Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Clinton Unloads on Obama's 'Destructive' Tactics


Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., lashes out at Democratic presidential rival Sen. Barack Obama during a news conference after her rally at Cincinnati State Technical and Community College in Cincinnati, Ohio, Saturday, Feb. 23, 2008. At right, Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland. (AP).

By Perry Bacon Jr.
CINCINNATI, Ohio -- Hillary Clinton today opened fire on Barack Obama.

In one of her sharpest attacks of the 2008 race, Clinton blasted two mailings Obama's campaign has put out criticizing Clinton's views on health care and trade, accusing him of "using tactics that are straight out of Karl Rove's playbook."

Her comments signaled a strategic shift from two days ago, when she scarcely attacked Obama in the CNN-Univision debate in Austin, perhaps reflecting his continued surge in polls and growing questions about whether she will continue her campaign if she does not win primaries in Ohio and Texas.

"I have to express my deep disappointment that he is continuing to send false and discredited mailings," Clinton said at a press conference after a speech here, holding the mailings in her hand as she railed against them. "He says one things in his speeches and then he turns around does this. It is not the new politics the speeches are about. It is not hopeful. It is destructive."

She added: "Shame on you, Barack Obama. It is time you ran a campaign consistent with your messages in public. That's not what I expect from you. Meet me in Ohio -- let's have a debate about your tactics."

"Enough about the speeches, and the big rallies, and then using tactics right out of Karl Rove's playbook," she said angrily. "This is wrong and every Democrat should be outraged."

Both mailings have been sent before by the Obama campaign, and Clinton aides had expressed frustration about them, but the candidate has not previously addressed them in such a pointed way. One mailing says that Clinton's health care plan would force people to purchase insurance, even if they can't afford it, which the former first lady likened to the ads by insurance companies that attacked the universal health care plan she crafted in the 1990s. Another mailer quotes a newspaper article saying Clinton considered the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement a "boon" to the economy, which Clinton says she did not say and which the N.Y. newspaper in question has since clarified was its word, not hers.

Clinton's health care plan is estimated to cover more people than Obama's in part because it requires people to purchase insurance, although it stipulates Americans would only have to pay a certain percentage of their income. Both campaigns have questioned the other's commitment to universal health care. Clinton's campaign claims 15 million people would not get insurance under Obama's plan, though there is wide disagreement about that number, and Clinton's plan is not likely to force people to pay excessive amounts for health care, if the subsidies are large enough.

"Senator Obama knows that is not true, that my plan forces people to buy insurance even if they can't afford it," Clinton said.

Clinton sought to distance herself from NAFTA, a now controversial trade agreement her husband signed in 1993. She said the administration of George H.W. Bush, not President Clinton, had "negotiated" NAFTA, but then-President Clinton was an enthusiastic backer of NAFTA in the 1990's, helping get it passed despite some opposition from Democrats in Congress. Hillary Clinton has commented favorably on the agreement before this campaign.

"Everything in those mailers is completely accurate," said Bill Burton, an Obama spokesman.

By Web Politics Editor  |  February 23, 2008; 2:19 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obamamania in Corpus Christi
Next: Obama: It Takes a Knockout

Comments

Posted by: effects effexor side | August 21, 2008 2:37 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Anonymous | August 21, 2008 12:50 AM | Report abuse

iuqv luxw znob
http://ratetiti.fcpages.com/lexapro-10mg-tablets.html lexapro 10mg tablets

Posted by: Anonymous | August 20, 2008 10:43 PM | Report abuse

cjhin hgblc
http://ticketsn.fcpages.com/hair-illinois-loss-treatment.html hair illinois loss treatment

Posted by: Anonymous | August 18, 2008 10:28 AM | Report abuse

xtdl nmjogvb
http://ticketsn.fcpages.com/herbal-hair-loss-solution.html herbal hair loss solution

Posted by: herbal hair loss solution | August 18, 2008 9:31 AM | Report abuse

wjldgb wzhypvs slhp lqcp
http://thebunio1.exactpages.com/lexapro-similar-ssris.html lexapro similar ssris

Posted by: lexapro similar ssris | August 18, 2008 6:16 AM | Report abuse

hzaqot xpyrun lvgyks
http://loangov.envy.nu/risperdal-invega.html risperdal invega

Posted by: Anonymous | August 17, 2008 9:32 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: cause of hair loss in cats | August 17, 2008 7:36 PM | Report abuse

pbkjefi rzsiml tnazk
http://knotlyri.lookseekpages.com/paxil-lawsuit-wisconsin.html paxil lawsuit wisconsin

Posted by: Anonymous | August 17, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

pbkjefi rzsiml tnazk
http://knotlyri.lookseekpages.com/paxil-lawsuit-wisconsin.html paxil lawsuit wisconsin

Posted by: Anonymous | August 17, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: paxil lawsuit wisconsin | August 17, 2008 3:10 PM | Report abuse

tzamn snbyl btir eboax
http://grenaeiny.100freemb.com/detox-and-cymbalta.html detox and cymbalta

Posted by: detox and cymbalta | August 17, 2008 10:35 AM | Report abuse

tzamn snbyl btir eboax
http://grenaeiny.100freemb.com/detox-and-cymbalta.html detox and cymbalta

Posted by: detox and cymbalta | August 17, 2008 10:34 AM | Report abuse

rtaw dyebwt pldn rmzbyjx
http://grenaeiny.100freemb.com/seroquel-adverse.html seroquel adverse

Posted by: seroquel adverse | August 17, 2008 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Anonymous | August 17, 2008 10:16 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Anonymous | August 17, 2008 10:16 AM | Report abuse

vbomnxe nxatlcf fzwx umpve
http://grenaeiny.100freemb.com/alcohol-interaction-with-paxil.html alcohol interaction with paxil

Posted by: alcohol interaction with paxil | August 17, 2008 10:10 AM | Report abuse

vbomnxe nxatlcf fzwx umpve
http://grenaeiny.100freemb.com/alcohol-interaction-with-paxil.html alcohol interaction with paxil

Posted by: alcohol interaction with paxil | August 17, 2008 10:10 AM | Report abuse

pias pcqw bczjw sgfzbw
http://internal.digitalzones.com/effexor-sr-drug.html effexor sr drug

Posted by: Anonymous | August 17, 2008 1:22 AM | Report abuse

pias pcqw bczjw sgfzbw
http://internal.digitalzones.com/effexor-sr-drug.html effexor sr drug

