Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Clinton Makes a Play for Wisconsin

Updated 12:52 a.m.
By Anne E. Kornblut
Hillary Clinton's strategists have staked their bets on Texas and Ohio, but she is also now making a play for Wisconsin in hopes of scoring at least one more victory this month. Wisconsin has its contest on Feb. 19, the same day as Hawaii (Sen. Barack Obama's childhood home).

Even though Wisconsin shares some qualities with states that went for Obama (such as Washington state, which, like Wisconsin, has a progressive Democratic electorate), it also has a rural manufacturing population and downscale voters of the kind that Clinton has said will be her base.

Clinton travels there Saturday and will campaign in Wisconsin through Tuesday, according to a schedule issued by the campaign.

By Web Politics Editor  |  February 12, 2008; 11:01 PM ET
Categories:  B_Blog , Hillary Rodham Clinton , Primaries , The Democrats  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Clinton Reshuffles Online Team
Next: Obama Team Touts Delegate Lead

Comments

zrhvcu kqlc umwjtil jraud
http://ratetiti.fcpages.com/effexor-725-mg-daily.html effexor 725 mg daily

Posted by: effexor 725 mg daily | August 21, 2008 2:01 AM | Report abuse

ylnbzcx jgnrh wxdl yxdmvt
http://ratetiti.fcpages.com/seroquel-side-effects-in-children.html seroquel side effects in children

Posted by: seroquel side effects in children | August 21, 2008 1:10 AM | Report abuse

ylnbzcx jgnrh wxdl yxdmvt
http://ratetiti.fcpages.com/seroquel-side-effects-in-children.html seroquel side effects in children

Posted by: seroquel side effects in children | August 21, 2008 1:10 AM | Report abuse

ayqxmp joipt joizv
http://thebunio1.exactpages.com/is-effexor-a-ssri.html is effexor a ssri

Posted by: is effexor a ssri | August 18, 2008 5:52 AM | Report abuse

ujlektm watjc yxit
http://loangov.envy.nu/risperdal-invega.html risperdal invega

Posted by: risperdal invega | August 17, 2008 9:45 PM | Report abuse

ifxuhj nufho
http://loangov.envy.nu/drugs-similar-to-zyprexa.html drugs similar to zyprexa

Posted by: drugs similar to zyprexa | August 17, 2008 9:00 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: rogaine facts | August 17, 2008 7:37 PM | Report abuse

ezvmgr ovwn kvcgn
http://knotlyri.lookseekpages.com/wellbutrin-sr-and-side-effects-duration.html wellbutrin sr and side effects duration

Posted by: wellbutrin sr and side effects duration | August 17, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: buspar alcohol | August 16, 2008 6:58 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: buspar alcohol | August 16, 2008 6:57 PM | Report abuse

avtsciw
http://sandiego1.jvl.com/cymbalta-and-pain-management.html cymbalta and pain management

Posted by: cymbalta and pain management | August 16, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: queen levitra | August 16, 2008 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: queen levitra | August 16, 2008 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: quitting effexor cold turkey | August 15, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: quitting effexor cold turkey | August 15, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

rihnt cpui kiwdycb ezsfkw
http://imnipiteh.150m.com/give-dog-prozac.html give dog prozac

Posted by: give dog prozac | August 15, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

rihnt cpui kiwdycb ezsfkw
http://imnipiteh.150m.com/give-dog-prozac.html give dog prozac

Posted by: give dog prozac | August 15, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: effectiveness propecia | May 11, 2008 9:38 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: effectiveness propecia | May 11, 2008 9:38 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: optimum propecia dosage | May 11, 2008 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: optimum propecia dosage | May 11, 2008 3:07 PM | Report abuse

nhxqdky tunsy ysow
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4600 buy ultram without prescription

Posted by: buy ultram without prescription | May 11, 2008 10:58 AM | Report abuse

nhxqdky tunsy ysow
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4600 buy ultram without prescription

Posted by: buy ultram without prescription | May 11, 2008 10:58 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: 100 er ultram | May 11, 2008 10:18 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: 100 er ultram | May 11, 2008 10:17 AM | Report abuse

cwjdbn qxrfmpn ejsdiz
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4571 is ultram addictive

Posted by: is ultram addictive | May 11, 2008 7:38 AM | Report abuse

cwjdbn qxrfmpn ejsdiz
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4571 is ultram addictive

Posted by: is ultram addictive | May 11, 2008 7:37 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: 100mg er ultram | May 11, 2008 5:28 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: 50 mg tablet ultram | May 10, 2008 6:36 PM | Report abuse

latcks ldyjos lqwcymbn kqfbtn ujfd bqjm whpyx http://www.xvqu.sjtpob.com

Posted by: fqjhbu yewzad | April 16, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

ghepfl rajhwuk ekjtzvcx hwobnij sugyktveh rmilzdwx jbet

Posted by: ivhnsygw prxhblgew | April 16, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

ghepfl rajhwuk ekjtzvcx hwobnij sugyktveh rmilzdwx jbet

Posted by: ivhnsygw prxhblgew | April 16, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

ivor727 shake off the stockholm syndrome and take a walk. also, in what world is there any comparison between george w bush and obama ? flat out absurd. people, this nation faces many challenges; someone who can connect to and inspire people-and has the ability to see the landscape of things is integral. to those who tout HRC's efficiency, experience and ability to bring solutions, her own campaign undermines that argument(even with her institutional advantages).
i really don't understand why any american can believe an illegal, dynastic, co-presidency and is a good idea for the country in the short or long term.

Posted by: jacade | February 15, 2008 3:51 AM | Report abuse

In the LA debate, Sen. Obama stated, "We've got a trillion dollars worth of corporate tax loopholes and tax havens, and I've said I will close those." This was in response to a question about how he would fund his health care plan. Actually, the Treasury Dept. July estimate shows that eliminating EVERY major corporate tax preference on the books would yield $1.2 trillion--but over a 10-YEAR PERIOD. Oops! In addition, some of the largest tax credits help individuals, such as the one to encorage low-income housing. Is THAT a tax credit Sen. Obama wants to get rid of?

In the same debate, Sen. Obama also said, "The mortgage lending industry spent $185 million-105-80-$185 million lobbying to prevent provisions that go against predatory lending, for example, that I introduced." He got these figures from a report by Common Cause, but made a slight misstatement--again. The Common Cause report said that the mortgage lending industry spent $187 million lobbying Washington BETWEEN 1999 AND THE END OF 2006. Obama wasn't even IN Congress until 2005, and he--and Sen. Dick Durbin--didn't INTRODUCE their bill about the subprime mortgage problem until APRIL 2007. Rhetoric is good, but so is being able to get your facts straight.

Posted by: oxford_ruth | February 15, 2008 1:16 AM | Report abuse

I'm in Texas, and you could not pay me to vote for Obama. Hillary Clinton 2008! Obama is full of hot air, talks, and talks, and talks. She has laid out concrete plans, which equals clear changes. He has offered a hope for change, but did not make any promises because he probably can't deliver any real substantial change. If he could, everyone would have health insurance. Of course he calls his universal, so apparently he writes his own definitions. Give me a break. All of his Obamabots are so negative too, all of the negative postings, what happened to change and hope and inspiration. If he inspires that kind of negativity, who needs him? I can't wait to see him grilled like a cheeseburger at the debate. Go Hillary 2008! :)

Posted by: Fobamaman | February 14, 2008 9:10 PM | Report abuse

Losses 9 and 10 in a row coming soon in Wisconsin and Hawaii. Before the votes are even counted, she'll be in Texas pretending it did not happen. But Hillary, PLEASE, no more Great Leader Poses during your stump speach! You are short and chubby, like many of us. Perhaps if you stopped trying to hide who you are, you would not look so phony.

Posted by: gmundenat | February 14, 2008 7:28 PM | Report abuse

Hillary will lose Wisconsin and Hawaii. Before the votes are counted, she'll be in Texas pretending it did not happen. Same as before. But Hillary, PLEASE, enough with the Great Leader Pose during your stump speach! You are short and chubby, just like many of us. Perhaps if you quit trying to hide who you are, you wold not look so phony.

Posted by: gmundenat | February 14, 2008 7:24 PM | Report abuse

Hillary will lose Wisconsin and Hawaii. Before the votes are counted, she'll be in Texas pretending it did not happen. Same as before. But Hillary, PLEASE, enough with the Great Leader Pose during you stump speach! You are short and chubby, just like many of us. Perhaps if you quit trying to hide who you are, you wold not look so phony.

Posted by: gmundenat | February 14, 2008 7:24 PM | Report abuse

Hillary will lose Wisconsin and Hawaii. Before the votes are counted, she'll be in Texas pretending it did not happen. Same as before. But Hillary, PLEASE, enough with the Great Leader Pose during your stump speach! You are short and chubby, just like many of us. Perhaps if you quit trying to hide who you are, you would not look so phony.

