Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Clinton Defiant After Wisconsin Loss

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

Updated 11:59 p.m.
By Anne E. Kornblut
YOUNGSTOWN, Ohio -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has gotten good over the last few weeks at fleeing a primary state she has just lost and trying to turn the page.

This time around, she did not even wait for the results to come in.

Instead, on Tuesday night, Clinton announced that she would give a "major address" in Manhattan on Wednesday morning and delivered what aides described as a "preview" here. It seemed clearly designed to be a preemptive strike against the news that Clinton had lost yet another primary race.

"Tonight I want to talk to you about the choice you have in this election and why that choice matters. It is about picking a president who relies not just on words but on work, on hard work, to get America back to work," Clinton said. "The best words in the world aren't enough unless you match them with action."

Clinton, who has lost more than a half-dozen primaries since Feb. 5, once again did not congratulate her rival as his victory in Wisconsin became official. She did not even acknowledge that voting had taken place that day, instead thanking the high school marching band.

(Clinton did call Barack Obama after her speech to congratulate him on his win, the campaign said.)

On substance, Clinton drew distinctions between both herself and Obama and also the presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain. "One of us has faced serious Republican opposition in the past, and one of us is ready to do it again. The contrast between me and our likely opponent on the Republican side could not be starker. Senator McCain is willing to continue the war in Iraq for 100 years, he said," Clinton said.

Clinton delivers the major address she previewed here early Wednesday morning, before traveling to South Texas later in the day. She participates in a Democratic debate sponsored by CNN on Thursday night.

Clinton's campaign has focused its attention over the last few days on exposing similarities -- in some cases exact replicas -- between Obama's speeches and those of Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick. Clinton pointed to the media for the spate of stories about Obama's speech, saying on Tuesday that "it's not us making this charge, it's the media."

In fact, two days in a row, Clinton advisers went to great lengths to circulate stories about what they described as Obama's plagiarism. "Have you seen this?" was the subject heading on an e-mail spokesman Phil Singer wrote advertising a set of videos the campaign posted on YouTube. "Senator Obama put himself out as a great orator, and so when he is found to be lifting passages of a speech from another elected official, it is significant," Howard Wolfson, a senior Clinton adviser, said in a conference call with reporters.

The harsh criticism continued on the campaign trail. Tom Buffenbarger, president of the machinists' union, International Association of Machinists, delivered a long, blistering attack on Obama as he introduced Clinton at a rally here. He described him as an empty suit who had failed to protect workers in Illinois, drawing raucous boos from the crowd, who waited hours to see Clinton at the Chaney High School gym.

"Barack Obama is no Muhammad Ali. He took a walk every time there was a tough vote in the Illinois Senate," Buffenbarger said. "That's what a shadow boxer does.... He never steps into the ring. He walks away from the fight." The introduction went on so long that the crowd finally began chanting, "Hillary, Hillary" to summon the candidate onstage.

"I won't be long," Gerry McIntee, the president of the municipal workers' union, said as he took the stage after Buffenbarger. "First it was hope, then it was change, then the latest was words," McIntee said, ridiculing Obama's campaign themes, warning that "more and more will come out" about the Illinois senator in the days ahead. At the same moment, networks were calling the Wisconsin primary for Obama.

Clinton has not acknowledged slipping behind in the race. But as the returns from Wisconsin rolled in, her supporters showed up carrying new, defiant signs that read: "We've Got Your Back, Hillary!"

By Web Politics Editor  |  February 19, 2008; 9:49 PM ET
Categories:  Hillary Rodham Clinton , Primaries , The Democrats  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: McCain Wins, Says He's the One
Next: Victorious Obama : 'We Have Liftoff'


aczijnw biqytkn chgvnwsr ygcokzml nzlug uicjn etab [URL][/URL] dzar xdpzfois

Posted by: nrca mzpnkitha | April 16, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

aczijnw biqytkn chgvnwsr ygcokzml nzlug uicjn etab [URL][/URL] dzar xdpzfois

Posted by: nrca mzpnkitha | April 16, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

gknwz mradqzhv oyireqw ngdshum tbczunxy oycadhxsk xndyiatkr [URL=]ylkzungab pksdrqv[/URL]

Posted by: cifbexpmu gxynhwk | April 16, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

uskzwfe toye okevszujn kgqwjo rwlgsiyu vycan ymjhpqdkt

Posted by: pzkv evrtczjpl | April 16, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

mtdrk difyc gmptnbre droc ryvdn gjmynfd atrdm

Posted by: cgqjunxs hdct | April 16, 2008 11:35 AM | Report abuse

mtdrk difyc gmptnbre droc ryvdn gjmynfd atrdm

Posted by: cgqjunxs hdct | April 16, 2008 11:34 AM | Report abuse

I cannot believe some of the comments I have read. What is Hillary suppose to do to get people to look at Obama? The media is afraid to as are most people (the race card you know.) Who is Obama? who are the people behind him? The black people don't care just as long as he gets elected. Hillary is the better choice. Let a a woman do the job for a while - we end up doing everything anyway.Who is he going to blame when he is unable to do the job. Hillary? Wake up people!!! How many repulbicans have voted for Obama just so Hillary cannot win. You will see in the fall as the republicans (led by Rove)win the whitehouse again and we have the tax cuts for the rich made permanent, the war will go on, the middle class will become less. You Obama fans are feeding right into the repulicans hands. You better watch what you ask for.

Posted by: anxious08 | February 20, 2008 7:08 PM | Report abuse

I sincerely believe that Senator Hillary Clinton, if nominated, she will be on of the best first female president of United States of America. She has got all those ability and experience to run our great nation in the right direction. OBAMA is a talker only.!!!

Posted by: akber_kassam | February 20, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's recent behavior is reminiscent of the former Iraqi information minister--the guy who kept insisting on television that Saddam's forces were routing the evil Americans, while you could see American tanks approaching from the distance. In my view, her utter inability to accept reality (kind of like our current president, huh?) confirms that the American people are making the right decision by rejecting her.

Posted by: t_affolter | February 20, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

It's actually fun watching Hillary dig her own political grave.
Words don't mean anything????? A lady named Rosa Parks
used one word and one word only to change the course of this nation. When told to get out of her seat and move to the back of the bus she simply said: " NO "......When Obama says " Yes we can"
look what happens. The Dems will win 40-42 states in Nov.
Obama is the Political tsunami of our time. There is no stopping this force. Once again "The love of power" is outdone by "The power of love"

Posted by: Billy7 | February 20, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

I think George W Bush's presidency has been the best example of how the role of the president requires vision and intellectual/moral leadership, not necessarily the practical experience that is being so touted by the Clinton campaign and some on these posts. In my view, W did not have his own vision and intellectual curiosity/leadership to guide his administration and set the tone for his governing. He was an easy mark for Cheney et al. to basically "manage" and move from a more moderate conservative position to a neo-con position. Cheney, Rumsfeld, and even Colin Powell (who I've liked, but am disappointed in) have tons of experience in goverment and the military or private sector, but that did not mean that we have had good leadership in the past six years. If W had any core values as a moderate, he would have aligned with Colin Powell instead of Cheney et al and we may have had a very different outcome with Iraq. So, I am less impressed with "experience" for the sake of it. I am looking at the whole person, certainly the experience Obama has had as an organizer and his ability to bring people together, and also his legislative record. After 6 years of W and Cheney, I am most interested in a president who seems to have a stable core and is not likely to be manipulated or corrupted into morphing into something s/he was not (on the campaign trail). W sold the republicans who voted for him a bill of goods with the "compassionate conservative" brand - I believe Obama has stayed steady during the race and will remain steady through his presidency.

Posted by: bethechange1 | February 20, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

People need to realize even if Hillary does not get the nomination, she will still have a great life. She is in this election because she truly cares about the American people and our struggles. If she loses then we lose as Americans. She is the only candidate that is in touch with the issues that ordinary people face. Years of seeing these issues firsthand is experience in itself for her. Does anyone else not see the blatant fact that Obama has a superiority complex. His lack of originality and bombastic speeches is an obvious clue. Do not let this man insult our intelligence by thinking words can give him the presidency. Hillary is a movement for change just as much as he is.

Posted by: Mani2008 | February 20, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

I think my favorite outcome of yesterday's primaries is how little coverage the NY Times gave it today. It's truly shameful.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 20, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse


I agree. She cannot catch up in pledged delegates. If the Democratic party's superdelegates lack the intestinal fortitude to rally behind the overwhelming front runner, then perhaps Obama needs to make the point clearly.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 20, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

"I propose a campaign to donate $25 each to Obama for every cheap shot the Clinton campaign invents in the coming weeks. Let her pay for the insults to our intelligence.

Posted by: fjwas"

I made a similar pledge to myself just a couple weeks ago to send fifty bucks to Obama's Web site each time Hillary's campaign made another stupid slam at him. So far I'm down $150! Thank goodness it was Cindy McCain and not the Billarys who started whining about Michelle's "proud of America" slip or I'd have to skip lunch today.

Let me tell ya, from where I'm sitting, Hillary's not the one paying for those insults to our intelligence. But at least it's for a good cause.

Posted by: whatmeregister | February 20, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Hillary though she had a Divine Right to become President. What arrogance! She fronted for her husband in 1992 when he hit the canvas over his extramarital affairs. Without her, he probably would have taken the count. Now she's expecting payback for her sacrifice. To believe that she's experienced is a joke. She's divisive, mean spirited and vindictive. God help the United States of America if she becomes President.

Posted by: alevy630 | February 20, 2008 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Hillary or Obama, its like trading a headache for a bellyache.

Posted by: john.martein | February 20, 2008 11:43 AM | Report abuse

If Senator Clinton were to get the nomination, how would she ask the people of Wisconsin to vote for her if she cannot graciously admit that she lost there? Is not that an insult to them , particularly the 300000 or so who voted for her?

I now predict she will lose Texas and Ohio.
Farfetched? Wait and see.