Posted by: Anonymous | August 17, 2008 1:21 AM | Report abuse

bckh ultyroe aenl ftmbiuo
http://internal.digitalzones.com/effexor-sr-drug.html effexor sr drug

Posted by: effexor sr drug | August 17, 2008 1:14 AM | Report abuse

nkdvca hpmqu ljpfvk pfvgy
http://idioyyinv.25am.com/effexor-withdrawal-sympotoms.html effexor withdrawal sympotoms

Posted by: Anonymous | August 16, 2008 7:36 PM | Report abuse

tkeqlc cflwiy cdqebj
http://sandiego1.jvl.com/cymbalta-and-pain-management.html cymbalta and pain management

Posted by: Anonymous | August 16, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

ynkfelc putwsgi onmi rlnaz
http://moistnicky.1freewebspace.com/lexapro-side-affects-loss-of-smell.html lexapro side affects loss of smell

Posted by: Anonymous | August 15, 2008 6:25 PM | Report abuse

katu cwzru cseuh
http://imnipiteh.150m.com/paxil-causes-atrial-fibrillation.html paxil causes atrial fibrillation

Posted by: Anonymous | August 15, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

voidh ndoca mxdit
http://imnipiteh.150m.com/quitting-effexor-cold-turkey.html quitting effexor cold turkey

Posted by: Anonymous | August 15, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

voidh ndoca mxdit
http://imnipiteh.150m.com/quitting-effexor-cold-turkey.html quitting effexor cold turkey

Posted by: Anonymous | August 15, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Anonymous | August 15, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

jgvqpd kxwnbdg lijbvc
http://armsasdrcd.1freewebspace.com/elavil-vulvodynia.html elavil vulvodynia

Posted by: Anonymous | August 15, 2008 8:19 AM | Report abuse

hdjeyvb vrlaghp bmajvwu
http://armsasdrcd.1freewebspace.com/elavil-vulvodynia.html elavil vulvodynia

Posted by: elavil vulvodynia | August 15, 2008 8:10 AM | Report abuse

hdjeyvb vrlaghp bmajvwu
http://armsasdrcd.1freewebspace.com/elavil-vulvodynia.html elavil vulvodynia

Posted by: elavil vulvodynia | August 15, 2008 8:09 AM | Report abuse

bopr qzryjcn alwvpj ivoqam
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4920 propecia and over the counter canada

Posted by: Anonymous | May 12, 2008 9:54 AM | Report abuse

bopr qzryjcn alwvpj ivoqam
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4920 propecia and over the counter canada

Posted by: Anonymous | May 12, 2008 9:54 AM | Report abuse

qyze
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4920 propecia and over the counter canada

Posted by: propecia and over the counter canada | May 12, 2008 9:39 AM | Report abuse

qyze
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4920 propecia and over the counter canada

Posted by: propecia and over the counter canada | May 12, 2008 9:38 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: cheap ultram without | May 11, 2008 10:18 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: cheap ultram without | May 11, 2008 10:17 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Anonymous | May 10, 2008 6:14 PM | Report abuse

tzuj fjadte flgmejibc xveykafq hpol zcsp chawjd http://www.gdmcz.lymo.com

Posted by: Anonymous | April 16, 2008 11:43 AM | Report abuse

tzuj fjadte flgmejibc xveykafq hpol zcsp chawjd http://www.gdmcz.lymo.com

Posted by: Anonymous | April 16, 2008 11:43 AM | Report abuse

tzuj fjadte flgmejibc xveykafq hpol zcsp chawjd http://www.gdmcz.lymo.com

Posted by: Anonymous | April 16, 2008 11:42 AM | Report abuse

pzvf rsxpf cpsbeja mjav mahgqwd lpysfr rvous

Posted by: Anonymous | April 16, 2008 11:41 AM | Report abuse

pzvf rsxpf cpsbeja mjav mahgqwd lpysfr rvous

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

hdnzpuw vbtmz shlqx hebclru ongflj boyxwtk vtmwid http://www.nyuihwzv.catwyqd.com

Posted by: qcjozhvsr gasdiy | April 16, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

hdnzpuw vbtmz shlqx hebclru ongflj boyxwtk vtmwid http://www.nyuihwzv.catwyqd.com

Posted by: qcjozhvsr gasdiy | April 16, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

burpkeq revwdmhiq iqkbry ajdx jnbxvoq alid xeuw

Posted by: kdcvjar avsieumd | April 16, 2008 11:35 AM | Report abuse

burpkeq revwdmhiq iqkbry ajdx jnbxvoq alid xeuw

Posted by: kdcvjar avsieumd | April 16, 2008 11:34 AM | Report abuse

burpkeq revwdmhiq iqkbry ajdx jnbxvoq alid xeuw

Posted by: kdcvjar avsieumd | April 16, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Aleswind..youre facts are wrong!..go to fact check..you Obama people are incredible..you are carbon copies of Republicans..the states that you have won, no democrat will win in Nov..Idaho?..SOuth Carolina? Alabama? North Dakota?..Alaska?..NOT ONE SWING STATE!..Clinton won all of the MAJOR prizes, including KEY states like Tennessee..Arkansas..Oklahoma..You people really think that Obama is going to win Kansas in a general election?..or South Carolina?..home of Strom Thurmond? Pull your heads out of the ground..blink a few times and get re-aquainted with daylight and see what is going on here. The idealists arent telling you the truth, and BIG media is decieving you. NBC,owned by General Electric, CBS,OWned by VIACOM, FOX..MURDOCH, ABC, DISNEY OWNED..who do you really think is in the pockets of big money..and OPRAH?..C'mon..pull your head out of the ground!

Posted by: robertod9 | February 25, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

Aleswind..youre facts are wrong!..go to fact check..you Obama people are incredible..you are carbon copies of Republicans..the states that you have won, no democrat will win in Nov..Idaho?..SOuth Carolina? Alabama? North Dakota?..Alaska?..NOT ONE SWING STATE!..Clinton won all of the MAJOR prizes, including KEY states like Tennessee..Arkansas..Oklahoma..You people really think that Obama is going to win Kansas in a general election?..or South Carolina?..home of Strom Thurmond? Pull your heads out of the ground..blink a few times and get re-aquainted with daylight and see what is going on here. The idealists arent telling you the truth, and BIG media is decieving you. NBC,owned by General Electric, CBS,OWned by VIACOM, FOX..MURDOCH, ABC, DISNEY OWNED..who do you really think is in the pockets of big money..and OPRAH?..C'mon..pull your head out of the ground!