Posted by: gmundenat | February 14, 2008 7:24 PM | Report abuse

I'm a clear Clinton suporter, but I found the comments of ermias.kifle despicable. If you are a Clinton supporter, we dont want you. If you are a Republican and in any way representative of the people who will vote that way come November, then may the Lord Jesus Christ help us all.

Posted by: anthonyrimell | February 14, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

No to Islam !!!
Muslim Candidate
If Obama win woman cover their hair in America!!!

Posted by: ermias.kifle | February 14, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

All this soap opera drama: Will Hillary go on to add Wisconsin to her list of conquests, or won't she? Now, for the moment at least, it seems she will. The guys running her campaign aren't 100% of this mind, but of course it's the candidate's call and Hillary apparently has weighed in.

Of course it's nice to have sewn up Texas beforehand during her travels along the Rio Grande.

Posted by: FirstMouse | February 14, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse

Obama's supporters don't think he's a politician, that he's somehow above playing politics. If they would think about it, they would see that he's a very good politician. None of them think it's interesting that he wrote his first book about his African father in 1995, but he started researching his mother's family from Kansas during a presidential election race? Of course, Kenyans can't vote, but the people in Kansas are pleased as punch that he's finally looking in their direction. After all, his mother's family was the one that raised him, so it's only natural for him to want to know about them.
And none of his supporters--who talk about how he brings a "freshness" to the political process--seem to mind that MANY of former Pres. Clinton's staff are working for him. Or that one of his biggest supporters is the largest nuclear power company in the US, which is one BIG reason he supports nuclear power as an alternative energy source. No, he's not influenced by money. By the way, he makes much of the prejudice he's faced in his life. Let's see, he went to a private school in Hawaii, went to Columbia (transferred as a junior), went to Harvard and was voted the 1st black editor of the Harvard Law Review, worked as a community activist for 3 long years, then went into politics and is now running for president. Sounds difficult. I guess if you teach lower income students like I do, experiences dealing with prejudice are relative.

Posted by: oxford_ruth | February 14, 2008 9:30 AM | Report abuse

WOW--so much to say--I think to say that Obama is the nominee is absurd r that he will win McCain. I am for Senator Clinton. Question for the Obama supporters. Have you ever in viewing politics seen someone so sheltered from the vetting process? Do you think for one New York minute that someone pushes through the offices held, especially in Chicago, without playing "old Washington Politics"--Get a grip--this guy is one of the absolutely most deceiving, conniving politicians I have ever watched. To run a platform on how he was against the war is absurd---hell I was against the war---but guess what they did not invite him nor me to cast a vote for it--not to mention be privy to information. McCain will win in November and I do not know which one of you should stay home in November because I will cancel out your vote---I guess that kinda feels like what Obama is advocating to do the millions+ of Americans in Michigan and Florida... Have a good day--this guy cannot influence change--that is a lobbyist job--which by the way if you read the constitution is an American right.

Posted by: kaef12001 | February 14, 2008 8:08 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton: The name, the gopher face with those puffy cheeks, and the shrill of her voice.

Just shoot me now!

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 14, 2008 6:47 AM | Report abuse

Now, if people will take a little time and actually check Obama's voting record before going all weak in the knees. He alwaystalks about his opposition to the war in Iraq, but his voting record AS A SENATOR, they would see that his record is almost identical with Clinton's. He did, however, vote in favor of the bill to curtail the right to bring class action lawsuits and, true to form, skipped the vote on censoring Alberto Gonzales and the amendment to the Patriot Act to ensure greater civil liberties and mandate the treatment and detention of captured terrorists of the 9/11 commission. He's also praised himself for passing a nuclear energy bill which did not, in fact, pass the Senate, and which he revised to satisfy one of his largest contributors, Excelon Corp., the largest nuclear energy company in the country. He has quite a few of their employees on his staff. Oh, Obama, it's politics as usual. Only the rhetoric is different (but not much).

Posted by: oxford_ruth | February 14, 2008 3:11 AM | Report abuse

Ive been thinking about Senator Clinton's supporters who braced bad weather and showed support for her in the Potomac primary.

Why couldn't she at least acknowledge their efforts? Does that mean their support for her does not count because she didn't win the states?

I wonder how that looks for the rest of her supporters in states that haven't held primaries. Are You okay with that? Is it for the greater Good?

One thing im sure of is this: A strong General always makes sure Their ground troops are well fed and in high spirits that way when the time for battle comes they are unflinching in support of their leader.

I for one know i wouldn't like working for a boss who always made me feel like my contributions didn't matter......... sound familiar?

This is a competition For the LEADER of the free world......I for one see a contender lacking in leadership skills......

Now i understand what the frenzy around Senator Obama is....and it tells good for the future of America and the world.

Happy voting

Posted by: election_watch | February 14, 2008 12:37 AM | Report abuse

Clinton could be the first woman VP.

Posted by: omarkhyam1951 | February 14, 2008 12:34 AM | Report abuse

I'm from Texas, an independent voter, and an Obama supporter to date; Dems need to wake-up if we want to win the election in 08. Hillary is viscerally hated by a large portion of the electorate. This is not about particular disagreements, it's not a strong dislike, it's not about her being a woman, and it's not rational. It's a gut level, deep seeded, personal HATERED! All anyone had to do was watch coverage of the CPAC convention, and see some of the paraphernalia they were selling - it was all about Hillary and how evil she is... It was damn spooky, and we would be stupid to ignore this sentiment. To be perfectly honest - a Hillary nomination is Karl Rove's second best wet dream, and the first best is a bitter fight and possible legal battle among Democrats over the 2008 nomination. She can win the Democratic base, but she can't win over independents which will be absolutely crucial come November. (Remember people - McCain is very strong when it comes to independents)I'll be voting for Obama for several reasons - mostly to end the bitter partisanship that has overtaken our society, and to kill the emergence of an American Theocracy. A Hillary nomination can not ahieve either one of these two things.

Posted by: infan_tree | February 13, 2008 11:37 PM | Report abuse

The Democrats will lose if Hillary is the nominee. Too much dirty laundry and outmoded dirty tricks.As the Hillary campaign tries to slime Obama they only succeed in making themselves look bad. The Clinton campaign is backing the candidate that will lose it for Democrats. Big mistake.

Posted by: Marnie42 | February 13, 2008 10:47 PM | Report abuse

When will the voters realize that Hillary can easily be destroyed by the Republicans in the fall. Even McCain admits that he would find it a lot harder running against Obama whom he genuinely likes. They even embraced during the Senate vote last Monday. Hillary did not even show up for the vote.

Posted by: dunnhaupt | February 13, 2008 9:30 PM | Report abuse

Ultimately, we should only ask questions if we're willing to listen to the answers. It's our choice. We then make up our minds based on what we've found out. If people only want to listen to 15 minutes of speeches, then they'll make an intuitive decision based on how the candidates struck them, because it's just not possible to convey much in the way of specifics in that amount of time. That's fine - they'll come away with a feeling that Obama or Hillary is inspiring, etc. For those who want more specifics, they can do more research, and make a more detail-oriented decision. What we shouldn't do is blame either candidate for failing to do, in a victory speech or a debate, what never could be done in such a venue without boring 80% of the audience to tears.

Or do you two disagree? I'd be interested to know what you think.

Sincere regards,
Beren

Voters have a responsibility to judge candidates across campaign formats and reasonably assess which styles of presentation are most consistent with the requirements of a presidency. They don't need to know the ins and outs any issue themselves as much as they need to be assured that their guy/girl, Obama or Clinton, are comfortable fighting the good fight as their representative.

Which means demonstrating dexterity with the issues in the fast paced, aggressive environment over making great speeches or academic analysis of policy.

The responsibility of the candidate is not to build a mandate based on personality and
rhetoric alone that they know, or should well be aware, will be impossible to parlay into meaningful action. The only thread I can see that connects Obama voters is the desire for change, and for the more fanatical wing
the empty space that a charismatic leader plays in their life.

It's an electorate loyal not to a political cause or philosophy but fundamentally to a man and his snake oil vision of a quick fix for an extremely complex set of entrenched problems. So voters have the onus of not being taken advantage of by doing a reasonable amount of thinking about who is seasoned and competent enough for the job. But the most fundamental burden lies with the candidates not to set voters up for permanent disillusion by preying on their hopes with unrealistic expectations of easy victory.

Posted by: elayman | February 13, 2008 7:59 PM | Report abuse

beware hillary has a gang of "flying monkeys" better known as the "establishment" gang.

Posted by: LAGCII | February 13, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

starbuck1 wrote:

"The vote count in Virginia does not take into account that many vores were stuck on the roads due to a major ice storm. The statistics about voter preferences do not reflect the true votes."

Likewise, the Super Tuesday Tornado Outbreak disenfranchised many voters in TN and elsewhere.