Posted by: les3carmen | February 20, 2008 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Obama should now REFUSE to debate Hillary for 3 reasons:

1. Hillary is now irrelevant

2. Time to focus on McCain

3. Hillary should first debate her own schizophrenic positions

4. One doesn't debate losers

5. The voters KNOW Hilary's positions

Or just have some scheduling conflicts.

Posted by: JaxMax | February 20, 2008 10:47 AM | Report abuse

By far, the most entertaining part of all of this is the fact that Clinton's campaign, filled with incredibly intelligent people, is SO blinded by their bias for the "fun part" of campaigning. They seem congenitally incapable of learning that it isn't working in spite of overwhelming evidence.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 20, 2008 9:56 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: ralphdaugherty "It's going to be fun to watch a whole new generation of naive youngsters get a rude awakening, courtesy Republicans."

Wow, Ralph, you sound like such a nice guy. Persuasive, too. Remember, Hillary said something about "the fun part" of the campaign. Maybe swirling down the drain is fun to her.

Posted by: edwcorey | February 20, 2008 9:52 AM | Report abuse

I saw Clinton's speech and couldn't believe it. She actually boasted that her experience made her better placed to "react to situations" around the world!



Then she wittered on about how she'd served on the Armed Forces Committee. What, like Joe Lieberman?

You'd think she would steer clear of the whole subject if she had any brains.

How do her supporters listen to Hillary boasting about her wise foreign policy decision-making skills without thinking - Iraq? Iraq? IRAQ!?!

Posted by: bourassa1 | February 20, 2008 9:47 AM | Report abuse

I'm so glaaaad we had this tiiiiime togetherrrrrrrr! So long Hillbilly!

I'm enjoying Hillary's face turn to stone with each primary that she looses; it is sad that now that she's falling behind in the race the best her campaign can do is to launch a smear campaign against Obama.

Get it through that stone head of your hillary, YOU DO NOT REPRESENT CHANGE; anyone that has done a thorough research of both candidates records can clearly see this. After Bush we don't need you or Billy Clampett back in the White House chasing interns.

Posted by: SBL2003 | February 20, 2008 9:34 AM | Report abuse

VegetablesPlease wrote: "I hope that the short-term pleasure people seem to be getting in trashing Senator Clinton sustains them through another 8 years of incompetent executive government... We have no idea what we're about to do: WE KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THIS MAN. We know even less about the people he's got behind the curtain..."

Just based on recent evidence of the past year, we know that Obama has organized and managed an efficient impressive national 50-state presidential campaign, and appears to have planned for most contingencies. We also know that Clinton has thoroughly mismanaged her campaign, not planning for any deviations from her expectations - from not being able to articulate a message to having cash flow problems. And, she's not even facing the vaunted "Republican Attack Machine" at this point - most of the damage has been self-inflicted. Based on that criteria alone, it appears that Obama is far more likely to have a successful presidency than Clinton would.

Posted by: bbussey | February 20, 2008 9:34 AM | Report abuse

Why Samuelson really DOES NOT get it:

1. Obama supporters want someone with the intellect and ability to do the job - OBAMA IS A HARVARD LAW GRAD.

2. We want someone who inspires action - OBAMA INSPIRES.

3. We want someone who is NOT mean spirited - OBAMA IS NOT MEAN SPIRITED.

4. We want someone that knows why playing fair matters - OBAMA PLAYS FAIR.

5. Likeability MATTERS in more ways than Clinton supporters like Samuelson want to admit - OBAMA IS LIKEABLE.

The notion that Obama supporters don't recognize that Obama is a politician is insulting. The idea that we somehow are too stupid to recognize that he may not be able to pull off everything he wishes, is beyond insulting.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 20, 2008 9:33 AM | Report abuse

Look on the bright side, HillFans. After TX knocks her out of the race, there will be no more pressure to inspect the Clinton tax records and they can continue to suppress presidential papers and the donor lists. Having resisted all efforts to have your eyes open, you HillFans will be free to continue admiring their majesty and marveling at what a strong, courageous leader she is. Good luck with all that.

I suppose the only real loser is Hillary's brother. He was really hoping to get back into the pardon selling business.

Posted by: brooksofsheffield | February 20, 2008 9:31 AM | Report abuse

I think I know now why hillary kept bill after he cheated on her and humiliated her.

He promised to help her become prez.

I suspect she will be dumping him right after she loses.

Posted by: tmcproductions2004 | February 20, 2008 9:22 AM | Report abuse

I think Obama's wins indicates that American people dont buy mudslinging contest. Yesterday Hillary was just short of crying, her expressions were frustated, compare with her expressions when she won and you can see how frustated she was yesterday.

A few words of advice to Hillary, "You too need a change , quit nomination , its over ".

Posted by: surv | February 20, 2008 9:09 AM | Report abuse

I must say I'm conflicted in reading some of these posts. I am an Obama supporter with a real dislike for the Clintons (and yes, I treat them as a duo). I think he's undisciplined and basically dishonest, and I find her rigid, self-aggrandizing, dogmatic and far less experienced and qualified than she professes to be. Most of all, because of her divisiveness, I think she's unsuited to unify a badly fractured electorate.

Yet I find a nasty streak of sexism in some of these criticisms. It's not just the blatant use of words like 'witch' or 'shrill', although has any Obama hater ever said that he sounds shrill? There's a tone of unmitigated joy in her difficulties that resonates through a lot of these comments that I never find in the anti-Obama comments, as nasty and racist as many of them are. Comments about her expectation of being awarded with roses for her health care fiasco are qualitatively different than the unfounded charges that Obama is an empty suit. The latter regrettably is a political staple; the former is something quite different, and in its own way demeaning.

So we have twin demons to deal with. As someone who matured during the early civil rights movement, I find it interesting and oddly depressing that we have done a better job suppressing racism than suppressing sexism. Having said that, it's hard to sort out the authentic and IMO well-founded dislike for her as a candidate from animosity based on gender alone. When we have a woman candidate who is as qualified as she claims to be, we'll have a better test for this hypothesis.

Politically, she and her advisers have received what they deserved for a misbegotten campaign strategy. But if we're going to go negative on her, let's do so on a gender -neutral basis.

Posted by: zoot1 | February 20, 2008 8:40 AM | Report abuse

Confident Clinton Takes Aim At Attackers
Hillary Clinton Tells Katie Couric Time To "Draw Contrasts" With Her Rivals
CONCORD, N.H., Nov. 26, 2007

Couric asked Clinton if she's lowering her expectations as the primary approaches.

"I never raised them, you know when I got into race at the beginning of the year. I wasn't even in double-digits. I was so far behind in Iowa, it was embarrassing," Clinton said.

Her campaign instead is "encouraged" she said, because "we're making progress - but I take nothing for granted, this is going to be a tight race."

"I think everybody should just take a deep breath and say 'let's just go to the finish line,' which will be probably be midnight West Coast time on Feb. 5," she said.

Ready on day 1?

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 20, 2008 8:30 AM | Report abuse

Vegetables please writes "Where this level of hatred comes from is an utter mystery to me." regarding the attacks on Clinton from the media and from voters.

I've heard it said, whatever you put out in the world comes back to you seven times--well, the Clinton campaign has been involved in mud slinging, and dirty politics since the beginning of the campaign. In fact as far as I can see, that is all there is to her campaign.

Bil Clinton's behavior hasn't helped-- calling Obama a "kid" and his campaign the "biggest fairytale he's ever seen"

And now, when she most needs to save her campaign by staying on message-- and giving us something to vote for, she's out slamming Obama about his campaign rhetoric and calling him a plagiarist, which by the way is a really bizarre charge when talking about political speech making--a common practice being for someone else to write your speech, and for Obama, who actually does write the majority of his speeches...

Her message today she's the best candidate to lead in a "dangerous world" and being a president is "hard work." These lines I believe come from George W.

So I think the nastiness comes in part from disgust at politics-as-usual. We really do want change, and we are tired of losing elections.

Posted by: hotpoet66 | February 20, 2008 8:13 AM | Report abuse

To my fellow Democratic Party American citizens; we have a problem at hand. Divisive primary politics aside, we have a radical element in our party. This element is becoming more evident, with each and every loss, in their pulling apart of our Party. This element is showing that the pulling apart and possible fracturing of our great Party, for what seems to be nothing more then feelings of self-entitlement toward the nomination, is a justifiable cost for their goals and aspirations.

Again, I feel it necessary that we examine the true benefit of tying the hands of a possible Republican challenger (whomever it may be), when it comes to financing a general campaign. Is it wise for the Party to allow ourselves to enter into a most important election with one arm tied behind our backs? Of course it is not a wise political move, yet this dangerous element in our Party feels it is fair game to attack a fellow Party member on such a matter.

We have a wonderful advantage against the Republicans this election cycle when it comes to funding, but we also have an element in the Party that is willing, and desirous, that we concede such an advantage for what? Is it for the underlying feelings of self entitlement? Is it a last ditch effort? A do or die burn fest? Whatever the reasoning behind such a destructive move, it is nonetheless, a very dangerous ploy for such little gain.

Is this the kind of politics that we need in the party, let alone in America? The idea which seems to resonate with the American populace is that we need to move away from the typical day to day operations of our political leaders. We need to have a Party, and Country, that is truly for the people by the people. Not a country controlled by the minority of its citizenry, by its far right leaning religious minority, or by small groups of money throwing special interests, that attempt to circumvent the will and betterment of the majority of Americans.

What we are facing is a path that can take us either into a future which is based on the belief, and yes the hope, that we can do truly wonderful things if we pull together, or a future that concedes we have reached the pinnacle of American greatness, and we must go back to the way it was before these last 7 years. The idea that America should be governed from the bottom up, and not the top down, is a crossroads sign post from which we must use to choose our great nations future.

I, personally, will give the benefit of the doubt, and look to what great things we can really do when we have hope. The past was good, but it was just that, the past. I'll put my hope and faith in Barack.

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 20, 2008 8:10 AM | Report abuse

Hillary who? Can u say "President Obama"!