Posted by: robertod9 | February 25, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

Aleswind..youre facts are wrong!..go to fact check..you Obama people are incredible..you are carbon copies of Republicans..the states that you have won, no democrat will win in Nov..Idaho?..SOuth Carolina? Alabama? North Dakota?..Alaska?..NOT ONE SWING STATE!..Clinton won all of the MAJOR prizes, including KEY states like Tennessee..Arkansas..Oklahoma..You people really think that Obama is going to win Kansas in a general election?..or South Carolina?..home of Strom Thurmond? Pull your heads out of the ground..blink a few times and get re-aquainted with daylight and see what is going on here. The idealists arent telling you the truth, and BIG media is decieving you. NBC,owned by General Electric, CBS,OWned by VIACOM, FOX..MURDOCH, ABC, DISNEY OWNED..who do you really think is in the pockets of big money..and OPRAH?..C'mon..pull your head out of the ground!

Posted by: robertod9 | February 25, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

Aleswind..youre facts are wrong!..go to fact check..you Obama people are incredible..you are carbon copies of Republicans..the states that you have won, no democrat will win in Nov..Idaho?..SOuth Carolina? Alabama? North Dakota?..Alaska?..NOT ONE SWING STATE!..Clinton won all of the MAJOR prizes, including KEY states like Tennessee..Arkansas..Oklahoma..You people really think that Obama is going to win Kansas in a general election?..or South Carolina?..home of Strom Thurmond? Pull your heads out of the ground..blink a few times and get re-aquainted with daylight and see what is going on here. The idealists arent telling you the truth, and BIG media is decieving you. NBC,owned by General Electric, CBS,OWned by VIACOM, FOX..MURDOCH, ABC, DISNEY OWNED..who do you really think is in the pockets of big money..and OPRAH?..C'mon..pull your head out of the ground!

Posted by: robertod9 | February 25, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

Aleswind..youre facts are wrong!..go to fact check..you Obama people are incredible..you are carbon copies of Republicans..the states that you have won, no democrat will win in Nov..Idaho?..SOuth Carolina? Alabama? North Dakota?..Alaska?..NOT ONE SWING STATE!..Clinton won all of the MAJOR prizes, including KEY states like Tennessee..Arkansas..Oklahoma..You people really think that Obama is going to win Kansas in a general election?..or South Carolina?..home of Strom Thurmond? Pull your heads out of the ground..blink a few times and get re-aquainted with daylight and see what is going on here. The idealists arent telling you the truth, and BIG media is decieving you. NBC,owned by General Electric, CBS,OWned by VIACOM, FOX..MURDOCH, ABC, DISNEY OWNED..who do you really think is in the pockets of big money..and OPRAH?..C'mon..pull your head out of the ground!

Posted by: robertod9 | February 25, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

Aleswind..youre facts are wrong!..go to fact check..you Obama people are incredible..you are carbon copies of Republicans..the states that you have won, no democrat will win in Nov..Idaho?..SOuth Carolina? Alabama? North Dakota?..Alaska?..NOT ONE SWING STATE!..Clinton won all of the MAJOR prizes, including KEY states like Tennessee..Arkansas..Oklahoma..You people really think that Obama is going to win Kansas in a general election?..or South Carolina?..home of Strom Thurmond? Pull your heads out of the ground..blink a few times and get re-aquainted with daylight and see what is going on here. The idealists arent telling you the truth, and BIG media is decieving you. NBC,owned by General Electric, CBS,OWned by VIACOM, FOX..MURDOCH, ABC, DISNEY OWNED..who do you really think is in the pockets of big money..and OPRAH?..C'mon..pull your head out of the ground!

Posted by: robertod9 | February 25, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

Aleswind..youre facts are wrong!..go to fact check..you Obama people are incredible..you are carbon copies of Republicans..the states that you have won, no democrat will win in Nov..Idaho?..SOuth Carolina? Alabama? North Dakota?..Alaska?..NOT ONE SWING STATE!..Clinton won all of the MAJOR prizes, including KEY states like Tennessee..Arkansas..Oklahoma..You people really think that Obama is going to win Kansas in a general election?..or South Carolina?..home of Strom Thurmond? Pull your heads out of the ground..blink a few times and get re-aquainted with daylight and see what is going on here. The idealists arent telling you the truth, and BIG media is decieving you. NBC,owned by General Electric, CBS,OWned by VIACOM, FOX..MURDOCH, ABC, DISNEY OWNED..who do you really think is in the pockets of big money..and OPRAH?..C'mon..pull your head out of the ground!

Posted by: robertod9 | February 25, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

Aleswind..youre facts are wrong!..go to fact check..you Obama people are incredible..you are carbon copies of Republicans..the states that you have won, no democrat will win in Nov..Idaho?..SOuth Carolina? Alabama? North Dakota?..Alaska?..NOT ONE SWING STATE!..Clinton won all of the MAJOR prizes, including KEY states like Tennessee..Arkansas..Oklahoma..You people really think that Obama is going to win Kansas in a general election?..or South Carolina?..home of Strom Thurmond? Pull your heads out of the ground..blink a few times and get re-aquainted with daylight and see what is going on here. The idealists arent telling you the truth, and BIG media is decieving you. NBC,owned by General Electric, CBS,OWned by VIACOM, FOX..MURDOCH, ABC, DISNEY OWNED..who do you really think is in the pockets of big money..and OPRAH?..C'mon..pull your head out of the ground!

Posted by: robertod9 | February 25, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

I recieved something interesting in a google search..look at youtube..larry sinclair..dont know if it s factual, but,why hasnt the mainstream media picked up on this if they arent biased towards obama..this guy makes some pretty astounding claims about drugs and sexual affairs.

Posted by: robertod9 | February 25, 2008 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Aleswind: In 6 years, Clinton has had 5 sponsored bills signed into law. In a little over 3 years, Obama has sponsored or co-sponsored 570 bills with 15 being signed into law. Obama's sponsored/co-sponsored bills include those related to weapons control, public accountability for use of federal funds, lobbying and electoral fraud, climate change, nuclear terrorism, care for returned U.S. military personnel.

You said it. To top it off, four of Hillary's bills were fluff stuff. She can't work with others. The only issues she can get some traction on is bills for children but then how hard is that?