Maybe God decided to give Obama a makeup call yesterday.

Posted by: ablackstormy | February 13, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

The vote count in Virginia does not take into account that many vores were stuck on the roads due to a major ice storm. The statistics about voter preferences do not reflect the true votes.

Posted by: starbuck1 | February 13, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

We are big on body language. And, last night spoke volumes. Obama, flew into Madison, Wisconsin,
bounded onto the stage, after the rousing victories in Virginia, Maryland and The District of Columbia. The packed house had been waiting for some time, but they didn't seem to mind. The agent for change, was worth waiting for, they figured. And, that speech gave them what they were waiting for.

Barack Obama hit a grand slam. They loaded up the bases for him, and he knocked it out of the park. Issues, you want issues, we'll give you issues. He spoke about the Economy. He spoke about Healthcare. He spoke about the security of Social Security. He spoke about "the war that never should have been authorized, never should have been waged". He spoke about the mozaic of his movement for change. He spoke about looking forward and not back. And, yes, he talked about CHANGE.

He praised John McCain, as an American hero. Then he stated their differences. But, he did it in a way that was so classy. If destiny is served, and these two meet in the contest for President of the United States of America, it will be a different kind of race than we've been used to these last few decades.

"I love you guys", he closed, as the house went mad.

Posted by: hwilfongjr | February 13, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

We are big on body language. And, last night spoke volumes. Obama, flew into Madison, Wisconsin,
bounded onto the stage, after the rousing victories in Virginia, Maryland and The District of Columbia. The packed house had been waiting for some time, but they didn't seem to mind. The agent for change, was worth waiting for, they figured. And, that speech gave them what they were waiting for.

Barack Obama hit a grand slam. They loaded up the bases for him, and he knocked it out of the park. Issues, you want issues, we'll give you issues. He spoke about the Economy. He spoke about Healthcare. He spoke about the security of Social Security. He spoke about "the war that never should have been authorized, never should have been waged". He spoke about the mozaic of his movement for change. He spoke about looking forward and not back. And, yes, he talked about CHANGE.

He praised John McCain, as an American hero. Then he stated their differences. But, he did it in a way that was so classy. If destiny is served, and these two meet in the contest for President of the United States of America, it will be a different kind of race than we've been used to these last few decades.

"I love you guys", he closed, as the house went mad.

Posted by: hwilfongjr | February 13, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Obama's pastor disses Natalee Holloway
'White girl goes off and gives it up' in Aruba, preacher pal says

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 27, 2008
6:49 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com


Sen. Barack Obama's longtime friend and spiritual adviser trashed the memory of a missing and presumed dead American teenage girl, according to church publications reviewed by WND.

Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the controversial minister of Obama's church in Chicago, cited the case of Natalee Holloway's disappearance in Aruba in complaining about what he sees as the media's bias in covering white victims of crime over black victims.

"Black women are being raped daily in Darfur, Sudan, in the Congo and in Sub-Saharan Africa. That doesn't make news," Wright said in the August 2005 edition of Trumpet Magazine, a publication of his Trinity United Church of Christ.

But, "One 18-year-old white girl from Alabama gets drunk on a graduation trip to Aruba, goes off and 'gives it up' while in a foreign country, and that stays in the news for months!" he added. "Maybe I am missing something!"

In the same 2005 church publication, Wright suggested "white America" had the 9/11 attacks coming, while calling for business "divestment from Israel," which he refers to as a "racist" state along with America.

"In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 9/11/01," he wrote on page 7. "White America and the Western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just 'disappeared,' as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring Black concerns."

Obama says he is "proud" of Wright and values their 20-year friendship.

Though Wright has nurtured Obama's political career as a close adviser and mentor, the Democrat presidential hopeful says they don't agree on everything. Wright married Obama and baptized his daughters.

In the November/December 2007 issue of Trumpet, Wright sang the praises of Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who has described whites as "blue-eyed devils" and Jews as "bloodsuckers."

"He brings a perspective that is helpful and honest," Wright said. "Minister Farrakhan will be remembered as one of the 20th and 21st century giants of the African-American religious experience."

Wright then held Farrakhan up as a pillar of "integrity."

"His integrity and honesty have secured him a place in history as one of the nation's most powerful critics," he continued. "His love for Africa and African-American people has made him an unforgettable force, a catalyst for change and a religious leader who is sincere about his faith and his purpose."

Farrakhan's photo is splashed across the cover of the church magazine, which gushes "the Minister truly epitomized greatness."

On Nov. 2, 2007, Wright presented Farrakhan with a "lifetime achievement" award during a Trumpet gala held at the Hyatt Regency Chicago. The tribute included a three-and-a-half minute video lionizing "the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan."

"For his commitment to truth, education and leadership, we honor Minister Louis Farrakhan with the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Lifetime Achievement Award," the video announces.

Last week, Obama distanced himself from Farrakhan, but did not distance himself from Wright or disavow his praise for Farrakhan

Posted by: ermias.kifle | February 13, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

We love you Barack!!!

Wisconsin for Obama!!!

Posted by: nkgilb | February 13, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Aha, I see that peacemaker74991 has played the Kenya and Indonesia card! Must be getting desperate. What's next,the lies that Obama took the oath on the Koran and studied at radical Islamic schools?

Posted by: StevefromSacto | February 13, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Senator Hillary Clinton is born as a leader, she is a woman of candor and humor and direcness who's comfortable with all the responsibility and know how to lead our great nation into the righr direction.

American dream to become the president of the United States of America is that when you get knocked down on the road, you should pick your self up and start over, she will put that into practice, I think God has something else in store, she knows that a whole lot better then second guessing her wishes.!!!!

Posted by: akber_kassam | February 13, 2008 12:34 PM | Report abuse

In response to Ellen Lawson, I would openly support another major party in our country. I find myself on many occasions leaning toward Libertarianism.

I find it funny, that those out there who believe that any faith in Sen. Obama's ability to do succeed in bringing about the change he envisions for our country, as well as those who think something is wrong with having such faith are living in a fair tale, is ludicrous. By believing that only a 3rd party can fix what ails our country, is just a weak and small minded mentality that has facilitated the mess we are in today.

There is no current 3rd party that is available to do what you think is only possible with said 3rd party.

Hey Ellen, don't be a hater. Work for the future, and leave the past mentalities alone.

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 13, 2008 12:32 PM | Report abuse

I am a democrats in WI, but there is NO way in hell I am going to Vote for black person not just a Black person, Black Muslim.

Posted by: ermias.kifle | February 13, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse

My final comment about this blog's comments so far is pertaining to the special interests thatis has been alluded that Obama does not have. It will be interesting to see what all of you on the bandwagon have to say when it becomes, too late, abundantly clear what Obama's special interests are and anyone who thinks he does not have them must be living in a fool's paradise. One more thing - he cannot unite the country because the Repubs, in whatever brance of government, will have none of it and too many are permanently placed where they can prevent his doing so. Think about it - and I DO think before I write - this is simply a passionate issue with me. I don't just listen, I hear what he doesn't say that needs saying.

Posted by: ellenlawson | February 13, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse

People are intellligent enough to see through intrigue, machinations fenagling and SPIN. I cannot understand how any candidate cannot be gracious enough to congraulate his or her opponent, who has genuinely won so many electoral battles. It says much about character. The person is wearing blinkers and blinders and living in the land of oblivion.

Who is all TALK is defnintely NOT OBSAMA.
He has shown how he can transcend age, color, gender, ethnicity, income bracket , socioeconomic status, academic status and bring the country together. We need to be HEALED of our disunity, divisions and corruption. OBAMA is a breath of fresh air, that can help in making a clean sweep. Ofcourse, there will be dificulties and hurdles, it could be the same for any one. But OBAMA has the CONVICTION and the sincerity to DO it, Others are beholden to "special interests", so their hands are tied. The country NEEDS OBAMA, NOW. Spread the word around.

Posted by: Dawson34 | February 13, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

Is this really the level of debate. Most of you seem to have not progressed emotionally beyond adolescence.

Come on guys and gals. What's next? Are you gonna hold your breath until your candidate gets elected? Or roll on the floor and cry if they don't?

How about we let the voters decide? How about we understand that typos happen and are not evil plots to undermine a candidate? How about if we use the same ruler to measure each candidate? How about we agree that people who support the other candidate from the one we support are NOT inherently dumb or evil, but have valid reasons why they have that preference and are entitled to their choice?

So I'm gonna ask you to do something that many of you don't seem to do often, think before you write.

Posted by: dclb | February 13, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse

To lafrefre - please note, we never said we would rather see a Repub win - we tend to want a viable third party candidate, not a Repub. The two Dem candidates are just more of the same like the Dem majority (ha ha) congress has been. Hillary is just, to many of us, the lesser of two evils and many of us, also, will not necessarily fall line for Obama - the thought is frightening. We are not babies - we are thinking adults.