For the first time I am apprecitive for all of the Bush - Chaney - Rove shinanigans/"gangsterism" tactics! Without which I am doubtful that America would be so receptive/open to supporting an African-American man......I never thought that I would see this during my lifetime....but it is a direct reflection of the perpetual dark days of the past 7 years...but the sun shall rise again on Jan. 20, 2009 and rays of light and hope shall stream across the American horizon!

Posted by: chadshumate | February 20, 2008 7:44 AM | Report abuse

There's so much drama in this year's US elections that even those not from the US can't help but tune in for a piece of the action. Lol.

Here's hoping Obama wins through in the end.

Posted by: yakumo.baka66 | February 20, 2008 7:23 AM | Report abuse

So the IAM (Machinists Union) guy emerges with some trash talking about Obama's record in the IL legislature while the Clinton campaign goes into the tank.

And one wonders why these meatheads only represent less than 10% of the organizable labor force in this country today.

Posted by: dpsa27 | February 20, 2008 7:20 AM | Report abuse

If she was really the right person for this job, she wouldn't be grabbing at branches on her way down and engaging in the politics of destruction she is engaging in within her own party. It is the last thing we need and she would be the first person who would know that, not the last. As much as I hate what GWB and his enablers have done to this great country, I don't know how I could ever vote for her now if by some miracle or cheap trick she could pull off the nomination. Go Obama. Next stop Ohio and Texas.

Posted by: SarahBB | February 20, 2008 6:32 AM | Report abuse

Is Al Gore ready with that hook yet? Clinton is acting like a spoiled, willful child. And she wonders why voters are rejecting her????

Posted by: jam754 | February 20, 2008 6:28 AM | Report abuse

If Hillary Clinton had any sense of decency and was truly interested in what is best for the country, she would just go home now. We don't need a divisive fight for the Democratic Party nomination, we need a strong candidate who can hold his own against the very conservative John McCain. Then again if either of the Clintons had any sense of decency or was truly interested in what was best for the country, they both would have remained rather minor political figures. In any event, they had their chance and now it is someone else's turn.

Posted by: Bob22003 | February 20, 2008 6:23 AM | Report abuse

Ohio and Texas are going to turn out the light on Hillary. She's by now a broken record: "my 35 years, my 35 years, my 35 years". And we've all had ample time to dig in to the history, and realize that she wants roses for having failed health care so badly she managed to offend an ally in Sen. Daniel Moynihan and greatly assist Newt Gingrich take control of the House; she claims all this service for others but from cattle futures to now has garnered a $50 million fortune by riding the fame our votes gave her husband; she hoards papers relevant to public endeavor as if she were Cheney; she voted for a war we all know she opposed so that she could position herself to be president. Every politician has their faults; we'd rather have the clean slate and the possibiity of unity that Obama offers.

Better get ready for the general election.

Democrats whine about Swift Boating. The beauty of bad criticism, however, is the opportunity for a killer response. The Dems totally botched the Swift Boat response. A simple 1-2 strategy of facts would have turned that issue into a Dem winner.

"I. The Viet Nam Top 8 list. A list from honor to shame of Viet Nam era guys who became politicians:

1) John McCain -- chose to stay a POW
2) Colin Powell -- far exceeded expectation
3) John Kerry -- faced risk despite wealth
4) Al Gore -- the genlteman's tour
5) Bill Clinton -- opposed war and dodged 6) George Bush* -- favored war and dodged
7) Dan Quayle -- favored war and dodged
8) Dick Cheney-- favored war and dodged endlessly

*(We suspect) nobody else in the history of Yale ever enrolled in the National Guard, except during Viet Nam. Whether that's proof that George Bush was hiding in the national guard the voters can judge.

II. The Swift Boat people are calling into competence the ability of our proud military. If they want to second guess the military's ability, honor, and integrity in it's proud endeavor of honoring those who put themselves at risk for the good of the country, that's fine.

John Kerry has been a Senator for many years -- one of the most privileged public positions in American. Have these Swift Boat veterans had opportunity to bring forward their story? Did they actively do so for the good of the country, to keep a man they'd call a fraud from serving in the nation's hallowed senate? Today, are they

III. What does the list tell us? The guys at the top of the list all took risk. The ones who truly won honor happen to be centrist Republicans or John Kerry.

The ones who shamefully sought to use position and excuse to dodge the war, though they and their families support it, are conservative Republicans. There could be no stronger indictment of Conservative Republicans as a self-serving, self-deluded elite that seeks to take the benefit of sacrafice, while calling it glory to their own shoulders."

I suspect that response would have put John Kerry in the White House. And left the Swift Boat Veterans looking a little foolish for defending a member of the list of shame, and his sidekick VP.

Politics requires smarts. Good debating.

Obama has shown himself good at moving through criticism with a next wave of his message. Last nights speech about how "we don't have time to wait" was a great response to the 'he's too young, inexperienced' label. Obama has the smarts to make a dynamic message. Hillary is a broken record repeating the same thing endlessly, just louder. We seem to have found the person who can best respond to the attacks.

Posted by: tdn0024 | February 20, 2008 6:21 AM | Report abuse

I haven't felt this bad since the Yankees lost a 3-0 World Series lead to the Red Sox. The idea of Barack Hussein Obama as the Democratic nominee for President of The United States is so befuddling that I'm lost beyond recovery. But I'm even more bewildered at the Clinton campaign strategy, or lack thereof. What in the name of God happened here?

Posted by: K3vinFitz | February 20, 2008 6:20 AM | Report abuse

Here is a democrat from Massachusetts who has decided to Vote for Mccain in the general election. I can see bumper stickers "McCain Democrats" going around soon. BTW, I am REALLY PROUD OF MY NATION ALL THE TIME....

Posted by: vs_sv | February 20, 2008 6:10 AM | Report abuse

@ crt12:

Great comment. Thank you!

Boomer Dems' attitude toward young voters is a bit like the GOP leadership's attitude towards evangelicals; Republican politicians expect the "backwards" evangelicals' votes, but rarely follow through on any of their campaign promises (by, e.g., taking real steps to ban abortion) . . . and when one or another of the sincere evangelicals, like Huckabee, makes a credible run at national office, the Republican Hate Machine is promptly loosed.

Similarly, for all of the "rock the vote" lip service I've been hearing from the boomers for the last ten years, it couldn't be clearer that many older Democrats have no respect whatsoever for young people -- for their perceptions, their beliefs, or their passions. The recent spate of "Obama is a cult leader" stories is merely the culmination of a curmudgeonly hate-fest that's been brewing for months. The self-satisfied Hillary types want us to go out to the polls and affirm their choices, but not to participate ourselves in a meaningful way, as equals.

I'm voting for Obama for dozens of reasons. Among them: Iraq; Iran; that flag-burning amendment HRC supported; HRC's experience as a Wal-Mart board member; that little dynasty problem; the nastiness and incompetence of HRC's campaign (which does not bode well for her executive skills); etc; etc. I like Obama, and respect his long experience as a community organizer, law lecturer, state legislator, author, and U.S. Senator. He speaks well, he's likeable, he's closer to my age and worldview, and he's correct on most of the issues.

The decision isn't so complicated. And I am not a cultist.

Posted by: MyManGodfrey | February 20, 2008 5:32 AM | Report abuse

Last night, Chris Matthews interviewed a high-powered Democratic supporter of Obama's in Texas last night after his big rally.

Matthews asked that Obama supporter to name one legislative accomplishment that Obama has done - the guy stammered around and was asked again and again by Matthews to name something substantial about Obama.

That guy couldn't say one good accomplishment of Obama - he was just jumping on the Obama bandwagon and he didn't even know why. gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 20, 2008 5:30 AM | Report abuse

Pathetic ingracious loser. She needs to drop out.

Posted by: zb95 | February 20, 2008 5:28 AM | Report abuse

Obama cannot win the General Election.

When people fall into lock step with Obama, they are ultimately casting their vote for McCain in the General Election.

A vote for Obama now means he will run up against McCain in November, but Obama cannot win against McCain and the Republican "swift boat" machine.

Obama has many skeletons in his closet, and if we, the people, don't vet him and look into his past, the Republican "swift boat" machine will. They are probably Googling right now - Obama's 20 year radical anti-Israel church, the Trinity Church in Chicago.

Obama likes to say that he is a Christian, not a muslim. His father is muslim, but he is not. Go figure.

Obama was married to Michelle in that pro-black separatist church. Obama took the title for his book, "Audacity of Hope," from Rev. Wright's sermon.

Obama had an office in that church, proclaiming he was doing "community organizing" work on the streets of Chicago.

That office, in that church, recruiting young people off the streets of Chicago for that church is just one more example of Obama's dishonest, deceit, and ability to lie at the drop of a hat.

When Obama decided to run for the presidency, he would not let Rev. Wright attend his campaign functions. Wright said, because Obama was pandering for the Jewish vote and money, "his Jewish support would dry up faster than a snowball in Hell."

At this same time, Obama and Antoin Rezko struck up a friendship that lasted for 17 years. Antoin Rezko worked in his senate campaign and held fund raisers in his mansion for Obama.

Obama "forgot" all of that long, shady back room relationship, even after he became the Senator in Illinois, and said on a recent debate that he "only did about five hours worth of work for a church doing some kind of business with Rezko.

Antoin Rezko is from Syria and has received huge amounts of money from people in the middle east. In my opinion, Rezko is still involved in getting Obama elected.

A person doesn't just have sixty million dollars "contributed" to someone that is an unknown quantity.

The more we try to inform the electorate about Obama's past mistakes and poor choices, and even felony poor choices, the more charasmatic and inspirational people think Obama is.

The only time I ever saw such hysteria over a self-serving, Me, Me, Me, individual was when Jim Jones mesmerized his people and they followed him to their graves.

Not looking at Obama in real terms, is just as bad. If Obama/ Rezko / Rev. Wright gain access to the White House, and access to our National intelligence agencies and information, and access to our nuclear arms, we may not like the Change that Obama wants to bring to Washington.