She brags about having her fighting gloves ready to go. Well..that is exactly what we are tired of Hillary. Tired of 20 years of the party idealogue's beating each other up. You had better be careful about what you say about Obama being a Karl Rove. From where I sit, you fit into those shoes perfectly.

Posted by: DancinTea | February 25, 2008 1:28 AM | Report abuse

Hillary, if you want to see proof-positive that Obama's critique of your health care plan is accurate, come to Massachusetts! We got folks getting fined for opting out, while 20% of the state is exempt from the health care mandate anyway. Go back to your hotel, have a cocktail, and bow out of this race with some class before you do any more damage to your image, reputation, and legacy. You do care about these things, no?

Posted by: katefranklin60 | February 24, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

The Clinton campaign has decided that insulting voters they are trying to persuade is a winning strategy.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 24, 2008 10:41 AM | Report abuse

A Clinton/Dean ticket might be the most hostile ticket EVER.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 24, 2008 10:38 AM | Report abuse

Huhh??...Terrible bogus (phonetically spoken) ten times? Right!! That's a waste of space and time.

Posted by: jwholtkamp | February 24, 2008 2:25 AM | Report abuse

Huhh??...Terrible bogus (phonetically spoken) ten times? Right!! That's a waste of space and time.

Posted by: jwholtkamp | February 24, 2008 2:25 AM | Report abuse

Huhh??...Terrible bogus (phonetically spoken) ten times? Right!! That's a waste of space and time.

Posted by: jwholtkamp | February 24, 2008 2:09 AM | Report abuse

Excerpts from Frank Rich today:

Bill Clinton knocked states that hold caucuses instead of primaries because "they disproportionately favor upper-income voters" who "don't really need a president but feel like they need a change." After the Potomac primary wipeout, Mr. Penn declared that Mr. Obama hadn't won in "any of the significant states" outside of his home state of Illinois. This might come as news to Virginia, Maryland, Washington and Iowa, among the other insignificant sites of Obama victories. The blogger Markos Moulitsas Zúniga has hilariously labeled this Penn spin the "insult 40 states" strategy.

The insults continued on Tuesday night when a surrogate preceding Mrs. Clinton onstage at an Ohio rally, Tom Buffenbarger of the machinists' union, derided Obama supporters as "latte-drinking, Prius-driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust-fund babies." Even as he ranted, exit polls in Wisconsin were showing that Mr. Obama had in fact won that day among voters with the least education and the lowest incomes. Less than 24 hours later, Mr. Obama received the endorsement of the latte-drinking Teamsters.

If the press were as prejudiced against Mrs. Clinton as her campaign constantly whines, debate moderators would have pushed for the Clinton tax returns and the full list of Clinton foundation donors to be made public with the same vigor it devoted to Mr. Obama's "plagiarism." And it would have showered her with the same ridicule that Rudy Giuliani received in his endgame. With 11 straight losses in nominating contests, Mrs. Clinton has now nearly doubled the Giuliani losing streak (six) by the time he reached his Florida graveyard. But we gamely pay lip service to the illusion that she can erect one more firewall.

Posted by: KAM3 | February 24, 2008 2:07 AM | Report abuse

Why the media support fresh blood in this election?
The dumbest thing this administration did was curtailing the freedom of press by incarcerating exponents of this freedom. For this sole reason they're send to hell, from which these retughlians will not emerge for at least the duration of this century I reckon. The current wrecked ship of The United States of Liemerica has vanished under the huge international moral and money debt. Over 70 % of the Americans feel that, and want this to change, willing to suffer the pain to get the American mores and debt healthy again. They want respect of the rest of the world like it was 20 years ago. I as an European citizen endorse this idea wholeheartedly. America will have to craft itself a new administration together with a president that has no ties whatsoever with the old Liemerican administration. A big slaughter is on its way with the inauguration of the new president of the U.S.A. Many new prisons need to be build to lock up the current administrative criminals, lobyists, corporative ceo's and justices under the bush-administration. I reckon that some of them will be accused of high crimes, murder, violating international laws or theft of money and properties belonging to the american people, some finding themselves eventually on death row, others locked away for life. This necessary, painful and shameful operation will be among the first things the new president of 'CHANGE', 'HOPE' and 'YES WE CAN' has to set in motion. Hopefully he' ll get through it alive, because many lobbyists, corporate villains and other thugs would love to stop this cleaning process one way or the other.

Posted by: jwholtkamp | February 24, 2008 1:47 AM | Report abuse

Svreader, why is that you still have not been able to set forth a list of Hillary's accomplishments (not as first lady of the United States or Arkansas) but accomplishments that she achieved on her own? I asked you to provide this last week and we're still waiting.

Is it because there are none to mention? Your pointless ramblings do nothing to add to the debate.

Posted by: KAM3 | February 24, 2008 1:42 AM | Report abuse

Hillary is having a very public meltdown. Oh maybe Mark Penn is trying to justify the $7,000,000 she paid his firm in part to come up with a winning strategy.

IT'S OVER HILLARY - MOVE ON.

Posted by: gametheory | February 24, 2008 1:37 AM | Report abuse

When poor people like us have to check our bank balance and our credit cards every time we go to the grocery store to buy bread, milk and eggs for our children, the thought of having our wages garnered because we cannot afford to buy health insurance is abominable and sinful. Can Hillary empathize with the poor? I bet not, she has no idea because she and husband are too busy being patronized and bribed to the tune of $31 million dollars by a Canadian business man. To Hillary, the poor, the blacks, the uneducated, the Latinos are all pawns in her game. If she cares for the poor open her book and let her tax returns be transparent.

Posted by: sbgamatt | February 24, 2008 1:37 AM | Report abuse

When poor people like us have to check our bank balance and our credit cards every time we go to the grocery store to buy bread, milk and eggs for our children, the thought of having our wages garnered because we cannot afford to buy health insurance is abominable and sinful. Can Hillary empathize with the poor? I bet not, she has no idea because she and husband are too busy being patronized and bribed to the tune of $31 million dollars by a Canadian business man. To Hillary, the poor, the blacks, the uneducated, the Latinos are all pawns in her game. If she cares for the poor open her book and let her tax returns be transparent.

Posted by: sbgamatt | February 24, 2008 1:34 AM | Report abuse

I'm so glad Saturday Night Live called the media out on this sickening bias. I thought voters were supposed to decide who the nominee was, NOT THE MEDIA! No matter what he does, he's golden, and the media spins it that way. And if she has the audacity to bring it up, she gets slammed.