Posted by: ellenlawson | February 13, 2008 11:23 AM | Report abuse

A couple of things:

Someone mentioned that any criticism of Obama results in howls of racism. This coming from a Clinton supporter, where the screams of sexism and woman power are the only things keeping her in the race. Silly and petty.

I admit that there is a personality cult aspect of Obama's campaign. There is also one surrounding HRC's campaign, though that personality is a dull and depressing one.

Finally, the talk of voting for Mickey Mouse or third party if Obama wins is sour grapes, and irrelevant. 95+% of Clinton supporters will vote for Obama. I'm voting for Obama because he gives us the best chance to win, plain and simple. He attracts independents, he rallies the apolitical, and most importantly, he doesn't stir up the Republican base.

Even still, if Clinton wins I will support her. Poor babies on here - don't get what they want so they'd rather see a Republican win (though it's not going to happen, with or without your support). Pathetic.

Posted by: lafrefre2000 | February 13, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

"Real issue voters will never vote for Obama, who want to invade Pakistan", said sgr_astar

Real issues voters can separate fact from fiction. People who use the GOP-Republican tactic of lying to the citizenry will find that Americans aren't buying the lies any more. Real issues voters know Obama will go into Pakistan to get terrorists only if solid intel is available and if Pakistan does not act to police it's own country. Real issues voters know it was the invasion of Iraq that Hillary Clinton and the GOP-Republicans pushed on us that is crippling America. A war based on lies which was supported by Hillary Clinton and John McCain... with experience like those two candidates, we'd better vote Obama who knew all along how Iraq would turn out... a perpetual war, a war in which terrorists are created. Iraq is a country that didn't have terrorists until after it was invaded and occupied by The United States of America. Back in 2002 when we needed experience, Hillary Clinton and John McCain let the country down by supporting the *AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002*. In a time in which most of the country was pro-invasion Obama stood almost alone in denouncing the war with Iraq.

Posted by: dionc9 | February 13, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

As a Wisconsinite and someone who was at the Obama rally last night, almost 20,000 people turned up in cold, snowy weather, I can't believe for a second that the state would go for Hillary.
I grew up "up north" and large swaths of the state are very religious conservatives, more likely to be Huckabee voters than Hillary voters. Most of the pro-Edwards people have swung towards Obama, so I think she's out of luck here, too.

Posted by: kirstin | February 13, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

Hillary was not even planning to come to Wisconsin till Sunday and then be out on Monday, but all the media hype about her conceding Wisconsin forced her to go to Wisconsin.

Posted by: ajtiger92 | February 13, 2008 11:02 AM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton can take some blame for Hillary's present campaign status. Patti Dolis can take some blame for Hillary's present campaign status. Mark Penn can take some blame for Hillary's present campaign status. But when is Hillary going to take blame for her own campaign status?!?!?!

Posted by: ajtiger92 | February 13, 2008 11:00 AM | Report abuse

To matthew.worldwide - someone on here already posted the suggestion that it will likely take a viable third party candidate to turn this country around. That is likely right on. Anyone who cannot see the forest for the trees and notice the major, significant drawbacks to an Obama presidency is not dealing with reality.

Posted by: ellenlawson | February 13, 2008 10:43 AM | Report abuse

TWO words why Hillary is NOW in this state of lagging Obama. Want to hear them?

BILL CLINTON

He screwed up her campaign right from the beginning. He did it for Al Gore 8 years ago and he *is* doing it now for his own wife. He better close his foul mouth

Posted by: danturthi | February 13, 2008 10:41 AM | Report abuse

On the topic of who will be better suited to defeat the GOP's nominee, and I think we can safely assume that will be McCain, it will be the DEM nominee that can bring the Democratic party together, increase the number of voters that will go the Democratic way, can increase the number of citizens that will participate in the election process, and bring a sense of unity to our country.

Hmmm... I wonder if any of the DEM candidates stands out more then the other.

And, let us not forget the argument about experience, and being ready on day one. Clinton and her "35 years" of experience is at best suspect. Sen. Clinton has claimed that due to her experience, she is ready to be President on day one. What really is the 35 years of experience that makes her so ready?

Would that experience include the years from 1977 to 1993, when she was helping her husband campaign, and having Chelsea? During which time when not helping Bill, she worked at one of Arkansas' largest law firms; the Rose Law Firm. While there, she represented large corporations, as well as served on the numerous corporate boards.

Would that experience also include time during her husbands two terms in the Arkansas Governors Mansion and White house? A time in which she did not hold a security clearance, was not given any of her husbands daily intelligence briefing, nor did she attend any of the National Security Council meetings. (Dec. 26 New York Times)

Clinton did work for the Children's Defense Fund, yet did so for less then a year. That is the extent of, and only, full-time job in the nonprofit sector that she has ever had. Oh yea, she also spent a brief moment as a law professor.

She has been an elected official for only seven years. Obama has been an Illinois state senator from 1996 until 2004, at which time he became a State senator to date. That gives Obama five more years of legislative experience then Clinton.

And what makes her ready for the big chair on day one?

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 13, 2008 10:31 AM | Report abuse

Watching Billary run to El Paso after her beat down, and then pander to the audience of lemmings, was a real gas!
Like she counted on her nomination as a given, she counts on the Latino vote with the same egotistical attitude of self-entitlement. Texas is her Alamo, and she knows it. Her speech seemed to feel like a beg-fest. After a 7-8 minute warm-up that got the crowd up and loud, they slowly lost the momentum. And then she pulls out the "we" justification for voting for her. Too little too late.

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 13, 2008 10:13 AM | Report abuse

Real issue voters will never vote for Obama, who want to invade Pakistan, raid money from NASA, and ban imports from China. Hillary has serious popularity problem both because of the natural tenancy of voters to dislike old faces, her husband, and the teaching of the republican media. A third party candidate probably is the only way out of this year's terrible choices.

Posted by: sgr_astar | February 13, 2008 9:43 AM | Report abuse

My frustration with the Obama campaign is that if you question his experience or his policies you are labeled rascist.
It is OK for him to question Hillarys experience and her policies. She cannot do the same.
This seems to be reverse rascism to me.
If Obama and his supporters cannot take criticism without claiming rascism then they are not offering the change he claims.
Reverse rascism in this country is just as bad as rascism, because it is more of the same.
Imagine what would happen in this country if noone could question the president because he was black. If that ever happened, it would open huge problems in this country again. Not to mention future black presidential candidates.
If Obama wants to be president he needs to learn that all criticism is not rascist. If he cannot learn that, he does not deserve the chance to be in the White House.
Change is coming on 1/20/2009, what type is yet to be determined.

Posted by: GSWAGNER | February 13, 2008 9:36 AM | Report abuse

If Obama takes the nomination we are looking at trying to elect a black McGovern. He will win New York, Mass, Califonia and Illinois, maybe.

Posted by: kpestka | February 13, 2008 9:11 AM | Report abuse

Re the comment by jones_okiah - it is not that many of us do not believe BO might get the nomination. It is that, based on his behavior thus far, which seems to be spiraling into neverneverland, we watch in horror at the thought and although we did not vote for Bush nor support him at all, we are perfectly aware that an Obama presidency just might finish the country off for good. He is getting entirely too carried away with nothing of real substance to justify and support it.....God help us all.

Posted by: ellenlawson | February 13, 2008 8:17 AM | Report abuse

I am suprised that people don´t take experience seriously in electing a presidential nominee these days. I wish you can all understand that there is a difference between being an experience boss and being an experienced leader. The character of an experienced leader is that he or she acts according to the desire of the electorate. He or she listens to the voice of the people. An experienced boss knows how to give orders and get what he wants done. The important point is that The Ameriacan people need and experienced leader not an experienced boss. Hillary Clinton failed to show the characteristics of an experienced leader. Majority of the American people did not want the iraq war. They thought it is a distraction and will not do much good.THEY WERE VERY CORRECT FROM WHAT WE ALL KNOW NOW. They held demostrations for their voices to be heard but neither Clinton nor MacCain could demonstrate that character of an experienced leader to listen to the voice of the electorate but Obama did. Obama may not be an experienced boss but he has manifested the characteristics of a commited and experienced leader. A leader is what is needed not a boss. In a democracy, the people are supposed to be incharge because the president is only there to serve them and do what they want. I think MacCain and Clinton will tend to show more of the character of being an experienced boss like George Bush than that of hearing the voice of the people.
I hold and postulate that voting for Obama is a right decision for any level headed person who believes in the ideals of democracy and He will beat Clinton to the Nomination.

Posted by: jones_okiah | February 13, 2008 7:56 AM | Report abuse

Just a note to all of you on the Fantasyland Bandwagon..........it would be smart to not be so smug and sure that all Democrats and left-leaning Independents will "fall in line" and support/vote for Obama if he is the nominee. My entire circle of friends and most of my family are Hillary supporters. Not a one of us is even half-way inclined to switch to Obama in the general. That does not mean we will go with McCain - do not plan to do that either. We will most likely sit out voting on the Presidential level or write in a name, Mickey Mouse comes to mind..........