And, the way that 90% of the black people are supporting Obama, without even looking into his back ground, just because he is black, makes me realize that Latino was right when he spoke on television and said, the black people are not going to care about our homes, our jobs, or our economic security, they are a "Me, Me, Me," crowd now, following their Messiah, the "Me, Me, Me" Presidential candidate.

You can see that in his speeches and in his books, when he isn't playing the "victim" and Hillary the villain, or when he isn't raising the race card. gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 20, 2008 5:24 AM | Report abuse

Devin79--Hillary never inspired anybody; all she ever had was fear. Now that's gone, and she is finished. Perhaps it was not a good idea to dump all your meds into one bowl?

Posted by: gmundenat | February 20, 2008 5:22 AM | Report abuse

mark in austin writes
"I do not understand any message to be conveyed by "defiant" without an implied object of authority to "defy".

How about the Electorate?


Posted by: jganymede | February 20, 2008 5:20 AM | Report abuse

Florida poll shows Obama only getting 55% of Democratic vote against McCain. Is the trashing of Hillary by the Media having a negative effect?

Florida Today Editorial calls for Hillary to get her 105 delegates from Florida, plus 38 over Obama, which she won fair and square.

Obama reluctantly admitted his plagiarism of an entire paragraph. If Hillary had done this the press would have gone into a rage. Chris Mathews would have foamed at the mouth. The Washington Post writers would have screamed to high heavens and thrown wild tantrums. The Washington Post fires writers for this action.

Jim Carney

Posted by: Jcarn53 | February 20, 2008 5:17 AM | Report abuse

Hillary stated " It is about picking a president who relies not just on words but on work, on hard work, to get America back to work," Clinton said. "The best words in the world aren't enough unless you match them with action."

But Obama does back up his words with actions. his campaign is not based merely on words but on his OWN experience not his spouse's. Hillary has accomplished little in her life that is not related to her husband. Obama is brilliant and well educated, hillary is merely well educated. He is a great inspirational speaker AND a great organizer. She now appears to be neither. He appears to work effortlessly and accomplishes a great deal. She says she works hard yet accomplishes little. Perhaps she works so hard because she has no talent; he is gifted.
What Hillary doesn't understand is the concept of Multi-talented which is odd as she has been married to such a person; didn't she notice? I've watched Bill Clinton and she is no Bill Clinton.

Posted by: jganymede | February 20, 2008 5:04 AM | Report abuse

the dems are likely to win the election regardless of how this primary goes, though it's one thing to win, another to consolidate and motivate the dem base so they're productive over the next 8 years. as a result of clown reducing the republican agenda to absurdity by demonstrating just what they wanted and how far they were willing to go to get it, the dems should concentrate on growing and strength and number. it's in the best interests of the nation that they stop the attacks and run together. they should both spend a lot of time critiquing mccain and deflecting his attacks--he did hire the bush campaign team, telling.

Posted by: e9999999 | February 20, 2008 4:48 AM | Report abuse

Hate to break it to "Kornbutt", but, Hillary is hardly done. When she wins TX, OH and's goping to be a real humiliation for the idiotic "Hillary Hating" media.

Posted by: devin79 | February 20, 2008 4:47 AM | Report abuse

As the unelected head of the White House Health Care Task Force in 1993-1995 Hillary Clinton - due to her insensitivity to elected Democrats and Republican alike -did more than anyone else to turn congress from Democratic control to Republican control. It's no wonder that Team-Clinton is looking for a second chance. The truth is, she has very little experience as an ELECTED politician.

Posted by: eam179 | February 20, 2008 4:33 AM | Report abuse

I grew up in Youngstown and watched the unions shut down the steel industry and destroy 2 of the 3 hospitals in the city. Everything they touch turns to rust and ruin. Run Hillary! Run!

Posted by: NH_Hick | February 20, 2008 4:13 AM | Report abuse

Way to go, Obama! It was a delight to see Obama win in Wisconsin and very sad to see how Hillary reacted to his win. She was not able to rise to the occasion and congratulate Obama on his victory! Her refusal to reach across the great divide and give Obama kudos for his win sets the women's movement back a 100 years. We are more than that! Her refusal to do what losers usually do, which is to congratulate the winner, the crying when the going gets tough, goes a long way in saying that women can not handle defeat. This emotional, brainless and petty reaction speaks to the issue of gender and is a clear indication of what we can expect from her as Commander in Chief.

Very unbecoming! But this is, after all, the same Hillary Clinton who says she has the type of "experience" needed to be president. Who uses the word "experience" as a punch line. She has a great deal of experience alright, but not the type of mature, sound and grownup experience that counts. For example, she not only voted for the war, she is Pro-Israel, and is a prime supporter of Israel in the Middle East. Since 1949 it is estimated that the US taxpayers have shelled out $91.82 billion dollar in aid to the Israeli occupation in the Middle East. Add to that the recent 4000 deaths of Americans fighting in Iraq and elsewhere to strengthen the Israeli occupation of Palestine.

What is puzzling is how Israel, a small nation of has less than 18 million people worldwide, is able to muster this type of support from American politicians like Hillary Clinton. Since she does not have the decency or the courtesy to congratulate Obama on his win, it is highly unlikely that, if elected, Hillary will end the war in Iraq.

How sad!

V. Sessoms

Posted by: vsessoms | February 20, 2008 4:10 AM | Report abuse

One would think, after losing 11 straight contests (counting Hawaii, where Obama currently has 76% of the vote with 51% of precincts counted), that the Clintonistas might discern that smearing and swiftboating blow up in their faces.

Democrats and independents, unlike Republicans, just don't respond positively to such tactics. Indeed this behavior simply adds to the perception that the Clintons are desperate--flailing blindly, flinging mud indiscriminately hoping it will stick SOMEWHERE, anywhere.

In fact, the Clintons are beginning to seem distinctly unhinged which, of course, only alienates voters further.

Posted by: nicekid | February 20, 2008 4:10 AM | Report abuse

The Hillary & "Bill in a China Shop" show is in freefall.
There are two stages before political irrelevancy.
First the politician becomes the object of derision and then they become the object of pity. That is where HRC finds herself.
Hey, call me silly, but doesn't her campaign remind you of the war in Iraq.
Bush was fixated on winning Baghdad, thinking that constituted victory and gave little thought to the aftermath.
HRC was fixated on winning Super Tuesday, feeling confident that she would have it wrapped up by then, so why bother with the caucus states.
Bush thought that the Iraqi people wanted democracy but what they really wanted was security.
HRC thought the American people wanted experience, but what they really wanted was change.
Bush thought that since he had the support of the Chalabis the support of the Iraqi people would follow.
HRC thought that if she had the support of the Rangels and Youngs, she would have the support of a core constituency.
Both Bush and HRC can be faulted for hiring people based on loyalty and a distant, secondarily, competence.
Neither Bush nor HRC can be accused of admitting to error.
Neither can be accused of humility.
Both feel that if you are not with them, you are against them.
Bush calls his enemies evil.
HRC threatens to "demonize" those who question her wisdom.
All of this is so old school!
Well a political Tsunami is sweeping across this land and I am reminded of a Dylan line, "Something is happening here and you don't know what it is, do you Mr. Jones!"

Skycontrol 02/20/08

Posted by: skycontrol | February 20, 2008 3:03 AM | Report abuse

What was extraordinary tonight was listening to two Clinton affiliates and their post-mortems.

David Gergen, advisor to many Presidents including Bill Clinton, was dumbfounded by the Clinton campaign's incompetence.

It wasn't just the fact that we learned today the Clinton campaign neglected to field a slate of delegates for Pennsylvania, thinking the contest would never go as far as Pennsylvania.

It was the sheer idiocy of not making Wisconsin the firewall state. Every political expert, every experienced political activist assumed that Hillary could not afford to lose ten contests in a row.

Therefore it was important, nay, mandatory, that she throw everything she had into Wisconsin, and spend all her time and money there to halt the hemorrhaging.

Instead, a la Rudy, the campaign decided to make Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania the firewall. That's akin to trying to fit 1200 passengers into the last lifeboat on the Titanic.

David Gergen called it "political malpractice".

It's hard to make a cogent argument that you are the most qualified to lead the nation, when you can't even run a political campaign that doesn't remind folks of Bush's FEMA.

Then, diehard Clinton supporter Paul Begala noted things look dark for Clinton in Texas. He stated he had talked to his younger brother and that early voting began in Texas yesterday.

He said in Harris County (Houston), in the last election 1,300 people turned out to vote on the first day of early voting. Yesterday, over 12,000 turned out.

As Begala predicted, that spelled big trouble for Hillary Clinton.

Finally, a number of journalists noted that immediately after each previous loss they would be flooded by e-mails from the Clinton campaign trying to spin the news cycle, talk about the next state, why they were optimistic etc.

They noted that last night there were no post-election e-mails. A couple suggested that a sense of fatality may have overtaken the Clinton campaign at this point.

After she loses Texas, and she will, there's no way she can win the nomination unless she gets 80% of the vote in Ohio and Pennsylvania, and there's no way that will happen.

If the Clintons were ever to look within themselves and find a trace of decency, enabling them to do the right thing, now would be the time.

Posted by: filmex | February 20, 2008 2:30 AM | Report abuse

I should add the DeVitos were probably the couple most prepared for "night one."

Posted by: auto1 | February 20, 2008 2:23 AM | Report abuse


Wow, spoken with the true ambiguous venom of a Hillary Rove supporter.

Did you mean chicken or chickens?


Posted by: LeftwithNochoice | February 20, 2008 2:19 AM | Report abuse

My heart goes out to the DeVitos (Danny and Rhea).

They must be devastated as they watch slipping away their chances of re-"utilizing" the Lincoln bedroom.

Such a calamity is enough to drive a guy to show up sober on The View.

Posted by: auto1 | February 20, 2008 2:18 AM | Report abuse

You know what guys?

There is an old saying of never counting your chicken before they are hatched. It's never over until it is over--as far as the Democrats are concerned.