Shame on the media, you'd do Castro proud.

Posted by: teribeaugez | February 24, 2008 1:34 AM | Report abuse

I'm so glad Saturday Night Live called the media out on this sickening bias. I thought voters were supposed to decide who the nominee was, NOT THE MEDIA! No matter what he does, he's golden, and the media spins it that way. And if she has the audacity to bring it up, she gets slammed.

Shame on the media, you'd do Castro proud.

Posted by: teribeaugez | February 24, 2008 1:34 AM | Report abuse

I'm so glad Saturday Night Live called the media out on this sickening bias. I thought voters were supposed to decide who the nominee was, NOT THE MEDIA! No matter what he does, he's golden, and the media spins it that way. And if she has the audacity to bring it up, she gets slammed.

Shame on the media, you'd do Castro proud.

Posted by: teribeaugez | February 24, 2008 1:34 AM | Report abuse

I'm so glad Saturday Night Live called the media out on this sickening bias. I thought voters were supposed to decide who the nominee was, NOT THE MEDIA! No matter what he does, he's golden, and the media spins it that way. And if she has the audacity to bring it up, she gets slammed.

Shame on the media, you'd do Castro proud.

Posted by: teribeaugez | February 24, 2008 1:34 AM | Report abuse

I'm so glad Saturday Night Live called the media out on this sickening bias. I thought voters were supposed to decide who the nominee was, NOT THE MEDIA! No matter what he does, he's golden, and the media spins it that way. And if she has the audacity to bring it up, she gets slammed.

Shame on the media, you'd do Castro proud.

Posted by: teribeaugez | February 24, 2008 1:34 AM | Report abuse

I'm so glad Saturday Night Live called the media out on this sickening bias. I thought voters were supposed to decide who the nominee was, NOT THE MEDIA! No matter what he does, he's golden, and the media spins it that way. And if she has the audacity to bring it up, she gets slammed.

Shame on the media, you'd do Castro proud.

Posted by: teribeaugez | February 24, 2008 1:34 AM | Report abuse

I'm so glad Saturday Night Live called the media out on this sickening bias. I thought voters were supposed to decide who the nominee was, NOT THE MEDIA! No matter what he does, he's golden, and the media spins it that way. And if she has the audacity to bring it up, she gets slammed.

Shame on the media, you'd do Castro proud.

Posted by: teribeaugez | February 24, 2008 1:34 AM | Report abuse

I'm so glad Saturday Night Live called the media out on this sickening bias. I thought voters were supposed to decide who the nominee was, NOT THE MEDIA! No matter what he does, he's golden, and the media spins it that way. And if she has the audacity to bring it up, she gets slammed.

Shame on the media, you'd do Castro proud.

Posted by: teribeaugez | February 24, 2008 1:34 AM | Report abuse

I'm so glad Saturday Night Live called the media out on this sickening bias. I thought voters were supposed to decide who the nominee was, NOT THE MEDIA! No matter what he does, he's golden, and the media spins it that way. And if she has the audacity to bring it up, she gets slammed.

Shame on the media, you'd do Castro proud.

Posted by: teribeaugez | February 24, 2008 1:34 AM | Report abuse

I'm so glad Saturday Night Live called the media out on this sickening bias. I thought voters were supposed to decide who the nominee was, NOT THE MEDIA! No matter what he does, he's golden, and the media spins it that way. And if she has the audacity to bring it up, she gets slammed.

Shame on the media, you'd do Castro proud.

Posted by: teribeaugez | February 24, 2008 1:34 AM | Report abuse

I'm so glad Saturday Night Live called the media out on this sickening bias. I thought voters were supposed to decide who the nominee was, NOT THE MEDIA! No matter what he does, he's golden, and the media spins it that way. And if she has the audacity to bring it up, she gets slammed.

Shame on the media, you'd do Castro proud.

Posted by: teribeaugez | February 24, 2008 1:34 AM | Report abuse

I'm so glad Saturday Night Live called the media out on this sickening bias. I thought voters were supposed to decide who the nominee was, NOT THE MEDIA! No matter what he does, he's golden, and the media spins it that way. And if she has the audacity to bring it up, she gets slammed.

Shame on the media, you'd do Castro proud.

Posted by: teribeaugez | February 24, 2008 1:34 AM | Report abuse

I'm so glad Saturday Night Live called the media out on this sickening bias. I thought voters were supposed to decide who the nominee was, NOT THE MEDIA! No matter what he does, he's golden, and the media spins it that way. And if she has the audacity to bring it up, she gets slammed.

Shame on the media, you'd do Castro proud.

Posted by: teribeaugez | February 24, 2008 1:34 AM | Report abuse

I'm so glad Saturday Night Live called the media out on this sickening bias. I thought voters were supposed to decide who the nominee was, NOT THE MEDIA! No matter what he does, he's golden, and the media spins it that way. And if she has the audacity to bring it up, she gets slammed.

Shame on the media, you'd do Castro proud.

Posted by: teribeaugez | February 24, 2008 1:34 AM | Report abuse

I'm so glad Saturday Night Live called the media out on this sickening bias. I thought voters were supposed to decide who the nominee was, NOT THE MEDIA! No matter what he does, he's golden, and the media spins it that way. And if she has the audacity to bring it up, she gets slammed.

Shame on the media, you'd do Castro proud.

Posted by: teribeaugez | February 24, 2008 1:34 AM | Report abuse

I'm so glad Saturday Night Live called the media out on this sickening bias. I thought voters were supposed to decide who the nominee was, NOT THE MEDIA! No matter what he does, he's golden, and the media spins it that way. And if she has the audacity to bring it up, she gets slammed.

Shame on the media, you'd do Castro proud.

Posted by: teribeaugez | February 24, 2008 1:34 AM | Report abuse

I'm so glad Saturday Night Live called the media out on this sickening bias. I thought voters were supposed to decide who the nominee was, NOT THE MEDIA! No matter what he does, he's golden, and the media spins it that way. And if she has the audacity to bring it up, she gets slammed.

Shame on the media, you'd do Castro proud.

Posted by: teribeaugez | February 24, 2008 1:34 AM | Report abuse

I'm so glad Saturday Night Live called the media out on this sickening bias. I thought voters were supposed to decide who the nominee was, NOT THE MEDIA! No matter what he does, he's golden, and the media spins it that way. And if she has the audacity to bring it up, she gets slammed.

