and recorded by Lesley Gore?

Well how about this version for HRC?

IT'S MY (DEMOCRATIC) PARTY

Nobody knows where my Bill has gone
Monica (Gennifer/Kathleen/Paula/etc.) left the same time
Why was he holding her/their hand(s)
When he's supposed to be mine?

It's my Democratic Party, and I'll cry if I want to
Cry if I want to, cry if I want to
You would cry too if it happened to you
(For that's what victims do-o-o-o).

Playin' my constituents, flip-flopping like a Wallenda,
Leave me alone for a while
'Till Bill's dancin' with me
I've got no reason to smile

It's my Democratic Party, and I'll cry if I want to
Cry if I want to, cry if I want to
You would cry too if it happened to you.

(lead break)
Monica (Gennifer/Kathleen/Paula/etc.) and Bill just walked through the door
Like a queen(s) with her/their king
Oh what a Dogpatch surprise
Monica (Gennifer/Kathleen/Paula/etc.) is/are wearin' his ring(s)

It's my Democratic Party and I'll cry if I want to
Cry if I want to, cry if I want to
You would cry too if it happened to you. ...

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | February 7, 2008 11:11 PM | Report abuse

Sorry but her campaign is over. O;Rielly reports today the Bill Clinton joking around make an inapproptiate comment to Govener Bill Richards. It's all over the Hispanic Televsion.

It was supposed to be a joke but the others attending the event said it we offensive to the Hispanic Community. Bye Bye BILLARY.


Your controlling Husband just lost you the Hispanic Vote.

Posted by: MsRita | February 7, 2008 11:11 PM | Report abuse

Hillary has won the Democratic leaning states, she hold a connection with Michigan and Florida. It is time for Obama to quit as he hast carried only a couple of the pro Democratic states. The party has to unite and pool the money and effort to Mc Cain and the republicans. Obama for the good of the party seal the VP and your time will come down the raod....your the younger candidate and Hillary has the suppport of the Democrats. NOW IS THE TIME BARRAK..don't hurt the party endorse Hillary and lets get ready to defeat the GOP. You had my support but you failed to even win California so I have concerns about you in the homeland of the Democratic states...It is up to you Barrack

Posted by: harry.farr | February 7, 2008 10:53 PM | Report abuse

I do not like that Senator Clinton voted to give President Bush the authority to go to war - AFTER - she discussed with senior Democratic colleagues the likelihood that he would take the authorization and run.

Now, in increasingly clumsy attempts to re-write history, she claims that all she did was to authorize an invasion if all other diplomatic negotiations failed. In this explanation she is once again standing with her finger in the wind trying to position herself for a general election.

Better that she stands behind her vote - or admits she was wrong - but again, in L.A. she refused once more to choose on which side of the issue she stands....

She spent over 6 minutes in that debate flip-flopping around in embarrassing fashion on HER war authorization vote.

So.....why did she vote FOR the WAR?

She knew the Dems would not carry the issue...a No vote would have cemented her in opposition to the stupid war. It would not have affected the vote outcome.

Why did she vote YES????

Why did she vote to join with the Republicans and give to George Bush the authority to take this country into a pre-emptive war that has killed and maimed tens of thousands of American soldiers, marines, airmen and sailors?

She brags about her support of children...what about our sons and daughters in uniform?

Hillary voted to authorize the war in Iraq because she did not want to poison the well from which she thought (way back in 2003) she would have to drink when going up against a Republican in 2008.

She voted "YES" to insulate herself from Republican attack.

In other words,

she took a position with an eye on HER future - and NOT the future of the United States.

Hillary Clinton took her stance on the War with her eye on her political career. There is no other explanation for her vote - unless she supported the war and is now ducking that conviction.

She is a politician and not a leader.

CLINTON MUST BE DENIED THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION.