I promise you this: there will be three legitimate scandals of the interim front runners surfacing before March 4, 2008. So, sit tight and watch how magic spells wear off quickly.

The deaf will hear reality again, and the blind will see again.

Have a great day guys.

Posted by: motelmassage | February 20, 2008 2:09 AM | Report abuse

You know what guys?

There is an old saying of never counting your chicken before they are hatched. It's never over until it is over--as far as the Democrats are concerned.

I promise you this: there will be three legitimate scandals of the Obama's surfacing before March 4, 2008. So, sit tight and watch how magic spells wear off quickly.

The deaf will hear reality again, and the blind will see again.

Have a great day guys.

Posted by: motelmassage | February 20, 2008 2:08 AM | Report abuse


I could feel sorry for her. If she wasn't the face of such a Negative, Lying Campaign.

I can tell she knows she's whipped. They never expected anyone to LeapFrog her into the White House.

She's been waiting a long time for this. And now it's pretty much over.

But, Like I said, she's been negative, insinuating, misleading, lying, and classless.

Still is a little Sad to see her, though.

Posted by: LeftwithNochoice | February 20, 2008 1:58 AM | Report abuse

Obama has become an increasingly more appealing choice as he becomes better known, while at the same time Clinton's tactics and whining are becoming increasingly tiresome.

Posted by: snidelywhiplash24 | February 20, 2008 1:51 AM | Report abuse

For months the polls favored Hillary but when it came time to vote the true feelings of a great nation were expressed. The people spoke. Good over evil prevailed again, thank GOD!

Posted by: donkonrad | February 20, 2008 1:50 AM | Report abuse

The level of hostility towards Hillary is stunning. Why should she not run this out. It is equally as historical as SenatorObama's, and equally as possible...

Posted by: stovepipe1 | February 20, 2008 1:41 AM | Report abuse

Once in a generation, a leader emerges to forge a new path for this nation. A leader who can inspire and mobilize us to be better than we were. In 1932 that leader was Franklin Roosevelt and his New Deal. In 1960 John F. Kennedy accepted the torch passed to a New Generation. Unfortunately, Ronald Reagan took it back in 1980. Bill Clinton (was he that good or that lucky?) did not in fact "alter the trajectory of the nation." The question is now, which of these three remaining candidates can be that leader? John "More of the Same" McCain is not that leader. Hillary "Back to the Future" Clinton, is not that leader. But while nothing is guarenteed, I believe Barack Obama can be that leader. It's up to us. Yes we Can.

Posted by: mjturvey | February 20, 2008 1:30 AM | Report abuse

At least 100,000 Republicans in Texas will send absentee ballots for Obama and seal Hillary's presidential ambitions. they'll vote Republican in November but the opportunity to end the Clinton dynasty is too good to pass up. Politics is a dirty game and if Hillary hadn't been such a focus of Republican energy, they would have stood by the sidelines.

Posted by: asja | February 20, 2008 1:24 AM | Report abuse

I'm struck by a post from a gen-y reader that wrote a while back, quite bitterly and with a lot of justification, that the boomers were being cynical in putting up candidates that no one can get excited about and then complaining that young people are apathetic and tearing down the candidates that do inspire them. In that sense, not much has changed since I was in high school in 1970 and my elders were passing off my radicalism at the time as "just a phase." Barak Obama may not be the perfect candidate, or man to transform America; we'll see. Until we do see, however, I'd stop and think that, as a baby boomer, do you really feel we did a good enough job in our time to be trashing the the fragile belief that system can be made to work that is stirring in the young? Be careful what you wish for. Just because we couldn't push America through to a transformation, doesn't mean someone else can't. It sure isn't going to be someone cut in the mold of the Democratic National Committee "vital center." It's time to roll the bones on someone who just might escape that gravity. Hell, it's time to believe in something.


Posted by: carlsonchaf | February 20, 2008 1:12 AM | Report abuse

I find it completely baffling that a campaign with no real plan B after plan A - victory by Super Tuesday - failed and money ran out, now resorts to "He has only words, which are stolen." Isn't that pretty much the same as calling anyone who was ever inspired by Obama an idiot? Insulting the voters is now plan B? How the campaign is run, unfortunately, reflects on the candidate and how we expect them to run things, and this campaign doesn't seem like it deserves to win.

Posted by: sussu | February 20, 2008 12:54 AM | Report abuse

How rude to not even acknowledge even cursorily when one's opponent wins!
This is true. She not only doesn't acknowledge that her opponent has won, she doesn't even acknowledge that an election has taken place. That must make her supporters feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

I guess by ignoring the elections, she can continue to deny that there are any potential consequences from her continuing to lose them. After all, the nomination was supposed to be her reward for putting up with Bill's shenanigans all those years, but the coronation is just not going as planned. Her tactlessness, however, is uncalled for, and reveals a truly unpleasant aspect of her character.

Posted by: smc91 | February 20, 2008 12:27 AM | Report abuse

When the Democratic race began, I did not have a strong preference. All that mattered was the need to eliminate the GOP (of which I am a thoroughly humiliated member). As the primary season progresses, my personal choice becomes clearer. I think it is important to remember that Presidents are not pitchers or quarterbacks. They don't win or lose all alone. The President's job is to lead the nation, not rule it. In that light, I take a lot of campaign rhetoric with a grain of salt, as I realize that next January, whoever we elect will have a new Congress to work with. Now, I am looking for that person who not only has good ideas and vision, I am looking for a person who can achieve the bi-partisan commitment that is required to take this country forward. In my view, both the Left and the Right are politically bankrupt. Neither the world's biggest exploding toys, nor 167 verses of "Kumbaya" are able to take us anywhere. Let us find someone who can navigate the "middle way" and actually solve some things for a while... please.

Posted by: OldUncleTom | February 20, 2008 12:22 AM | Report abuse

Finally, others are recognizing Clinton for the self-centered, ambitious, hypocritical, self-serving politician that she has always been. What experience? Failed health care plan? Tail-coating wife? What has she ever really done, besides ignore all of her husband's weak characteristics, so she could benefit from his political career? No real experience there. Her raspy vocal cords and swollen cheeks tonight looked like she been having a crying jag - or maybe a screaming jag. Have heard she has quite a vocabulary!

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

The question now is can Clinton at all learn from her mistakes. My guess is that she will not and she will turn more and more toxic. She is acting in a way that suggests she cannot accept defeat and knows only how to turn to the negative to try and sway the election. She clarly is self-deluded of her "rightness" in this election that has scary parallels to Bush's self-delusion and inability to admit mistakes. If she goes super negative it is time for the Democratic Party, the superdelegates, her best friends....etc to sit down with her and explain the realities of the situation. Otherwise she might try to bring down Obama with her stupidities that will be very damaging to the Democratic Party. It will be very sad to witness the results of her speech tomorrow.

Posted by: cbday | February 20, 2008 12:15 AM | Report abuse

Is it time to start talking Obama V.P. options yet?

Posted by: RyanMcC1 | February 20, 2008 12:10 AM | Report abuse

Clinton Defiant After Wisconsin Loss
by By Anne E. Kornblut

"Clinton, who has lost more than a half-dozen primaries since Feb. 5"

uh, I must be missing something, but she has lost 22 since the 5th. True, that number is more then a "half-dozen", but it really is closer to 20.

Tell me what I am missing here. It is late, and morpheus is creeping into my eyes, but what really is she talking about in the piece?

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 20, 2008 12:07 AM | Report abuse

How rude to not even acknowledge even cursorily when one's opponent wins! I have just had enough of Hillary or is it Billary.
Both Bill and Hill just need to pack up, retire to their mansions and leave us alone. This great nation does not need either one of them to be great and whole again. President Obama can do it all by himself with sensible policies but most of all by inspiring people to stand up and take the country back from special interests and lobbyists. Obama in the White House for the next 8 years!!!!

Posted by: kant1 | February 20, 2008 12:07 AM | Report abuse

Who's better at ignoring reality that contradicts what they want? GW or Hillary? Zero class.

Posted by: fox_qajgev | February 20, 2008 12:01 AM | Report abuse

To those who think that McCain will crush Obama in November, I can only offer my best wishes. Your candidate is going to need all the help he can get. I predict Obama will take it with 60 percent and have very long coattails.

Posted by: sheryllarson | February 20, 2008 12:01 AM | Report abuse

I have to agree with another poster above. Obama will clean McCain's clock in November if they're the nominees. Just put the two side-by-side and watch their presentations. The comparison is more stark than even Nixon/JFK.

How many people are passionate about voting for McCain, and what type of turnout will he get if he runs against Obama? Change the Dem. nominee to Hillary and the dynamic certainly changes. In that case, McCain has more than a sporting chance, and probably pulls out a win with independents' support and a fired-up Republican base.

Posted by: smc91 | February 19, 2008 11:55 PM | Report abuse

I meant Washington Post. A similar article was done on CNN, so I just copied my post from there on here.

Posted by: drmccall11 | February 19, 2008 11:54 PM | Report abuse

Of course Hillary supporters are going to be upset with CNN for this article because they are upset with yet another blow to the Hillary campaign, losing 9-0 after Wisco. This is a highly valued article, and I believe it highlights Hillary's career politician ways. She is not in the race to help the American people, she is in the race to win. She continually discredits red state voters and caucuses, yet those are the same people are who will be needed to win a general election. She continually ignores Obama's win because she doesn't care about her loses and try to understand why she lost, but only focuses on her wins. Tonight, she chant's "Yes, We Will" as her supporters stare awkwardly at her desperate attempt to gain support. Did she not just get on Obama for him using the governor of Massachusetts' words (although he was given consent and advice to do so)? I think it's time for Hillary to step down, not because of Obama's growing support and more electable position, but because her campaign is getting out of control, she is losing tact, and her character is being tarnished by her own actions.

Posted by: drmccall11 | February 19, 2008 11:52 PM | Report abuse

In the words of James Carville " Billary you are nothing but trailer park trash"

Show some class and congradulate Obama on his victory.