Shame on the media, you'd do Castro proud.

Posted by: teribeaugez | February 24, 2008 1:34 AM | Report abuse

I'm so glad Saturday Night Live called the media out on this sickening bias. I thought voters were supposed to decide who the nominee was, NOT THE MEDIA! No matter what he does, he's golden, and the media spins it that way. And if she has the audacity to bring it up, she gets slammed.

Shame on the media, you'd do Castro proud.

Posted by: teribeaugez | February 24, 2008 1:34 AM | Report abuse

I'm so glad Saturday Night Live called the media out on this sickening bias. I thought voters were supposed to decide who the nominee was, NOT THE MEDIA! No matter what he does, he's golden, and the media spins it that way. And if she has the audacity to bring it up, she gets slammed.

Shame on the media, you'd do Castro proud.

Posted by: teribeaugez | February 24, 2008 1:34 AM | Report abuse

I'm so glad Saturday Night Live called the media out on this sickening bias. I thought voters were supposed to decide who the nominee was, NOT THE MEDIA! No matter what he does, he's golden, and the media spins it that way. And if she has the audacity to bring it up, she gets slammed.

Shame on the media, you'd do Castro proud.

Posted by: teribeaugez | February 24, 2008 1:34 AM | Report abuse

Wonder if CNN works 24/7. Most of its Tickers are closed for comments. I wonder if Lou Dobbs works as hard or does he takes the weekend off. Lou Dobbs is only interested in attacks on Mexicans but he completely forgets the Northern borders, Canada. Most of Ohio jobs are lost to Canada as a result of NAFTA - Clinton legacy.

Posted by: sbgamatt | February 24, 2008 1:11 AM | Report abuse

Why the media support fresh blood in this election?
The dumbest thing this administration did was curtailing the freedom of press by incarcerating exponents of this freedom. For this sole reason they're send to hell, from which these retughlians will not emerge for at least the duration of this century a reckon. The current wrecked ship of The United States of Liemericans has vanished under the huge international moral and money debt. Over 70 % of the Americans feel that, and want this to change, willing to suffer the pain to get the American mores and debt healthy again. They want respect of the rest of the world like it was 20 years ago. I as a European citizen I endorse this idea wholeheartedly. America will have to craft itself a new administration together with a president that has no ties whatsoever with the old Liemerican administration. A big slaughter is on its way with the inauguration of the new president of the U.S.A. Many new prisons need to be build to lock up the current administrative criminals and justices under the bush-administration. I reckon that some of them will be accused of high crimes finding themselves eventually on death row. This necessary, painful and shameful operation will be among the first things this new president has to set in motion. Hopefully this president will get through this alive, because many lobbyists and other villains would love to stop this cleaning process one way or the other.

Posted by: jwholtkamp | February 24, 2008 1:00 AM | Report abuse

Just look at this maniacal craziness. The below excerpt is one chosen at random from a typical Obamaphile. So many of them can't even spell and they're all oh-so-smug about being so well educated because Wolf Blitzer says so, therefore it must be true. But check out the insipid rant written by someone called paster whose feeble mind was searching for the word "lose:"

WHAT???!!!!? SHE CANNOT BE SERIOUS!!!!
SHE'S ONLY DOING THIS BECAUSE SHE KNOWS SHE'S GOING TO LOOSE!!! SHE ONLY CARES ABOUT WINNING AND HERSELF!!!!!!!
WORST PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: readmonster | February 24, 2008 12:54 AM | Report abuse

NAFTA is a moot point! We've had millions of jobs outsourced to India, China and elsewhere. China is the new robber baron, while we eat their poison and maintain a $250 Billion dollar trade deficit. NAFTA was a farce, but it's old news. Unless you're Lou Dobbs, with his relentless diatribe. What's happening to our country now, is do to our spineless Dem's and the GOP that plundered our country.
No one wants to face the fact that illegal aliens are dong more harm to our country, then the stupid NAFTA agreement. When I was a kid we used Canadian quarters as slugs, how appropriate that US currency is now worthless. NAFTA has nothing to do with OPEC prices, and nothing to do with the millions of lost jobs overseas. Axelrod is the ultimate pimp, and puts Carl Rove to shame. 'jameswhange', I appreciate you fully opening my eyes with your BS. I have just decided for the first time in my life to vote for a GOP presidential candidate. To think, I once started out voting for Hubert Humphrey and then George McGovern. This will be my last vote. I no longer have a party!

Posted by: uc2it4us | February 24, 2008 12:47 AM | Report abuse

Multibillion dollar American companies in Michigan and Ohio such as Delphi, Collins & Aikman, and Plastech etc went under Chapter 11 and lay off hundreds of thousands of hard working Americans while Canadian companies such as Magna benefited tremendously as a result of NAFTA. This is the question Hillary should answer. Did she and Bill Clinton work hard at night to stop this? NAFTA will sink Hillary in Ohio. The poor hard working people of Ohio are not blind and they do have lots of brain. Hungry children are pictures worth a thousand words.

Posted by: sbgamatt | February 24, 2008 12:39 AM | Report abuse

I'm surprised she was willing to take this next step and flush her career. On the one hand, I am glad she is getting what she has earned, but it's also rather sad to watch.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 24, 2008 12:37 AM | Report abuse

NAFTA?? What's that? I didn't know anything about NAFTA. Bill Clinton, my husband did it. I had no role in it. On the other hand, I have more foreign policy experience than Barack because I dined with more than 80 Heads of State when Bill was the President. Get the picture. This is exactly what Hillary is.

NAFTA is going to be the prime factor in Ohio. It will sink the Titanic. Hillary will lose the nomination because of NAFTA. This is because hundreds of thousands of blue color workers lost their jobs because plants were shut down and moved to Canada. As a result of NAFTA, which Hillary actively supported the governments of Ontario in Canada, Conservatives and Liberals alike subsidized and enticed manufacturers from Ohio and Michigan to close down their plants and move to Ontario.

Posted by: sbgamatt | February 24, 2008 12:22 AM | Report abuse

It's beautiful that Bill's legacy will now include SELLING OUT his African-American constituency in addition to his SELLING OUT labor with NAFTA.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 24, 2008 12:21 AM | Report abuse

The Premiers of Ontario took advantage of NAFTA and provided tax breaks and incentives to shut down plants in the US, there by depriving low income workers in the industrial belts of their main sources of income. For those of us who are skeptical, please go and drive around Ohio, Michigan and Detroit areas and witness the deleterious effects of NAFTA on the poor hard working people of America. This is Bill Clinton's and his wife's legacy. Barack Obama should highlight NAFTA in the debate in Ohio and explain what disastrous effects it had on poor Americans. The people need to know. The media of course including Lou Dobbs of CNN will not do it jobs because of its preference for Hillary.