Posted by: ellenlawson | February 13, 2008 7:52 AM | Report abuse

8 years of GW and the misery he has bestowed on America and the corners of the globe. Looks as if we are rushing to replace him with BO, because he has inspired us with 'hope' and 'change'. I've noticed that his oratory now refers to changing 'the world', not just promising to fix things at home and try to stabilize things around the globe. I think he and his followers have watched too many action hero movies and haven't understood that in the real world it isn't quite as easy to control and predict the outcome.
Does anyone here remember the big banner "Mission Accomplished" that was displayed behind GW weeks after the invasion of Iraq? A real Hollywood moment! BO promises more of the same - he wants to talk to Iran, well I'd like to know what he plans to say before I nod and clap and buy him a plane ticket. If he destabilizes Israel, the consequences could be worse than anything we've seen in Iraq, Lebanon or elsewhere in the Middle East. Before you endorse this candidate, at least ask to see the small print. Can you imagine the consequences of invading Pakistan? They have nuclear weapons, the country is already split between moderate muslims and those who support the Taliban. The country shares a border with Afghanistan and any war or invasion would result in exactly the same sort insurgency that is virtually impossible to 'win' - think Vietnam but worse. The people there would not be anymore welcoming to American policy than the people of Iraq have been. If America starts a dialog with rogue states, it immediately legitimizes them- you don't discuss things unless you are prepared to negotiate - I don't think America should be in the business of recognizing or rewarding administrations who seek to do this nation harm.

I am tired of the fanaticism of the Obama supporters - say the least, but shout the loudest, claim to unite, but turn a blind eye whilst your supporters wage a war of vitriol on your opponent. I want more for America - sound economic policy to pull us out of recession - a safe pair of hands guiding us through international policy. The politics of the personality cult have been tried and brought forth bitter fruit elsewhere in the world - I seem to recall that America has been called upon to help clear up the mess such regimes have created in other countries.

You'll have guessed by now that I'm not cheering for Obama. I hope that caution will prevail and urge residents in the states that can still avert this potential disaster to vote for America, not for change,but for stability, not for hope but for prosperity, and definitely not for Barack Obama.


Posted by: bessmount | February 13, 2008 7:21 AM | Report abuse

if you want to see obama and clinton face tough questions from real people hop over to politico. com and check out the feed from the q and a they did before the recent contests. the questions were straight forward and much tougher than any of the debates so far. unfortunately it was only carried on local abc for dc area. really worth watching.

Posted by: uclazy31 | February 13, 2008 4:50 AM | Report abuse

First of all, Ivor727, YOU are not Black.

You claim to be black, but you are lying. I know this because black Americans don't use the type of broken English that you do.

You are, to give you the benefit of the doubt, Ethiopian... Maybe. Trust me on that.

If being Ethiopian makes you black, than being half white, would make Obama white, wouldn't it?

He's black. He's white. He's American. Trust me on that.

Posted by: LeftwithNochoice | February 13, 2008 3:37 AM | Report abuse

WHY JOHN EDWARDS BELIEVERS SHOULD SUPPORT BARACK OBAMA:

WHY JOHN EDWARDS BELIEVERS SHOULD SUPPORT BARACK OBAMA:

Can We Still Build One America? Yes We Can
ï‚·
(Note: I was the former Director of Online Engagement for John Edwards for President. The following reflects only the personal views of the author, and in no way represents the views of John Edwards, his campaign, nor anyone else currently or formerly affiliated with his campaign.)
The first time I spoke to John Edwards about joining his campaign, I mentioned the Wellstone quote that's in my email signature, 'Politics isn't about big money or power games; it's about the improvement of people's lives.' His voice brightened considerably. "That, right there," he said, "is the point of this campaign." I believed him. I gave up everything and moved to Chapel Hill. And that remained the point of our campaign for One America through the very end.
Now I, like many Edwards people, face a choice we never wanted, but we cannot ignore. We must decide after John, which remaining candidate is the best bet to finish what we started -- making real improvements in the lives of the people who really need it?
After many conversations, comparisons, and soul searching, my personal answer, and my advice to other Edwards believers wrestling with the same question, is Barack Obama. Here's why:
The Issue
Throughout the campaign, John Edwards talked about ending poverty in America as the moral challenge of our generation. For me, this was always at the heart of our effort to build One America. And no issue better represents our fierce commitment to look out for one another, not because it's politically popular, but because it's just the right thing to do.
So which candidate would be most likely to fulfill the dream of ending poverty in our time? It can't be about simple agreement. Surely, both candidates would flip a switch to end poverty right now, if they could. No, it's about priority. Changes this big require leaders to put it all on the line and inspire a nation to stand up and join them. So the real question is: Who is more willing to put this cause front and center, and who is more able to get the job done?
I'm a web guy. So I went to the campaign websites to see what they had to say. Here's what I found:
The Commitment
Obama lists "poverty" on his main issues list, which is accessible from any page on his site. It links to a dedicated page that names the problem of 37 million Americans still trapped in poverty, and offers a 15 point anti-poverty agenda to solve it.
Obama's proposals run the gamut from familiar progressive pillars like indexing the minimum wage to inflation, all the way to innovative new projects like replicating the highly successful "Harlem Children's Zone" in 20 high risk neighborhoods across the country.
His agenda includes plans for creating entry level jobs, reducing recidivism, anti-poverty tax reforms, pre-natal care for at risk populations, urban community development funds and significant rural investment.
Hillary, unfortunately, does not list poverty (or any equivalent) amongst her major issues. Nor, as far as I can tell, does the word "poverty" appear on any of her policy pages. I don't doubt for a moment that Hillary genuinely cares about poor people. But how can you lead a nation to combat a problem you don't even mention?
Because there is no "poverty" issue page, an apples-to-apples comparison of their agenda is tough. Hillary's "Strengthening the Middle Class" page, presumably the closest thing, has nine proposals. But if you take out items that either affect poverty only incidentally (like "Returning to fiscal responsibility") or explicitly aren't about the poor, (like "Lowering taxes for middle class families") you're left with only five points. And that's counting three proposals, ("Hillary's Innovation Agenda," a "Strategic Energy Fund" and "Confronting growing problems in the housing market") which might very well help reduce poverty, but they don't mention how, or seem explicitly designed to even try.
I'm not a policy expert, and I'm not qualified to parse the details. But I do think there's a clear difference in priority here. And while the details of plans will invariably change, core commitments will not. Obama comes out ahead.
The Record
Another way to tell what a candidate will prioritize in the future is what they've chosen to prioritize in the past. As a voter I can't know either candidate personally or fact-check the mountains of he-said-she said on every side. So once again, I went to the websites to let the candidates speak for themselves.
Obama's poverty page references his work in the Illinois legislature expanding tax credits for the poor and fighting for affordable housing. Hillary's site makes no coherent case for her record on poverty, but does frequently reference her accomplishments on some important relevant issues, such as children's health care.
It's perhaps even more instructive to look back at the choices they made before they knew anyone was looking, and how they talk about those choices now.
Obama's "Meet Barack" page describes his first job as a Chicago community organizer as a choice to "improve living conditions in poor neighborhoods plagued with crime and high unemployment." It goes so far as to say Obama chose a career in politics specifically as a long term strategy to "truly improve the lives of people in that [poor] community and other communities." In the list of overall issues he works on now, the very first is: "the poverty exposed by Katrina". Not bad.
"Hillary's Story" also shows admirable commitment. It describes how she ran a legal aid clinic for the poor when she first arrived in Arkansas, and that Carter appointed her to the board of "the United States Legal Services Corporation, a federal nonprofit program that funds legal assistance for the poor."
The distinction here is somewhat subjective. To my mind, Obama's career choice was likely more deeply formative, more comprehensive as an anti-poverty strategy and more noteworthy in its lack of connection to routes towards traditional success. But honestly, they both deserve real credit, and the fact that both major contenders for the nomination began their careers in these ways makes me proud to be a Democrat. Onward.
The Movement
If the candidate's commitment and record tell us who is most willing, how can we evaluate who is most able? From where I sit, both Hillary and Obama appear to be both highly intelligent, competent people. But as John Edwards so often reminded us, no president can end poverty on their own. Transformational change of that magnitude requires an equally large movement of people fighting to make it happen. So who is building that movement?
Again, I'm a web guy. If you look at the numbers, they both have passionate grassroots support, but the difference is clear. Obama supporters have created 9x more local groups, 10x more national groups, and 15x more personal blogs. Obama's web traffic, donors, and online to offline volunteers smash all records. And I can tell you, there's no technology or trick to generate that kind of energy -- it just has to be real.
But this goes beyond the numbers, and yes, far beyond the web. After all, Barack Obama isn't John Edwards, and I can't know if he'll actually put ending poverty at the top of his agenda. But by inspiring millions of people to believe in their own power to create change, I do know his campaign is laying the groundwork for those of us who will.
The Future
We always thought of winning the presidency as merely the first step in a generational effort to build One America -- and so it remains. We must keep speaking out, organizing, and fighting at every opportunity -- in every town hall, statehouse, Congressional house and the Whitehouse until poverty is history and the dream of One America dream becomes reality.
And right now, I believe we have to pick our best hope for a president who will be a partner in that effort. If Hillary is nominated she will deserve our vigorous support. But because of his commitment, his record, and his unique ability to swell our ranks with people fired up and ready to begin the struggle of a lifetime, I believe Barack Obama is that best hope.
So, can we still build One America? Yes. Yes we can.