Posted by: gandalfthegrey | February 7, 2008 10:51 PM | Report abuse

As an independent liberal that has spent his short life living abroad, I cannot figure out why, after Bush II, the country is willing to vote again for someone based on character, rather than substance. It makes me wonder if the past eight years have had the profound effect it has had on me... Also, having lived abroad I have seen my share of extremely intelligent and unifying candidates in many countries, and yet many (if not all) have fallen flat on their face. While many people claim in these posts that they are "sick and tired" of the "Washington Establishment" et al; however, I am tired of broken promises and unrealistic goals. By no means am I claiming that senator Obama is the perfect candidate, but he definitely the best candidate and I will vote for the person who I believe is the most competent and best qualified.

Posted by: matthewcrow | February 7, 2008 10:45 PM | Report abuse

Frankly, many of these comments are starting to look ridiculous.

As contested as this Democratic Presidential Primary has become. Please try to be civil about this... Either Barack or Hillary will win the nomination and most assuredly the Presidency.

This is proof that our beloved Constitution is in fact an evolving, living document. We are all privileged to have witnessed this in our lifetime.

The best celebration we could have is whoever wins the nomination ... let's all make history. Moreover, not only for African-Americans or Women... But, for all people of this country we call home!

Once the election is over... We have SO MUCH WORK TO DO! Please remember that.

Posted by: randymk1 | February 7, 2008 10:41 PM | Report abuse

Thank you dyck21005 for providing info on Barak & Michelle Obama's past financial activities. If these are actual facts, we have to take a good look at Obama before we decide to vote for him. People of this country should be educated with these facts. Otherwise, we will go back to the same type of a inefficient and currupt government we had for the last 7 years.

Posted by: dars1781 | February 7, 2008 10:39 PM | Report abuse

America is ready for a female president, just not this female,
She is older but hasn't got more legislative experience, she is a clinton brand and her candidacy was planned the day they left the white house.
Is America so bankrupt of leaders.
Im voting for Obama in Ohio and so are all my family and friends,Change we can believe in.
And as for health care i don't want to be mandated and forced to pay for it,i'm hard pressed as it is,she had 8yrs to fix it and failed.Plus i don't like her and feel she is running for president for selfish dynasty forming reasons
And im afraid of Bill running with not much to do in that white house.
Not to mention those how many shady deals he will pull off.
Just in time for Jeff Bush to take over and by the time hes through with the presidency
Chelsea Clinton, would claim she has 50 yrs of experience and run again

Posted by: Phoenix4 | February 7, 2008 10:32 PM | Report abuse

Who would vote for this woman? Do a google search for 'hillary clinton marxist'. Incase you do not know what marxist is that would be someone who is a communist (you know like china). Do some research people she does not stand for America, or freedom.

On top of that the clintons are cooks, and were involved in the Contra scandal while in Arkansas (that would be the when the CIA smuggled drugs into the US and sold it to our children).

Wake up or its all over people.

Posted by: hillarydownwith | February 7, 2008 10:23 PM | Report abuse

>> jepelletier wrote: "As an independent liberal that has spent his short life living abroad, I cannot figure out why, after Bush II, the country is willing to vote again for someone based on character, rather than substance."

After 8 years of Bush, who was, like Obama, an ivy league, under-qualified guy who connected emotionally with the base despite a lack of resume, the Republican Party has matured as the party in power. The Republican electorate has progressed beyond mere litmus-testing and finding the best face man for their core base ideals. Basically, the Republican electorate has rebelled against its right wing ideologues and are going for quality of experience and proven resume in leadership.

The Democrats are like compulsive eaters who have been shut out of the ice cream parlor for too long. They want to fill up on an ideological face man that inspires them, like filling up on candy. So they're just looking for the charisma and mojo in an intellectual liberal that would make being an intellectual liberal cool again, like Ronald Reagan made being a racist, greedy capitalist cool again.

The Republicans have matured and want to go for substance, experience and depth. The Democrats just want someone who will tell them what they want to hear, in a convincing way that makes them feel cool hearing it.