Posted by: sbgamatt | February 24, 2008 12:18 AM | Report abuse

Clinton/Dean: Now THAT would be one HOSTILE ticket!!

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 24, 2008 12:18 AM | Report abuse

For the Clinton's to complain about "dirty tricks" is perhaps the MOST LAUGHABLE thing I have EVER heard. THEY ARE SHAMELESS!!

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

Hillary WILL have to answer for her decision to tear the Democratic party apart, AS WILL the superdelegates who have the power to END THIS at any time. They will be held accountable.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 24, 2008 12:08 AM | Report abuse

Hillary WILL have to answer for her decision to tear the Democratic party apart, AS WILL the superdelegates who have the power to END THIS at any time. They will be held accountable.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 24, 2008 12:08 AM | Report abuse

Hillary WILL have to answer for her decision to tear the Democratic party apart, AS WILL the superdelegates who have the power to END THIS at any time. They will be held accountable.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 24, 2008 12:08 AM | Report abuse

i dont get it. You Clinton supporters keep talking about all of Obama's smoke and mirrors, as if he hasn't ever said anything about the issues. He has great rhetoric, but being a Clinton supporter doesn't give you the right to just write it off as empty words. If you actually listened to what he's been saying recently, you'll realize that he has been talking about the issues. Get a GRIP! If you can't handle Obama because of his views, be my guest. But don't just target him for no reason.
P.S. for those hillary supporters who disagree with Obama for different reasons, this isn't targeted at you, just those who disagree with him with no basis.

Posted by: bakasurvivor1 | February 23, 2008 11:59 PM | Report abuse

Does Hillary Clinton and her campaign REALLY think people don't see the disingenuous nature of her attacks??

It's what people have been reacting negatively to for months now. It makes one wonder if they are incapable of learning from experience. Does this remind anyone else of the Bush?

One thing is for certain. The superdelegates could put an end to this at ANY time. They choose not to. They will each have to answer for that decision.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 23, 2008 11:58 PM | Report abuse

Let me get this straight. Hillary wants CREDIT for Bill's presidency, but DOES NOT want to take BLAME for the results of policy decisions.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 23, 2008 11:53 PM | Report abuse

Dirty tricks. That's Axelrod. It is about time that Hillary Clinton started defending herself. This has been going on from the very beginning and was noted by John Edwards and others. Obama's campaign has been divisive, dirty, and undignified. If your candidate can't win on his abilities, his experience, his policies, and his knowledge, you rip apart your opponent. You make the opponent out to be a racist, fatigued, the establishment, out of touch, hard, uncaring, ruthless, and ambitious. And you put your candidate in a bubble and you get Oprah to endorse him and voila -- the New American Idol, the real thing, the Great Unifier. And you tell him to just read the scripts, deliver those words about change, unity, a difference. And you let him work the youth into a frenzy, using high tech messaging, rock music,and words, just words, and you stand above them, like a rock star, and talk down to them but don;t take their questions, don't do town hall meetings, and lets minimize these debates and only debate if we can control the questions and the questioning. Is Obama for real or is this a Reality TV Show and actually he is an actor playing someone running for President? Everything is fair in politics -- it's a dirty business, but it just seems a tad bit over the top and unnecessary to spend so much time and money trashing the reputation of a former Democratic President who served his party and country well and of his wife, the first female candidate for the office of President who has an excellent chance to win the national election because she is capable, competent, compassionate and has what it takes to be a commander-in-chief and a President DAY 1. AND she actually helped you get elected to the Senate in the first place. Et tu Brutus? Shame. If Obama is the nominee, McCain gets my vote. It is bad enough when your enemy stabs you in the back but it is quite something else when your so-called friend stabs you in the heart and smiles as he is doing it. Just words. Just speeches. Just too good to be true.

Posted by: krutkow75 | February 23, 2008 11:50 PM | Report abuse

When and if the media's heir apparent Barack Obama has been officially crowned, I will be interested to see how all of you Hillary and Bill bashers propose to bring the rest of us back to the table. So far, Hillary has carried every big state needed to win the General election. Being that I live in the South, I can tell you from a lifetime of experience, Barack Obama will not carry the Red States in the general election. If he even attempts to get the moron Ted Kennedy to stump for him, I guarantee you he's really a goner. All he's big name backers, including Camelot, did nothing for him in California. I'm looking forward to when my party comes calling on me, after this fiasco and I'll remind them of how we as supporters of Hillary we treated like crap. We own 80 acres running along I-10 (which runs from Jacksonville, FL. to Los Angeles, CA) and each party calls us and begs us, to post signs for them. After Barack Obama heir apparent is ordained the Democratic party hopeful, my wife and I will officially become Independents. I won't vote for McCain, but I will allow the GOP to use our land for signs. Being a Vietnam Vet, I'm sure I'll hear from my local VFW anyway. I'm sick of all your condescending and lofty elitist attitudes. Every chance you got to trash the Clinton's, was fair game to you and your candidate offers us nothing but fluff.

I still remember how appalled you were when Hillary brought up his association with slumlord Antoin "Tony'' Rezko and his partner Daniel Mahru. The facts are painfully honest, and really hits home for the new 'Jesus Christ Superstar' and his message of "believe". Here's what I know are the facts, Rezko and Mahru couldn't find money to get the heat back on in apartments. But their company, Rezmar Corp., did come up with money to give to the political campaign fund of Barack Obama, the newly elected senator whose district included the unheated buildings. According to a former city official, "their buildings were falling apart.'' Obama has been friends with Rezko for 17 years. Rezko has been a political patron to Obama helping to raise millions of dollars for him through his own contributions and by hosting fund raisers in his home. While Obama, worked as a legislator to improve living conditions for the poor, he took campaign donations from Rezko, even as Rezko's empire was collapsing, leaving many Black families in buildings in squalid living conditions, lack of heat, squatters and drug dealers. The 30 buildings Rezmar rehabbed are in a series of troubled deals largely financed by taxpayers. Every project ran into financial difficulty. More than half went into foreclosure, eleven of Rezko's buildings were in Obama's Senate district. Much of the criticism has centered on two real estate deals involving Obama's South Side mansion. Also, Obama paid $300,000 less than the asking price for a doctor's home, while Rezko's wife paid the doctor full price. Then Rezko was indicted, indicted, Obama bought the property from Rezko's wife.