Posted by: diksagev | February 13, 2008 3:36 AM | Report abuse

@bbln:
Did you mean to imply that Hillary had more legislative experience than Obama? You didn't say so, but many who talk about Obama's 'lack of experience' mean 'in comparison with HRC'. If so, as far as I can tell, Hillary has only been a senator since 2001. Obama has been a US senator since 2005, and was in the state legislature from 1997-2004. Seems to me like Obama has more experience, actually, though I wouldn't deny that Hillary's very smart and well-informed.

Or are you going to count Hillary's time as First Lady in Arkansas and DC? But in that case, shouldn't we consider the things she attempted in those years like the healthcare debacle, which really was a result of poor political calculation, and shabby treatment of potential allies?

Regards,
Beren

Posted by: Beren | February 13, 2008 3:16 AM | Report abuse

@ gewshop:

One other thing occurred to me. I don't know if this is generational or not because I don't know how old you are. I'm 29. For me, stating your views on your website, or in youtube clips or something is just as 'real' as stating your views on TV. So, for me, not going to the candidates' websites is sort of like not watching the debates on TV or something. But I can understand that not everyone feels that way. I think that many in my parents' generation might view it as more work to look up the candidates' sites online than to watch them on TV. So perhaps there's some of that going on too?

Regards,
Beren

Posted by: Beren | February 13, 2008 3:09 AM | Report abuse

@ ivor727, "I speak even better than him. ":

Wow. In that case I hope you run for office or are a PR representative or a trial lawyer or something because a gift like that shouldn't be wasted.

Beren

Posted by: Beren | February 13, 2008 2:59 AM | Report abuse

bbln - your logic continues to evade me. Perhaps if I concede the point that, yes, North Dakota and Idaho and Utah will vote for McCain in November, could you then explain to me how those votes are any less relevant than votes in CA or NY?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but basically you're saying "red state voters have alre4ady made up their minds, therefore victory in those states is irrelevant". How is that any different for blue states? They are just as irrelevant, aren't they? Who cares who gets more votes in CA, they're going to vote dem regardless no? In that case is your implication that the only relevant votes come from battleground states?

Posted by: lafrefre2000 | February 13, 2008 2:54 AM | Report abuse

@ gewshop: (& @elayman:)

I certainly didn't mean to sound condescending. My apologies. I'm sure you're more politically conversant than I am. In answer to your question, no, I don't think the average citizen is going to watch a 45-minute video of an interview with Obama. The average citizen has other interests. I do expect non-average citizens who follow politics as much as you and I do to do something like that, because, well, we say we're interested in finding out what the politicians' platforms are, and if we really mean it, then we might be willing to invest the few clicks of the trackball/mouse and the 45 minutes or so necessary to get to know the candidates better. I'm not saying anyone has to do it. But people who are really into politics probably would. Just like people who are really into the Redskins would give up 45 minutes to see how their team did in a game. Or at least, that was my idea.

But, no, I don't expect the average citizen to spend that much time on political research. (Though with interest as high as it is this year, maybe I'm not giving the average citizen enough credit.)

But here's the issue I was trying, so incoherently, I admit, to bring up, both with you and with elayman: we shouldn't ask questions if the answers to them would have to be longer than we're willing to listen to. Obama and Hillary both talk about some of their specifics on the stump and in debates. But both of them know perfectly well that the real details, the complex combinations of policies, the cuts and the expansions of programs, the tradeoffs, the ins and outs of thoroughly boring and obscure, yet still important policy choices, etc. simply cannot be fit into five or ten minutes. I'd go out on a limb here and say that if anyone says he can tell you, in five minutes, how he'll balance the budget, he's either crazy (because his plan is something like, 'abolish the federal gvt.') or he's lying (because his plan is sane enough that it would take much longer than 5 minutes to explain). One of my pet peeves with American politics is that we claim that we want specifics, but when we get them, we claim that the speaker is boring.

Now after listening to Obama talk specifics in interviews (which he does with great thoughtfulness and awareness of the issues involved), and listening to him speak in generalities in his big speeches, I think I can understand why he has trouble with debates. It's because the format is in between the two: it seems to demand specifics, but doesn't give enough time for an intelligent discussion of them. (This has been one of my frustrations with the format since I started paying attention to US politics ca. '92.) Now of course, any candidate has to fight in that arena, no matter how distorted a forum it may be. And I don't think Obama does that badly, though I think Hillary may do a bit better and Edwards certainly did much better at it. All I'm saying here is that a self-confessed political junkie should look beyond debates for policy specifics, not only from Obama, but from any candidate. Hillary hasn't laid out all her plans in the debates either. No one could.

Ultimately, we should only ask questions if we're willing to listen to the answers. It's our choice. We then make up our minds based on what we've found out. If people only want to listen to 15 minutes of speeches, then they'll make an intuitive decision based on how the candidates struck them, because it's just not possible to convey much in the way of specifics in that amount of time. That's fine - they'll come away with a feeling that Obama or Hillary is inspiring, etc. For those who want more specifics, they can do more research, and make a more detail-oriented decision. What we shouldn't do is blame either candidate for failing to do, in a victory speech or a debate, what never could be done in such a venue without boring 80% of the audience to tears.

Or do you two disagree? I'd be interested to know what you think.

Sincere regards,
Beren

Posted by: Beren | February 13, 2008 2:52 AM | Report abuse

Ivor727, he would be elected. Clinton is defeated already, and he would defeat McCain, as it is not very difficult under the circumstances.

Posted by: aepelbaum | February 13, 2008 2:49 AM | Report abuse

The accusations that Obama's campaign is evasive when it comes to specifics is a hollow jab when comparing it to the triangulation (which is just another form of evasion) Clinton engages in. Let's see, is Clinton for driver's licenses for illegal immigrants or not? Or is it complicated? How about her vote on the war, and her stance on relations with Iran? What will she do to get us out of Iraq? What are Clinton's views on lobbyists and the corporate influence in DC in general? What will she do to fix the economy? What will she do to repair NCLB and our education system? How does she really feel about these free trade agreements? What are her views on 'extraordinary rendition'? or gay marriage? or the Patriot Act?

Clinton twists, turns, and obfuscates, while Obama is simply vague. I choose Obama because he's more likely to win in November. Is there really any other relevant factor in this Primary?

Democrats should begin calling on her to concede as soon as possible, including her own supporters.

Posted by: lafrefre2000 | February 13, 2008 2:46 AM | Report abuse

Hmm! Let us see. Wisconsin is neighboring state to Illinois, where Obama is greatly and overwhelmingly popular. Yeah, Clinton, probably, has a bit better chance in Wisconsin, than she did in Illinois, but, certainly, worse chance than she had in Iowa, which boarder with Illinois is shorter and smaller. So, Obama's undoubtful victory there, in Wisconsin, would be, probably, smaller than in Illinois or South Carolina.

Posted by: aepelbaum | February 13, 2008 2:46 AM | Report abuse

Obama, Obama. What is all the fuss? A black man will never be elected president in these United States for the next 50 years. Why the press and all of you guilt ridden white people continue to pretend that he is not black amazes me. I am black and I am not voting for him. Why? He is simply not qualified. If he were white, the press and the American people would have given him less attention than they did Kucinich. Trust me on that. So afraid of the Media of appearing racist, they never critize him. He never gets asked tough questions. He is given a complete pass. All of his supposedly beautiful speeches have very little substance if any. I know it's hip to be for the Black guy. But he is too inexperienced for such an important job. Didn't you all learn your lesson the last time. Everyone said of Bush: how bad could he be, he'll have competent people around him. He's a guy we can have a beer with. Well...Look what happened. We cannot afford an inexperienced President again. All of you Obama fans need to take off the rose colored glasses and join us in the real world. Sure he's black. Sure he speaks very well. Sure he has a great vision for the country. But you know what? I am black. I speak even better than him. And I have a fantastic vision for the country. And I am his age. But I don't think I am qualified to be President of the United States.

Posted by: ivor727 | February 13, 2008 2:44 AM | Report abuse

frefre - you wonder: "Why would wins in blue states be more valuable than wins in red states?"