If we put Obama in office, it would be 8 more years of an incompetent, unprepared Bush-like presidency, except with a different set of ideals in the ivy league guy's game plan.

Posted by: AsperGirl | February 7, 2008 10:13 PM | Report abuse

Who is the best and able President to get Osama Bin Laden to justice.

Is Hillary Roddhem Clinton or Barak Hussein Obama?

Posted by: dars1781 | February 7, 2008 9:57 PM | Report abuse

I hope that Obama supporters will take the time to read this. It seems that Obama has taken money from Exelon execs and LIED to the people in Iowa during his campaign about legislation that he supposedly passed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp

Posted by: sb9977 | February 7, 2008 9:50 PM | Report abuse

Those young voters who support Obama, dont know anything about him per CNN Lou Dobbs survey??
OBAMA LOOSES JOBS FOR MINORITIES!
Michelle Obama, vice-president at the Univ Chicago Hosp, a hospital that charges uninsured minorities 10 times as much for drugs isn't enough cold hearted corp experience. Plus she caused hundreds to loose their 11.hr jobs she said to be more efficient. 05, she was elected to the BOD Westchester-based TreeHouse Foods, for that, she received $12,000 and $33,000 from a subsidiary, in Nov announced closing its La Junta, Colo. plant, that claimed the jobs of 153 workers, most of them Hispanic, big blow to a rural town with only 9,500 residents. The jobs paid a starting wage of $11 an hour, good pay for the area. Companies that pay top execs like MICHELLE OBAMA tens of millions a year while squeezing the little guys off the production line destroying middle-class America. Also raises the question not about corporate values but about Mr. Obama's own values. Specifically, while Obama bashes Wal-Mart, why does his wife, Michelle, make $45,000 a year serving on the board of Chicago company that pays executives a very hefty amount of money while laying off mostly minority workers in economically deprived areas? The companys No. 1 customer is Wal-Mart???

In 2005, Texas-based Dean Foods Co. spun off its processed-food subsidiary into an independent company, Elected to BOD in June 6 Michelle Obama, receives $30,000 a year plus $1,500 per board or committee meeting she attends. That totaled $45,000 in 2005, according to Mr. Obama's Senate ethics disclosure. Ms. Obama got 7,500 stock options this year, company filings show. At the current price of TreeHouse stock, she has a paper profit of about $60,000 on the options. More corrupt camp donations for Obama! WHERES THE MEDIA??? We are sick of the media pushing obama down our throats! on Oct. 5, in the aftermath of federal bribery/extortion/conspiracy/other miscellaneous badness indictments of former Dallas Mayor Pro Tem Don Hill , Obama camp supporter and financial contributor to Presidential candidate Barrack Obama who desperately wants campaign cash from another, criminal or not, Again Obama camp has its hands full with other publically indicted bankrollers Rezko. Now Mr. Hill's campaign finance report shows donations on April 28, and federal campaign finance reports indicate Mr. Obama received donations in June 22 as well. The Obama camp couldn't immediately be reached for comment Friday...Of Couse, did axelrod loose his voice?
Obama's Relationship With Rezko Goes Back 17 Years. Obama Kept Contributions From Accused Fixer's (REZKO)Wife And Others ABCNews.com Analysis Shows the Campaign Still Hasn't Returned More Than $100,000 in Obama is referred to in document which outlines case against Rezko As Barack Obama is finding out, it's not as easy to dump politically toxic campaign donations as it might seem. For the third time in more than a year, Obama's presidential campaign announced this week it was shedding more donations tied to indicted fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko. Calculations by the media and Obama's own staff of Rezko's financial impact on his past political campaigns have been all over the map and shifting. In the case of Obama, public records don't make clear every Rezko connection. The records show that since 1995, $74,500 came from Rezko, his relatives or contributors listed on official disclosure forms as employees of one of his businesses. Rezko has raised money for Obama's presidential campaign.