Posted by: kevinhughes5 | February 19, 2008 11:52 PM | Report abuse

Hey--marching bands in Ohio are a big deal. TBDBITL?? Like high school football in Texas.

Pride of Cardinal Country!!!

Posted by: jon.morgan.1999 | February 19, 2008 11:47 PM | Report abuse

I wanted to like Hillary. Over all the years, all the ups and downs, I really did want to like her, admire her at least. And now, after watching the inner workings of Hillary Clinton on display on the national stage for all to see, in a venue like no other, I am left feeling... stupid.


1) it turns out that the Republicans were right about the Clintons all along - they were on to something that I just dismissed as hatemongering

2) it has become glaringly obvious that Hillary is not as intelligent as I once gave her credit for - she really is the goody-two-shoes in class who works hard to get all the right answers but has absolutely no vision and no guiding principles other than the primordial signals sent out from the reptilian vestiges of her brain

I keep seeing her making all these obvious mistakes on the campaign trail, keep cringing at her bald lies slapped on the back of artless turns of phrase - if you can even call them turns of phrase, keep heaving every time she declares that the simple fact of her womanhood translates directly into "change" in the White House - a nauseating assertion in the face of the true paradigm shift in American politics that Obama is midwifing here and now.

To see the true Hillary Clinton revealed is a veritable disappointment to me. But I won't let it bother me too much - gotta go get my Happy Dance on in light of Obama's and America's win tonight in Wisconsin!!!

Posted by: drama_king | February 19, 2008 11:40 PM | Report abuse

The more Hillary engages in negative campaigning, the more she reminds us of how the Clintons have complained about the practice of the politics of personal destruction in the 90's, but are never reluctant to engage in such behavior with others especially when they become desparate and smell loss.

Posted by: wmdteam | February 19, 2008 11:40 PM | Report abuse

It's interesting that reporters keep commenting on how Clinton cuts and runs after a loss, but the fact that before the "Potomac Primary" was over Obama was in Wisconsin, and made his Wisconsin victory speech from Houston. So we could say Obama is just sloughing off his supporters after he has gotten their votes and doesn't really care anything about them. In fact they both leave the places where voting is taking place because they have hectic schedules, but that would mean objective reporting to point that out, and would spoil all the fun.

Posted by: papasoji | February 19, 2008 11:36 PM | Report abuse

Boy! I like the Washington Post. People here disagree a lot but they are so much more civilized and sophisticated than at the NYT, where almost everyone is a flaming ultraliberal. People here actually engage in point-counterpoint. Hurray! And I recommend again reading Amadeus56, above. He ought to have his own blog. Ralphdaugherty is perceptive too.

Posted by: bdmiller | February 19, 2008 11:34 PM | Report abuse

When I saw that Hillary will be making a 'major speech' tomorrow, at first I thought she was ready to quit; ok maybe I was hoping she was ready to quit, knowing how concerned she is with 'the good of the party.'
To those who refer to Mr. Obama as Osama - a poster here and Mr. Chris Matthews - it is not only disrespectful, it reflects poorly on you.
As others have said above, what exprience in fighting the GOP does Hillary have? Is she referring to her carpet-bagging run for Senate in NY? Is she referring to half-heartedly defending her husband from the GOP -most of whom had their own affairs (Hyde, Gingrich, Burton)? Is she referring to her failed attempt and healthcare reform? If this is a track record of experience, it is not one I would vote for.

Hillary needs to quit. At the least, she can be a fair player, congratulate her rival on well-earned wins, and give credit to Barack, Rove, and the GOP for using their quotes and tactics. Because, clearly we must give credit where it is due, isn't that right Ms. Clinton?

Go Obama!

Posted by: crazy4glf | February 19, 2008 11:27 PM | Report abuse

"Clinton Delusional After Wisconsin Loss"


Posted by: gbooksdc | February 19, 2008 11:25 PM | Report abuse

Both Obama and Clinton still have a long way to go before either of them can claim the democratic nomination for president of the United States.

At this stage in the game Obama can't afford to lose or it will cost him the nomination.

With John McCain throwing some harsh punches at Obama with little effort behind them spells doom for his campaign.

America wants real "CHANGE" not empty words!

Hillary Clinton, John McCain 2008

Posted by: 0_freeman_0 | February 19, 2008 11:21 PM | Report abuse

edhaynsworth wrote:

"Obama "Bin Laden" is the best thing that ever happened to the Republican Party"

Ed is a little off the beam. The Republican Party is the best thing that ever happened to Osama (still alive and getting stronger) bin Laden. I hope that Obama will be smart enough to figure out how to hurt Osama rather than help him.

Posted by: macgriffith | February 19, 2008 11:20 PM | Report abuse

CRT12 - I'm with you! I have actually been one of those boomers who complained about apathy in the young, but my thoughts have been changed by the support given to Obama. You've awakened and I'm glad you are here.

I'm for Obama too - why wouldn't I be?

Posted by: martiniano | February 19, 2008 11:18 PM | Report abuse

It's Hard Work Brownie!

Well I'll be f'ed! After giving Obama so much crap for using the words of his friend she goes and plagiarized no other than George Bush!!! Who doesn't remember him saying "hard work" "it's hard work" over and over and over? She didn't even give GWB credit.

Posted by: martiniano | February 19, 2008 11:13 PM | Report abuse

It's over.

Posted by: wangbang747 | February 19, 2008 11:11 PM | Report abuse


I hope you do not give up. Thanks to the few who commented above on how this woman has been treated by the press and the American electorate. I am of like mind and heart.

I pray that you do not let these people get you down. You are extradordinary not only in your skills, talent and dedication but also in your astonishing courage.

Posted by: arshafer | February 19, 2008 11:10 PM | Report abuse

Obama's margin over Clinton in WI is almost the same as McCain's margin over Huckabee. Remarkable.

Posted by: il | February 19, 2008 11:07 PM | Report abuse

And David M from Durham--could you point to one example of an anti-feminist comment in this discussion? I think misogyny is unacceptable, but have heard the charge from several HRC supporters without stating specifics.

Posted by: gmc177 | February 19, 2008 11:04 PM | Report abuse

counslr523 - Obama is being rude by holding a stump speech on the night of his victory? HRC & BA have had many, many a time to catch America's ear--debates, speeches, media appearances, etc. My guess is that people are aware of her candidacy and if they want to tune in to her they will.

chriszick - I agree with you that for some, a McCain v Obama general election is a win-win. McCain's big issue as a senator has been changing the way officials are elected, and Obama's is changing the way government is run.

Posted by: gmc177 | February 19, 2008 11:03 PM | Report abuse

We're all talking about Clinton here, as if she really matters. Did anyone happen to watch a few minutes of McCain's speech? Poor guy needs to steal few lines from someone else, the guy's getting closer to the grave every day. I'm afraid the Obama McCain matchup is going to be a non event. Obama will win hands down.

Posted by: nate | February 19, 2008 11:02 PM | Report abuse

"I propose a campaign to donate $25 each to Obama for every cheap shot the Clinton campaign invents in the coming weeks. Let her pay for the insults to our intelligence. Good riddance to Bill and now Hillary.

Posted by: fjwas | February 19, 2008 10:37 PM

FJWAS, I think you will end up bumping into the $2300 limit !! Bill and Hillary have no limits to their dirty tricks.

Posted by: bogbug | February 19, 2008 11:01 PM | Report abuse

I have been thinking of who would be best for President,Obama or Hillary? Yes, we know Obama does not have the years of experience in politics, like Hillary does. But does a President needs x amount of years in politics to be a good President ? look at the mess we are in with Iraq ? Presiden Bush have xx years of experience ? and Hillary, she remainds me all bad things that we do not want to have at the White House.....I would have loved the opportunity to vote for a women, too bad she is the wrong woman.

Posted by: Anabellramirez | February 19, 2008 11:00 PM | Report abuse

The Clinton campaign continues to dig its own grave. I never thought I would feel so antagonistic towards them. I still like her, but this campaign is a complete dysfunctional failure. What an embarrassment! They can't even find someone who appears credible to speak for her. Lanny Davis! What a beady-eyed reptile! Everyone who speaks on her behalf ends up looking or sounding disingenuous at best. The need to start finding a graceful exit, but, judging by their usual lack of tact, this is going to turn into one ugly chapter in American politics.

Posted by: TeddyRoosevelt | February 19, 2008 10:56 PM | Report abuse

In the Baby Boomer "Politics Of Narcissism", Hillary was never going to outdraw the Barack Obama Superstar movie. Obama's campaign is a rock concert, a festival, a Chautauqua revival, it's the Newport Folk Festival - before Dylan went electric.

Barack looks young, healthy, fit, vital, sexy, he does not look like a middle aged frump nor does he remind most of his audience that they too are frumpy middle aged boomers - just like Hillary. They see in Obama what they want to see - themselves 15 years ago. Hillary looks like they fear themselves to be - aging, sagging, serious, their worst nightmare: Their Parents.

Hillary looks exactly like the worst king hell bummer brown acid trip they ever took - she is the brown acid! Hillary looks and sounds exactly like half the moms the Protest Kids swore they'd never become, she's an Adult. And she committed the worst of sins - she voted like an adult - to go to war in Iraq, and she does what adults do - she defended her vote.

Obama has that quality so cherished by Boomers, he has that air of innocence and purity, he's not of the establishment, he's not tainted by "experience". How many boomers out there were turned down for their first big job for lack of "experience"? It's dirty word. Every time Hillary touts her eight years in the White House, she sullies herself with "experience".

She's like Peggy Lee running against Marvin Gaye. Boomers look at her and think, "Is that all there is?", and then turn to Obama for sexual healing. It's a feel good 'thang' and Hillary is never ever going to be able to come across for the generation Born To Be Shallow. Bill may have been the "first black president", but little miss Wonder Bread from Park Ridge, Illinois is about a white as they come.