Do you really think a Republican state like North Dakota where 18,000, and not all of them, voting for Obama in caucuses means he will carry that state against the Republicans in Nov? that's 2% of that State's population. Nebraska, Idaho - same thing, they will never go Blue - just because a small percentage of people voted for Obama in their Democratic primaries.

Posted by: bbln | February 13, 2008 2:39 AM | Report abuse

gewshop - one correction, Obama has LESS experience than GW Bush who has been governor. And let's make this clearer - Obama has less experience than JKF - who served 13 years in Congress and was a war hero. Let's face it; Obama is smoke and mirror and at some point, the media and the public will figure that out.

Posted by: bbln | February 13, 2008 2:30 AM | Report abuse

"Even more, many of the states Obama won such as South Carolina, Idaho, Nebraska will NEVER repeat NEVER go democrat and those delegates are meaningless in any real sense. Hilary has shown very strong appeal in traditional democratic states and also some potential cross over states."

I see this way too often. Can anyone explain this logic to me? Why would wins in blue states be more valuable than wins in red states? As if there's any chance CA or NY will vote for McCain in Nov anyhow? Should we then declare that only wins in battleground states truly matter? It's so silly.

Posted by: lafrefre2000 | February 13, 2008 2:28 AM | Report abuse

Clinton's ship has more holes than her staff can hundle!.... Can you blame 'em? They have been screeming May Day! May Day! since the Big Tuesday... what next? Jump Ship, J...U...M...P! (the same goes for super deligates)

I think its not too late for her to start getting used to the idea that, she is losing it... hmn... wait second thought... shall we just say getting used to the idea that she HAS LOST IT! Let her try at 71 years, and get a leaf from Mc Cain who will about 81 by that time! Now thats experience!

Posted by: gmusuku | February 13, 2008 2:19 AM | Report abuse

@ gewshop: You're right that we Obama supporters can get very carried away and look kinda silly. But, when you say you might vote for Obama if only you knew what he stood for, I have to ask (and really I do mean this respectfully - really): If he wins the nomination, is that what it'll take for you finally to go to his website and click on 'issues', or to google his 45-minute interview with that Nevada newspaper or something? Because, it's really not that hard to find out what he stands for. I think that when we demand specifics from candidates we ought to be willing to research specifics ourselves as, you know, voters and citizens of this country and everything.

This is getting embarrassing. Why should we have to go to a web site to know what a candidate thinks, or even that they have a position on the issues ?? Isn't the job of anyone running for president to persuade voters by being completely CONVERSANT in his/her beliefs ?? Which means, yes, actually TALKING to/with them in a way that is both engaging and demonstrates a certain level of knowledge ?

Anyone can hammer out a series of policy views and stick them up on a web site. Maybe that is why his debate performances always feel so contrived. Like a man trying to remember the talking points of the day he has been fed by advisors.

If Obama's convinctions were sincerely felt and derived from hard won experience, the delivery would be a lot more natural no doubt the delivery would be a lot more natural and effortless -- like, uh, Clinton's maybe ??

Posted by: elayman | February 13, 2008 2:16 AM | Report abuse

to Beren, Thanks for the input, respectfully, your comments are just a little condescending -- I've been a political junky since I was 12 watching every single election and making predictions on who would win each state. So I know just a little bit about these folks.

Lets face it, Obama does not have as much experience as the other candidates. This has clearly shown in the debates. He just hasn't had the meat in his performance to satisfy me. Is this a deal breaker -- no. We elected George Bush and Obama has at least as much experience as he had.

So when you put the less than stellar, in substance (in my opionion) debate performances, with his standard stump message of "Change" -- it's ringing a little be hollow to me. I'm tired of people who promise the world and deliver nothing. I'm just not going to jump on his bandwagon because he gives an inspirational speech.

also, lets face it or are you that niave, do you really think that the average (or even better than average) citizen is going to watch a 45 minute video on him -- If you do, you are kidding yourself and he is gonna have to do more to get his message out about substantive positions and plans, in order to gain my vote.

Posted by: gewshop | February 13, 2008 2:09 AM | Report abuse

I was so sure - after Bush was picked on charisma rather than substance - that it wouldn't happen again. Wrong. All someone has to do is adopt the Martin Luther King cadence - give almost Evangelical-like rallies offering hope - and the bandwagon isn't even long enough to hold everyone who wants to jump on. Says something about just how "down" we are after almost 8 years of Bush that someone can buy us this easily. This is truly terrifying.

Posted by: darleneann | February 13, 2008 1:44 AM | Report abuse

TruthBeTold, I find it really sad that you feel the need to prop up your candidate by using anti-Muslim scare tactics to smear Obama. Yes, his middle name is Hussein. Big deal.

I'm also unclear on your assertion that Obama is "all talk." Neither he nor Clinton has actually been President yet, so naturally, Presidentially speaking, they are both all talk. Clinton says she's got 35 years of experience. What's she got to show for it?

Posted by: stefanieturner | February 13, 2008 1:42 AM | Report abuse

This is a smart move. To write off Wisconsin, a large midwestern swing state which will be a battleground in November, would seem like the act of great weakness. But now she will not be able to spin a loss (let alone another blow-out) there the way she has tried to spin the other recent losses. This is gonna be very, very interesting.

Posted by: lostintranslation | February 13, 2008 1:33 AM | Report abuse

TruthBeTold,

You can continue to denigrate Obama by using his middle name rather than his first name but your useless exhortation does nothing to add to this debate but I commend your support for your candidate. If you want to know more about where Obama stands on the issues, check out his website. If you believe that he is still "all talk", then you are no better than the Republicans.

Posted by: KAM3 | February 13, 2008 1:30 AM | Report abuse

GO HILLARY!!

Wisconsin loves you!!!

Posted by: TruthBeTold | February 13, 2008 1:20 AM | Report abuse

I am from a small town in Wisconsin and let me tell you, we are BIG Clinton supporters here!!! Hillary is going to do great in this state because we know she will do what she says, she's not all talk like Hussein Obama. GO HILLARY!!!!

Posted by: TruthBeTold | February 13, 2008 1:17 AM | Report abuse

@ gewshop: You're right that we Obama supporters can get very carried away and look kinda silly. But, when you say you might vote for Obama if only you knew what he stood for, I have to ask (and really I do mean this respectfully - really): If he wins the nomination, is that what it'll take for you finally to go to his website and click on 'issues', or to google his 45-minute interview with that Nevada newspaper or something? Because, it's really not that hard to find out what he stands for. I think that when we demand specifics from candidates we ought to be willing to research specifics ourselves as, you know, voters and citizens of this country and everything.


Regards,
Beren

Posted by: Beren | February 13, 2008 1:13 AM | Report abuse

The only thing worse than Clinton's soporific message re-tooling on the stump is echo of sycophantic demands that "chill pills" be dispensed to Obama supporters. The secret being, once dopey and drugged, we'll apparently reach their level of excitement for Hillary.

Posted by: eunomian | February 13, 2008 12:59 AM | Report abuse

Lilly1: Short, simple, and, regrettably, correct. No more innuendos (see: "jesse jackson won South Carolina twice") or marginalizations (see: "caucuses favor 'activists'")...the Clintons' punching will in all likelihood aim very demonstrably below the belt.

Sad, really, that Bill's tied to this cackling albatross.

Posted by: eunomian | February 13, 2008 12:52 AM | Report abuse

Oh my goodness. You Obama supporters are worse than the Republicans. Take a chill pill. Yes Obama did well tonight, and will probably take the delegate lead by a few delegates. So what. It's just a few and there is a long way to go. Even more, many of the states Obama won such as South Carolina, Idaho, Nebraska will NEVER repeat NEVER go democrat and those delegates are meaningless in any real sense. Hilary has shown very strong appeal in traditional democratic states and also some potential cross over states.

In any case, give it a rest -- Being this obnoxious will only turn people off to your candidate.

And oh by the way -- I could potentially support him, if only I new what he really stood for and will do. the word "CHANGE" just doesn't do it for me. Give me some substance.

Posted by: gewshop | February 13, 2008 12:51 AM | Report abuse

Get ready for a wild ride folks, the Clintons now have nothing to lose. The knives are coming out.

Posted by: Lilly1 | February 13, 2008 12:34 AM | Report abuse

I live in Wisconsin; we may have a democratic governor, but many small towns and rural areas are republican country. However, the UW and the madison area do have a lot of obama supporters.

Posted by: gatita1776 | February 13, 2008 12:32 AM | Report abuse

Oops, the devastating piece by this same reporter is the one about Hillary's Texas speech:

"After flying from Virginia to Texas for a rally on Tuesday night, Clinton did not publicly acknowledge, even in passing, that three significant primaries had taken place that day and her campaign had not issued a statement hours after results were announced. . . . Clinton has made a habit of ignoring contests she loses. On Monday, she cited Louisiana's large African American population in explaining her defeat there. At other times, her campaign has suggested the results of caucuses in general should be discounted. But on Tuesday, she did not even do that much."