Posted by: dyck21005 | February 7, 2008 9:07 PM | Report abuse

I donated today and will continue to do so over the next several weeks,

so please JOIN ME and send your prayers and support to Hillary, as much as you can afford, and as many times as possible , it all helps.

In moving us all towards a better America and brighter future with a President Hillary Clinton.

Hillary needs help, and we need her now to save our great nation.

so please DONATE @ HILLARY CLINTON.COM


Hillary 08'

Posted by: Jahxar | February 7, 2008 8:53 PM | Report abuse

It's amazing how proud Clinton supporters are of their being first in a race to the bottom. Hw can it be that the republican attack machine is bad/unfair/crel/wrong and yet the exact same type of rhetoric, the same kind of slander and invective slip so easily from your tongues when you describe Obama. You must really like it in the mud or it wouldn't be so easy.

It's sad. You should leave the rest of us out of your sick obsession.

Posted by: joel | February 7, 2008 8:53 PM | Report abuse

Every vote for Barack Obama is a vote for the Republicans! for McCain! Why can't these people realize that supporting Barack Obama, his poetic promises without substance, will bring at least four more years of a Republican in the White House. Senator Clinton is the only one who can repel the relentless and dirty attack machine that the Republican party will use against Barack Obama's inexperience. His message of hope and change, inspiring at it is, will not stand against the Republican attacks.

Posted by: nveas | February 7, 2008 8:40 PM | Report abuse

Go Hillary!

Beat that lying Obama and his cronies like Rezko and the Daley Chicago Mobsters!!

Posted by: fjstratford | February 7, 2008 8:35 PM | Report abuse

America's current problems are too serious for us to take a chance on a ROOKIE!

Sen. Clinton has relevant experience and smarter and more hard worker than any of the candidates of both parties, if they'd be honest enough to admit it. She is a woman you know. A woman as a US President? That is a CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE!!!

Posted by: h_aida_angeles | February 7, 2008 8:32 PM | Report abuse

Attack dog Coulter... Says "She will Vote For Hillary" Because Republicans really WANT an OBAMA NOMINATION!

Time to learn something about what Repugs will use:
Barak & Michelle's Obama were married by and belong to pastor Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright - TRINITY CHURCH of CHRIST (www.tucc.org/about.htm )

Here is Jeremiah A. Wright unabashedly preaching his "African Roots" gospel.
www.youtube.com/watch...

Posted by: rmcnicoll | February 7, 2008 8:26 PM | Report abuse

Hussein Obama's ANOREXIC RESUME will be devoured in whole by McCain!! CNN Lou Dobbs' "PRECIOUS OBAMA" (as he called him on air!) must first LEARN HOW TO CHANGE HIS POLITICAL DIAPERS before applying for the Top Job! Hillary's UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE is the only antidote for all that ails the American economy--not to mention her soul.

In Canada [where Universal Health Care is the right of every citizen since 1965 and Women's Equality was enshrined in the Constitution since 1982] it's a cruel joke that the major cause for their next-door American cousins' Bankruptcies is....medical bills!! Why doesn't Obamale realize his socially myopic plan leaves out 15 million Americans? But then he'd have to first build some tough policy muscle on his slim political frame--and that comes only with that dirty 10-letter word: EXPERIENCE. While Hillary voted with MoveOn.Org's decision to go ahead with a gutsy anti-Republican War policy ad, Obama voted "present" --easier than taking a firm stand! "Precious Obama's" thinly-veiled arrogance and polite misogynism is palpable in this "likeable enough" rock-star impostor who thinks he shouldn't have to pay his dues before reaching for the top job!

If American voters want to restore their international standing--and avoid another 4 years of catastrophic, world-destabilizing Republican policies, with their accompanying moral and economic bankruptcy, they must put Hillary's lengthy, tough-but-humane Resume on top of their desk and offer her the President's job. Or, in the alternative, they can start filing their applications....and IMMIGRATE TO WELCOMING CANADA!!!