Imbued from birth with that very special Methodist holier-than-everybody hauteur, Hillary has about as much charisma as rice pudding, something a bit less than especially attractive to a voting block of liberal baby boomers who deeply desire, above all, to be attractive, almost as much as they desire to be "liked". And with Obama, well, the world will simply swoon to be in his company and Everybody In The Whole Wide World, will be putty in his popular hands and boomers - with renewed popularity - can safely go off on vacations to Provence and be LIKED!

Hillary is toast. Substance, in this race, is her undoing.

Posted by: China_Rider | February 19, 2008 10:55 PM | Report abuse

mark in austin writes
"I do not understand any message to be conveyed by "defiant" without an implied object of authority to "defy".
Perhaps you meant that BHO's victory streak makes him an authority figure?"

Mark, the authority in the face of which Sen Clinton shows defiance is that figure known as 'reality'.

Much like when she says "electing a woman would be change too", she demonstrates that she doesn't understand what is going on around her.

Posted by: bsimon | February 19, 2008 10:53 PM | Report abuse

Some of these comments are a real wake-up call as to the extraordinary level of anti-feminist fervor raging among readers of The Washington Post today.

Washington Post readers are first in foreign policy, first in domestic issues and last in the League of Women's Equality.

All of this helps us to realize just how great the journalistic legacy of Katherine Graham really was!

David P. McKnight
Durham, N.C.

Posted by: Proctor2 | February 19, 2008 10:50 PM | Report abuse

Clinton talks about HARD WORK. hmmm...that sounds familiar. Oh, yeah. That's Dubya's favorite line. PLAGIARISM!!!!

Posted by: joy2 | February 19, 2008 10:49 PM | Report abuse

Clinton definitely has no grace in defeat. Let her campaign continue to get nasty. She'll either stop Obama, or make him much stronger. It is far from over.

Posted by: Absolute_0-K | February 19, 2008 10:49 PM | Report abuse

"oh, but it will be me." First she showed us how conceited she is. The she proved how much in denial she is. Now she shows what a poor sport she is. After days of saying how important the voters in WI are she acts like the primary didn't even happen. Now she's doing the same in OH and I hope the voters reject the 'inevitable' candidate once again.

Posted by: mjashworth | February 19, 2008 10:47 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is DONE put a fork in her....Her only hope now is the Super Delegates....Her negatives are up in the mid-fifties...

Posted by: charko825 | February 19, 2008 10:46 PM | Report abuse

"First it was hope, then it was change, then the latest was words," McIntee said, ridiculing Obama's campaign themes, warning that "more and more will come out" about the Illinois senator in the days ahead. At the same moment, networks were calling the Wisconsin primary for Obama.

Are you kidding me? Please, dear God, pull the plug on Hillary Clinton and the likes of Gerry McIntee. AFSCME, are you proud of Gerry right now?

Posted by: johnsonc2 | February 19, 2008 10:45 PM | Report abuse

You know, as a young voter, I think it's hysterical how the boomers criticized us for years for being apathetic, being a voting group that wasn't worth courting because we wouldn't turn out, and finally someone listens to us, appeals to us, and we're incredibly involved and dedicated, proving wrong the entire "apathetic-gen Y" stereotype. The response from boomers--some combination of "they're naive, I can't wait until they get beat down" (so much for encouraging us to vote) and "they're zealots! watch out!" (likely because their own generation has created a series of presidents and candidates that, if their legacy were memorialized on the Mall in DC, it would occupy the space of a tin can.)

Seriously, you guys put up a bunch of losers, and we stay home, and you say, "you can't do that, voting is a privilege! don't be disrespectful. eat your veggies. etc." Finally, we find someone who makes us excited about the american political process, and you say "stay home, naive mooners!"

And you wonder why we're all more impressed with our grandparents that with you.

Posted by: crt12 | February 19, 2008 10:43 PM | Report abuse

The denial fest is in full swing now. Another big loss, another speach pretending it did not happen. If Hillary looses another 5 in a row, she'll have Obama just where she wants him!

Posted by: gmundenat | February 19, 2008 10:41 PM | Report abuse

I hope that the short-term pleasure people seem to be getting in trashing Senator Clinton sustains them through another 8 years of incompetent executive government.

The treatment this woman has gotten from the media is a travesty. The treatment she gets from the American electorate is beyond shameful. I thought I was through hearing such hateful, mean-spirited things when I left middle school. Where this level of hatred comes from is an utter mystery to me. I suspect that the threat she poses to the status quo (no, in spite of what people keep asserting, a woman with her tenacity is NOT representative of the status quo) is terrifying and inarticulable for most, and so people resort to drawing caricatures of her and marketing degrading toys bearing her likeness.

The way this election has been handled is indeed a mess, most of which is the fault of the DNC. But calling Hillary a witch won't change the rules in Florida and Michigan. It won't do anything other than fuel the flames of hatred which so many Obama supporters claim they find abhorrent.

We have no idea what we're about to do: WE KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THIS MAN. We know even less about the people he's got behind the curtain.

I can only pray at this point that the media steps up its criticisms of Sen. Obama. The aim of their vitriol is our last hope for responsible, competent government in the coming years.

May God have mercy on us.

Posted by: VegetablesPlease | February 19, 2008 10:41 PM | Report abuse

I wonder how all the voters who DID vote for Clinton feel about the lack of thanks or even acknowledgment for turning out for her in these primaries. This is your candidate. In race after race she has not even mentioned your dedication to her campaign.

Where are the Clintonites from Wisconsin, Virginia, etc? Do you still love her? She doesn't seem to care about you.

Posted by: lance_monotone | February 19, 2008 10:40 PM | Report abuse

So Hillary, how about that speech you gave at the Jefferson Jackson dinner in VA? Sounded a whole lot like one Jimmy Carter gave in 1976. So we've got plagarism AND hypocrasy with Senator Clinton? Sounds like Presidential material if you ask me. If the Democrats nominate her, they'll be tossing McCain a slow, hanging curve ball. And if that happens, they deserve what they get...another narrow electoral college loss.

Posted by: shabistari | February 19, 2008 10:40 PM | Report abuse

I'm not a big fan of HRC but even I have to admit that the media is treating this race really oddly. Now that Obama's the front runner, you'd think he'd be getting more scrutiny. For example, I find the Rezko thing really odd and, if it were anybody else, you know the media would have dug up every detail. Look what the media did with Whitewater and there was no "there" there.

Posted by: anon99 | February 19, 2008 10:38 PM | Report abuse

Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that during his press interviews, Howling Wolf, aka Howard Wolfson, the Clinton campaign communications director, mentions Obama's name MORE than he mentions HilLIARy's name. Check him out.

Posted by: valskeet | February 19, 2008 10:38 PM | Report abuse

No congratulations to Obama? What a graceless, selfish, out of touch (add your own adjective), unhappy lady. She's losing all respect. If she carries this on, someone should run against her in the next New York primary.

I propose a campaign to donate $25 each to Obama for every cheap shot the Clinton campaign invents in the coming weeks. Let her pay for the insults to our intelligence.

Good riddance to Bill and now Hillary.

Posted by: fjwas | February 19, 2008 10:37 PM | Report abuse

excuse me, but obama let her go first with her speech, then when she didn't show the courtesy of acknowledging his win, and used to occasion to trash him, they decided to go ahead. she is a bad sport. they gave her a chance...again. and she did not rise to it.

Posted by: hcclement | February 19, 2008 10:36 PM | Report abuse

The failure to acknowledge Wisconsin results and thank her supporters there is particularly galling because she put up such a hard fight there.

But her complete self-absorption also bodes ill for the Democratic Party, if someone (Gore? Edwards? Richardson? Pelosi? Or better yet, someone already committed to her?) doesn't send her campaign a forceful message that her assaults on Obama are not helping her and are now posing a serious risk to the Democratic Party's prospects in the Fall. He is now the clear frontrunner in every respect. Her chances of winning are slim and shrinking. She can and should continue to fight, but not by an all-out negative attack on the likely Democratic candidate for president. This is a moment when the super delegates can play a very important role in protecting the best interests of the party, by telling her in no uncertain terms that if she goes too far with her attacks she will only ensure her defeat, as they move over to him sooner, rather than later.

Posted by: lostintranslation | February 19, 2008 10:36 PM | Report abuse

Hillary-you have lost. If you want to stay in the race through Texas and Ohio, even Pennsylvania, fine. But do not pour gas on the foundation and burn the building down on the way out.You could still have enough reputation to run again or hang around and be a respected elder stateswoman in the party and the country.Don't go crazy and do something rash that will forever tarnish your image.It's too bad the loyalists in your inner circle don't have the courage to tell you this.It's becoming pretty evident to the general public.I guess you are too close to see it.The old saying is you can't see the forest for the trees(sorry, I don't know who first said it).

Posted by: majorteddy | February 19, 2008 10:35 PM | Report abuse

The revelations will continue to come out about how truly empty of a suit Obama is. I really pity those who are blinded by him, and am pleased that I am not one of them. Just too smart for that. If the revelation doesn't come in time for him to NOT be anointed, it's irrelevant. By the time the Republicans get through with him he'll only be a shell of his former shell self! Now THIS will be fun to watch! Thank you, Democratic primary voters! (you should have gone to church instead for your divine inspiration).

Posted by: amadeus56 | February 19, 2008 10:35 PM | Report abuse

I'm going to enjoy watching Obama get swiftboated to oblivion this fall.

Heck, they may not be able to keep the lid on everything until September.

It's going to be fun to watch a whole new generation of naive youngsters get a rude awakening, courtesy Republicans.


Posted by: ralphdaugherty | February 19, 2008 10:34 PM | Report abuse

so HRC says that caucuses really aren't for her and favor a particular segment of voters explaining why she has lost them. Looks like primaries aren't her thing either since she keeps losing them too.

Trying to nit-pick Barack on a few words spoken by one of his campaign chairs when you haven't come clean yourself HRC and released your tax returns, apologized for leading this country and the world down this disastrous road in Iraq shows some very serious lapses in judgement.