Posted by: donahues | February 13, 2008 12:28 AM | Report abuse

From one who is known to make a typo now and then, let's go easy on Ms. Kornblut re the Washington State one. And I think any allegation that the reporter is a Hillary mole is fully rebutted by the fact that this pieces is a sparely written but devastating portrait of a candidate in an almost Bush-like state of stubborn denial.

Posted by: donahues | February 13, 2008 12:24 AM | Report abuse

I think God should just step aside and put Obama in charge. Obama supporters - get a grip. You are painful to watch! It's like Oprah is giving everyone a gold watch to scream as loud as they can!

Posted by: saxa95 | February 13, 2008 12:20 AM | Report abuse

Obama is NOT YET the nominee, though he certainly has grabbed the momentum. This thing is not yet over, not by a longshot. If Hillary wins or comes close in Wisconsin, then wins CONVINCINGLY (by 10 point or more) in TX and OH, then the race is back on, all the way to the convention. If Obama blows her out in Wisconsin, and then either comes close or wins outright in TX and/or OH, then it's probably over. Mr. Obama had better get ready for the GOP onslought that is sure to come his way; "most liberal senator", "white flag of surrender"; "never served in the military vs. the war hero Mc Cain"; "raised as a Muslim", etc. Doesn't matter if it's all true or not, remember the Swift Boaters? This will be the ugliest campaign ever, I fear; I hope he's tough enough, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Posted by: mike13 | February 13, 2008 12:20 AM | Report abuse

I second the notion that in spite of tight deadlines for publishing breaking news, reputable newspapers cannot publish articles with such blatant mistakes as this one. I'm a long-time reader of the Post but my confidence in the reliability of news from this division just went down a notch.

Gordiec, your post is mostly a direct quote from the Drudge Report and needs a citation.

Sorry to gripe. Go Obama!

Posted by: trodrunner | February 13, 2008 12:18 AM | Report abuse

Free the "MSNBC 1" !!!

Return David Shuster to the airwaves !!!

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | February 13, 2008 12:10 AM | Report abuse

Free the "MSNBC 1" !!!

Return David Shuster to the airwaves !!!

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | February 13, 2008 12:10 AM | Report abuse

Grace is a quality Hillary does not possess. Obama is the nominee, the only one who does not know it is Hillary. How much damage much the party sustain before she wises up? How much time wasted before we focus on the Republicans?

Posted by: gmundenat | February 13, 2008 12:05 AM | Report abuse

In Virginia, Barack Obama got substantially more votes today than Hillary and John McCain -- COMBINED. No wonder McCain took several blatant pot shots at Obama in his speech tonight. I like McCain, but he is going to be "Bob Dole" in this race if he has the misfortune of running against the O-man(and Barack is a full 7" taller).

Posted by: 504Bob | February 13, 2008 12:04 AM | Report abuse

Hi! I'm here in WA state, and this is the 1st I heard that Obama didn't do well here, and I caucused. Either you made a mistake, or we know who you want to get the nomination.

Posted by: StaggoLee | February 13, 2008 12:03 AM | Report abuse

I think Ms. Kornblut is a Clintonite! How on earth can you otherwise explain the outrageous mis-statement of the fact that Obama won Washington State by a two-to-one margin over Clinton? These fools have always invented reality for themselves, which is fine with me, so long as they leave me out of their "altered state". What a twit! Note to WaPost, GET HER OUT OF HERE!!

Posted by: mibrooks27 | February 13, 2008 12:01 AM | Report abuse

uhh, if you want to complain about accuracy, how about the way they are saying the Potomac Primary is three states over there on the front page. D.C. is not a state, right? Or maybe it is, not sure what it is a state of though. Anyway, don't be so nervioso about the micky mouse stuff, this is news as it happens, you don't have to wait til tomorrow and get it from your front yard and wonder what has happened overnite. It is just fine the way it is, kinda fun to spot the errors sometimes. Okay, my take is Hillary is finito. However, if she makes it to Texas, some of the Republicans I know are voting for her as they think she will be a easier opponent than Obama. I agree with that reasoning. I would also like to state on that Solis person leaving, I find it insulting that they are lying to us about her leaving because of the demands on her time. Certainly she could have stuck around til the nomination was settled. If they are gonna lie to us on something as unimportant as this, they will lie to us on the big stuff when they are in office. Personally, that is why I never cared for the Clintons, they seem to have no moral compunction.

Posted by: top-gorilla | February 12, 2008 11:54 PM | Report abuse

To peacemaker74991:

Senator Obama was born in Hawaii. He has never claimed Kansas as his home state, only his mother's. By the way, I believe Hillary Clinton has some difficulty in this area. Is she from Illinois, Arkansas or New York? Her home state is Illinois. Perhaps she would be more vocal in claiming her place of origin if she had not been soundly trounced in her native state's primary. I dare say Senator Obama will do better in Hawaii than she did in Ill.

Posted by: rdposton | February 12, 2008 11:54 PM | Report abuse

Obama did not just defeat her...that was a BEATDOWN! Flying to Texas and pretending it did not happen...wow. Hillary really lives in her own little world.

Posted by: gmundenat | February 12, 2008 11:52 PM | Report abuse

In the Chesapeake Rout, according to exit polls in Maryland, Obama won:
Latino Voters By Six Points: 53-47
All Religions (Including Catholics)
All Age Groups (Including Seniors)
All Regions
All Education Levels
And Women by TWENTY ONE POINTS

So where are Her demographics?

Posted by: gordiec | February 12, 2008 11:45 PM | Report abuse

Wisconsin's democrats are affluent, college-related folk. She lucky the young there are usually republican... Clinton will no doubt lose unless she spends some quality time there compared to the MidAtlantic area as seen today.

Posted by: recharged95 | February 12, 2008 11:43 PM | Report abuse

If you didn't figure out that the sentence "The states that did NOT go for Obama, like Washington State" is a typo on the first read, you have no business getting news from online sources -- much less trying to comment.

Posted by: kblgca | February 12, 2008 11:41 PM | Report abuse

Why did Hillary Clinton lose three primaries today?

Too many questions about why she won't release her taxes until after she becomes the Democratic nominee--if that happens.

(Doesn't Hillary trust Democratic voters to make informed decisions?)

A lot of anxiety out there, too, about her plan to garnish workers' wages as part of her mandatory medical insurance plan.

Parents in particular would probably like to know what Bill and Hillary have to offer young people in terms of messages about the importance of honesty and integrity--given all the scandals surrounding the former First Family.

And of course there is still a lot of anger out there how the Clintons engaged in racial coding on the eve of the celebration of the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday.

Finally, the Washington, D.C., metro area is home to a lot of human rights activists as well as recent immigrants who came to the United States fleeing political oppression, many of whom are less than impressed with Hillary's flip flopping on the issue of torture.

With such fundamental questions hanging in the balance, what Democrat worth the name would buy a bridge back to the 20th Century?

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | February 12, 2008 11:35 PM | Report abuse

So, lemme get this straight: you know you are losing in three primaries tonight, and the next one is a week from now, and you fly to a place where the primary is a couple of weeks away? It sure looks like the Alamo strategy to me, and we know how well that worked for Davy Crockett, dont we?

Posted by: FrankP2 | February 12, 2008 11:32 PM | Report abuse

Washington State went for Obama in every single district; the state of Washington chose Obama by at least 2 to 1! The article is very incorrect.

Posted by: bhemingway | February 12, 2008 11:27 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, ummm, I think that line ought to read "did not go for CLINTON."

Anyway, Wisconsin will be a hard sell for Clinton. Many of the rural, "downscale" parts of the state that Clinton claims will be her base actually tend Republican in most elections. The Democratic strongholds in places like Milwaukee and Madison play well to Obama.

Both candidates have a week to make their cases in Wisconsin, which will be the sole focus given that Hawaii really isn't a race at all. Chelsea has already been here, and Bill is making appearances later in the week, with Hillary coming shortly after that. Obama is enjoying his victories tonight after a speech in Madison.

All in all, though, it's hard to see Clinton pulling off an upset in Wisconsin. Momentum is against her, and the state's tradition in progressive politics plays strongly to Obama.

Posted by: blert | February 12, 2008 11:27 PM | Report abuse

Washington State! Washington Post- what is going on? Where is the fact checker?

Posted by: emilybenz | February 12, 2008 11:17 PM | Report abuse

Umm... How many home states does Obama have? IL, Kansas, and now Hawaii? What else? Kenya and Indonesia???

Posted by: peacemaker74991 | February 12, 2008 11:14 PM | Report abuse

Umm...since when did Washington state "not go for Obama"???

Posted by: converse | February 12, 2008 11:08 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company