Mary Sakel
TORONTO, CANADA --

Posted by: MSakel | February 7, 2008 8:19 PM | Report abuse

As an independent liberal that has spent his short life living abroad, I cannot figure out why, after Bush II, the country is willing to vote again for someone based on character, rather than substance. It makes me wonder if the past eight years have had the profound effect it has had on me... Also, having lived abroad I have seen my share of extremely intelligent and unifying candidates in many countries, and yet many (if not all) have fallen flat on their face. While many people claim in these posts that they are "sick and tired" of the "Washington Establishment" et al; however, I am tired of broken promises and unrealistic goals. By no means am I claiming that Senator Clinton is the perfect candidate, but she definitely the best candidate and I will vote for the person who I believe is the most competent and best qualified.

Posted by: jepelletier | February 7, 2008 8:07 PM | Report abuse

Senator Obama is by the best candidate running for President. His integrity, principled judgment, and inspirational leadership starkly contrasts with Clinton's willingness to assert and spread falsehoods, unprincipled vote for the Iraq War, and wretched failure in her attempt to reform healthcare in 1993.

We are all paying for her lack of courage to stand against the war and have been waiting 15 years for healthcare reform that she and her husband did not bring to us after 8 years in the White House and her 7 years in the Senate. Has all her years of experience accomplished anything positive that you can remember?

Senator Obama has broad support across the U.S. His numerous backers are widespread and motivated, while Clinton's backers are faltering, disappointed that she frittered away her huge lead, and beginning to realize that they are not backing the best and most honorable candidate in the race.

Senator Obama wins converts every day. Once voters realize how much preferable he is to Clinton... or to McCain... they stick loyally by him, embracing and then passing along his message that we must unify to create positive change.

Don't give Clinton and the Republicans any encouragement. It will only make the changes that we seek as a country more difficult to enact.

If you want a change from the divisiveness of the politics of cynicism, if you want seasoned experience (11 years as an elected official, winning elected office 3 times), if you want someone who stands on principle, then Vote for Senator Barack Obama. Register, go the polls, and place a check mark next to his name.

Posted by: junkmail | February 7, 2008 7:29 PM | Report abuse

Nothing against Obama but Hillary will be able to do the most good right now, no leap of faith needed.

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

O yeah, Hilary will be hilarious from day one!

Obama, he will be just wondering in the White House Lawn!

Bill CLinton? He will be busy with another intern, Monica!

Those who think Hilary will turn the country around and give the economic boost are living in fool's paradise.

Hilary's white house, we will be still fighting in Iraq ( no matter what she pledges now to get your vote) draining 100 billions dollars.

Hilary's white house, there will be watergate scandals, bitter partisanship. Democrats will loose in both senate and house.

So, you decide ....

35 years of cosmetic change & scandals or new HOPE?

Posted by: jamila_morsheda | February 7, 2008 7:15 PM | Report abuse

I can't think of anyone more capable and more ready to take over the position of President than Hillary Clinton.

She certainly has my vote.

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

Oh yes, Perry Bacon Jr. The spreader of rumors and innuendoes about Obama back in December. What a pathetic excuse for a journalist.

And to HRC: both you and McCain offer more of the same. Glad we can choose someone who really does come with new ideas and none of the sleaze of the 1990's.

Obama '08

Posted by: anthmroy | February 7, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Hillary will be ready on day one to lead this nation. i dont think obama knows what new direction he will be going. you can spout out alot of things, but if you have not done it, it will take awhile to get going. GO HILLARY GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111

Posted by: melodymg | February 7, 2008 6:55 PM | Report abuse

Starting on Day One, Hillary Clinton will be prepared to fly into Bosnia with Sinbad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddgom0QWvLs

Posted by: davestickler | February 7, 2008 6:54 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company