Posted by: sconradweesner | February 19, 2008 10:29 PM | Report abuse

So Hillary ignores any event that she doesn't like, apparently. Nine losses in a row, and she doesn't even make the traditional phone call once. She doesn't even MENTION the elections that she lost! I guess those states are dead to her. That'll teach you, Wisconsin!

I wonder, is this the approach recommended to her by her advisers? Or is it just how she reacts to setbacks? Is this how she would deal with adversity in office - close her eyes and pretend it doesn't exist?

This sort of poor behavior is a disservice to her candidacy and her party.

Posted by: PMaranci | February 19, 2008 10:29 PM | Report abuse

Typical rude move by Obama..cutting into to Hillary's speech tonight. The guy has no class. If he is my party's nominee, I am voting republican for the first time in my life and will actively campaign for McCain. The guy is a pretentious disengenuous loser..and I for one am not looking forward to going back to the tax rates of the 70's with Obama. I won't be pro McCain so much as ANTI Obama. Keep drinking the kool aid people.

Posted by: deminFLA | February 19, 2008 10:27 PM | Report abuse

The authority she's in defiance of at this point in time is the collective will of "We, The People" - the ultimate (though long somnolent) authority in this government of ours.

Posted by: miraclestudies | February 19, 2008 10:27 PM | Report abuse

Buh Bye Billary. Don't let the door hit you in the a$$ on your way out.

Posted by: waterfrontproperty | February 19, 2008 10:26 PM | Report abuse

Please don't quit yet, Sen. Clinton. A good fight will keep interest in the Democratic primary and keep exciting voters and volunteers. It will keep the media focus on the Democratic race and keep people talking with excitement about Sen. Obama.

I think the right wing radio talk show hosts are going to appear much more out of the political mainstream when their nasty tone and divisiveness is heard within the context of Sen. Obama's community organizing approach of let's work together on solving our civic problems.

Posted by: Instructor5 | February 19, 2008 10:25 PM | Report abuse

In your opinion is Hillary Clinton finished?


Posted by: jeffboste | February 19, 2008 10:25 PM | Report abuse

Defeat reveals character, and as many posters have noted, it's not showing Clinton in a flattering light.

Posted by: lydgate | February 19, 2008 10:24 PM | Report abuse

Hillary "The Quicksand Kid' Clinton.

Posted by: robertell | February 19, 2008 10:23 PM | Report abuse

Let's face reality. Obama has won 9 primaries in a row, by large margins. That's called momentum. That's called being the front runner. That's almost called having it all sewn up. Clnton could never imagine not having it all sewn up after Feb 5th. She had no plan. Nothing on the ground in Texas. No plan to get delegates registered in PA. She still can't believe it. Hilary! This isn't about you!

Congratulations to Obama for a masterful campaign, superb organization on the ground, for energizing the party and bringing in millions of new voters. It's time for Hilary to graciously throw her support being Obama and get ready to send the 100 year war Republicans into the political wilderness for a generation.
Stop the Drama! Vote Obama!!

Posted by: thebobbob | February 19, 2008 10:23 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters have been sounding alot like the typical Rush republican. I'll vote for Obama if he ends up winning the nomination because I care about the issues more than a candidate but if McCain beats him, I don't think I'll feel so bad about it.

Posted by: chriszick | February 19, 2008 10:22 PM | Report abuse

Sadly, Ms. Clinton is acting like a spoiled child; she shows she would not be fit to be president. Her inability to admit her errors in judgement mirror GW Bush and his egotism--neither of them are able to show maturity and admit when they are wrong. Ms. Clinton refused to admit her mistake, when Mr. Blitzer asked her during the CNN "debate" if she had made a mistake by not making Bush get Congressional approval before going to war in Iraq and continuing that war, when she voted for Bush's war policies. She just went on and on, not dealing with her mistake and just admitting that she had made a mistake (unless she is double dealing by criticizing Bush publicly while actually agreeing with his policies!)

In any case, it is time she realized that we all know that though she is a woman, she's part of the "old boy's club" in congress, and that she is driven more by her ego and her need for victory than by her concern for the American people or for necessary changes that will possibly save what is left of our democracy in America.

If she and Bill are able to "steal" this nomination, it will be the end of the Democratic Party because many of us will sit out the election because neither candidate will do for our country, or for the world. She would be a disaster if she became president, because she has no sense of negotiation, no sense of humility or honesty--like her husband, it has always been about herself, just as his world was always about himself.

Professor Sam Hamod, Ph.D.

Posted by: samhamod | February 19, 2008 10:22 PM | Report abuse

I am somewhat concerned that the fairly well substantiated charges of plagiarism against Obama will gain traction as they become better known. It more and more appears that Hillary's charges of all rhetoric and no substance have merit. This cannot help the Democrat Party.

The fact that Obama would unabashedly plagiarize without attribution the words and ideas of others causes me to question his judgment. I think his inexperience and naivety are bleeding through. I wonder if there is anything real about the man? I'm about ready to place him in the "empty-suit" category.

At first, I had such high hopes for Obama but am now very disappointed in him.

Posted by: miezer | February 19, 2008 10:19 PM | Report abuse

I can't believe it this. It is horrible for us not to congratulate her opponent. What does she think she is? Sort of God or what? That is very unsportman. She needs better advisors. So does she expect expect Obama to congratulate her if she wins. I'm pissed. That is not democracy she is practising. Oh damn! I've got to change my vote in Ohio if she is going to go about it like this.

Posted by: natboso | February 19, 2008 10:18 PM | Report abuse

major address--perhaps choosing chelsea as running mate? Listen to Obama right now, Hillary he is singing your obituary.

Posted by: merganser | February 19, 2008 10:14 PM | Report abuse

It pains me to say this... I loved Bill. I do. Before Obama ran, I thought HRC was a good choice. But now, the acts of desperation, the meanness, the purposeful ignorance are exact replicas of the current Bush administration.
Plagiarism? No one said a thing when Republicans quote the Bible. I can only wish HRC will step a side. But knowing how it is... defiance will be the nice way of saying it.

Posted by: dL01 | February 19, 2008 10:13 PM | Report abuse

I really think HRC is sunk at this point. Anybody who doesn't is just plain deluded from their wistfulness over the relatively peaceful time and decent economy that her (constitutionally termed out of office) husband presided over ten years ago. The Clintons have had their time in the White House, and it seems pretty obvious that the voters are ready for somebody with a better message for the 21st century.

Posted by: shepherc | February 19, 2008 10:13 PM | Report abuse



and I suspect, the next president....Barack Obama vs. John McCain?

Obama will win

Obama is the next president

Posted by: kevinlarmee | February 19, 2008 10:13 PM | Report abuse

I'll try to paraphrase the HRC "concession" speech.

"I'll see you in Texas and Ohio. I'll get you, my pretty! And your little dog, too!!!"

Posted by: steveboyington | February 19, 2008 10:12 PM | Report abuse

this increasingly unpleasant part of the primary process is almost over, I hope. I have lost all respect for the clintons and look forward to the day when they accept defeat and stop the destructive and divisive attacks they are promulgating. enough already with them setting the dialogue agenda.

Posted by: hcclement | February 19, 2008 10:11 PM | Report abuse

The authority she's defying is Reality: the reality that her she will not win the nomination.

Posted by: il | February 19, 2008 10:11 PM | Report abuse

Obama "Bin Laden" is the best thing that ever happened to the Republican Party

Posted by: edhaynsworth | February 19, 2008 10:10 PM | Report abuse

Denial. It isn't just a river in Egypt.

I used to want to HRC to drop out. Now I hope she stays in to the Convention. I don't know where I'd find a replacement for the entertainment of watching her basically lose it on the public stage.

George Bush isn't this self-delusional or out of touch, and that's going a fur piece.

Posted by: gbooksdc | February 19, 2008 10:08 PM | Report abuse

Is she defying the voters? What does "defiant" mean in this context?

Perhaps you meant to use:


These words all mean something in this context, but convey different messages. I do not understand any message to be conveyed by "defiant" without an implied object of authority to "defy".
Perhaps you meant that BHO's victory streak makes him an authority figure?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 19, 2008 10:07 PM | Report abuse

I'm no huge Obama fan but watching him stomp a mudhole in her and Bill's backside absolutely delights me. She flat out sucks. She's losing because people don't like her and McCain would smash her in the general election.

Posted by: fred100012003 | February 19, 2008 10:06 PM | Report abuse

That's the way to do it Hillary and Bill. Keep ignoring reality and maybe no one will notice that you have now lost 22 contested state primaries/caucuses plus Washington DC and the Virgin Islands. In case you haven't noticed, I believe people are starting to tune you out. Oh well, with a little luck tonight, Senator Obama may well add Hawaii to his list of victories giving him 23 states plus DC and the Virgin Islands.

Posted by: NewEra | February 19, 2008 10:06 PM | Report abuse

She's dead in the water...and doesn't even know it yet. Truly pathetic to see personal ambition thwarting everything she proclaims to espouse.

Posted by: MAKUBO | February 19, 2008 10:04 PM | Report abuse

Adios Hillary. Looking forward to having Obama as our candidate for 2008. Change is good.

Posted by: wideblacksky | February 19, 2008 10:03 PM | Report abuse

Hillary talks about 'facing republican opposition' but the only real knock-down drag-out fights she's had with them have been over personal issues, not political ones. What kind of fight did she put up against the Iraq war? What kind of fight did she put up against the Patriot Act?

Posted by: ojordan3 | February 19, 2008 10:02 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton has gotten good at "cutting and running" after defeat; she certainly had enough practice lately. She still has yet to acknowledge the loss or perfunctorily congratulate Obama. Poor form, poor sport, poor politician.

Posted by: meldupree | February 19, 2008 10:00 PM | Report abuse

My home state can be puzzling. One time they vote for George Wallace, the next for Obama.

Go figure.

Posted by: rrau22 | February 19, 2008 9:58 PM | Report abuse

Anybody else notice how desolate and depressing Hillary's post-WI speech setting was? Crying babies, a dark hall. Even late applause after she dissed Obama for his "speeches."

Posted by: parkerfl | February 19, 2008 9:52 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company