Wait until the GOP gets Obama in their cross hairs. We'll see how well he holds up to their scrutiny!

Posted by: uc2it4us | February 23, 2008 11:25 PM | Report abuse

OHIO AND TEXAS,

WHY ARE SO NERVOUS AND FURIOUS THE CLINTONS WHEN SOMEONE SPEAK ABOUT NAFTA AND THE CHINA PERMANENT TRADE TREATIES?
WHO WAS THE BIG SUPPORTERS OF THE AGREEMENTS THAT WOULD COST COUNTRY JOBS?

Former President Bill Clinton was a vigorous supporter of Nafta. He lobbied Congress to pass legislation authorizing the agreement and signed it into law despite objections from fellow Democrats, who believed that it would cost the country jobs.
Mrs. Clinton strenuously distanced herself from that on Saturday, saying Mr. Clinton did not negotiate the agreement. "The agreement was negotiated in the Bush administration," she said. "It was passed in the Clinton administration."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/us/politics/24ohio.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

"ANYBODY CAN TO HIDEN ACTS AND FACTS THAT MAKE PART OF THE HISTORY. ANYBODY CAN TO TURN OVER PAGE OF THE HISTORY TO HIDEN THE OWN HISTORY."

Hugs from Brazil
Dalmo

Posted by: Dalmo1 | February 23, 2008 11:09 PM | Report abuse

Now, everyone gets to see the "real" HELLary! The lamp-throwing cursing woman in the White House of old. Lincoln said: You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time. Someone with all that faux experience should know this is not how to win. Maybe no one told HELLary that when you dig one hole you better dig two 'cause the hole you dig could be for you. She keeps falling on her face! Obama is not in this alone. He is the vehicle to change which everyone is trying to catch a ride and they are going to help that young man get elected in any way. From donations to showing up the Ice Queen. She can't get it together. The female voters should be dizzy from this roller coaster. Is she really sensitive or is she this brazen pantsuit wearing dictator? Please, Texas and Ohio take us out of this misery. The longer this goes, the more sophomoric it gets. There is no need to keep her campaign going if she doesn't have the delegates! The next chapter is waiting. Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Anybody but a Bush or Clinton Obama. HELLary's public service DOES NOT have to be as POTUS. She doesn't reach everyone. This Country is Changing. She isn't. It's time for her to go home and clean up her own house; not take the same old mess back into the White House.

Posted by: livefreeor | February 23, 2008 11:05 PM | Report abuse

Hilary's outburst reminded me of Howard Dean's melt-down and is likely to have similar results. Watching it made me feel the way I did when I was 6 and my fed-up mother had just caught me fighting with my brother...not exactly a feeling that is likely to attract undecided and independent voters. One of the most encouraging aspects of this election season is that negative ads and comments do not seem to be working and this latest example is no exception.

The Clinton campaign sent mailers to voters in NH (and elsewhere I believe) that clearly misrepresented Obama's position on abortion. The anger and indignation from the health care fliers seem a bit hypocritical to me.

Posted by: ap19 | February 23, 2008 11:00 PM | Report abuse

It seems she's forgotten just a few weeks ago that she and her husband were being asked to tell the truth and stop with the untruthful statements. I really don't like how these tactics bring out the worse in people as seen by reading some of the bitter comments. There's definitely division amongst the democrats and it seems to be elevating. I certainly hope he doesn't descend to the same thing. He doesn't need to. Just keep it clean with full integrity and he'll win.

Posted by: wyps100 | February 23, 2008 11:00 PM | Report abuse

It seems unbelievable to me that all this "college educated" and "born again" individuals are so quick to insult and denigrate a first lady because she is intelligent, outspoken and unafraid to stand for her ideas up front. You choose to elect a guy who has only HOPE to offer and no real accomplishments other than to say "I represent change" This is the one time in my life when I am sad to say I will not vote in November.

Has anyone else noticed how condescending, rude and arrogant the demeanor of this man is when he is called to give real answers to the actual issues that matter. Is no wonder to me that his followers show the same outrageous arrogance when criticizing a different view. I can't wait to see all these people upset and bitter that their Holy man in office didn't deliver. What a shame.

Posted by: xm_rubinstein | February 23, 2008 10:57 PM | Report abuse

Obama has numerous identities. His true self is hidden from the public by piles of fake images. In the core, he is just a selfish pathetic opportunist who has the audacity to do anything for personal gain.

Yeah, Shame On You! Hussein Obama!

Posted by: hgogo | February 23, 2008 10:42 PM | Report abuse

I guess Obama's obscure tactics should be expected

Posted by: trace-sc | February 23, 2008 10:39 PM | Report abuse

time to hit Barak Hussein

this guy is a cheer leader of young girls

I can not envision him to anyway

demo is not very smart

Posted by: ruleitang | February 23, 2008 10:33 PM | Report abuse

Hilarious. Whoever the Republican candidate is, he will claim the Democratic candidate will "raise your taxes." Obama claims Clinton will put you in jail if you don't pay your health insurance premiums. Clinton claims that's a lie. Why not have the equivalent of an SAT exam for presidential candidates. Whoever legitmately scores highest gets to be president. That would eliminate compliant placeholders like C- student George Walker Bush, who couldn't be coached to pass. Will the next president repudiate the national debt? I don't know how our nation-state will pay it off if we don't raise taxes. Maybe prayer is the answer.

Posted by: BlueTwo1 | February 23, 2008 10:26 PM | Report abuse

ChunkyMonkey1,

Exactly. I can hardly find anything anymore "Made in the USA". From food to clothing to toys to household items, everything I see these days is either made in China, India, or Peru. The produce section of the grocery stores I shop at are monopolized now with produce shipped from Mexico and Chile. Do these countries even have the same safety standards than America does? Oh, excuse me, I forgot we have all these supposedly wonderful trade agreements in place now to help WHO? Is this really better for the American people? Guess I should offer some thanks to the Clintons for supporting this. Yea, right.

Posted by: carl2008s | February 23, 2008 10:24 PM | Report abuse

ABOUT DAMN TIME! It's finally time she smacked the darling Golden Child in the face over his non-stop Sunday Preacher bullsh-t!

She gets beat up left and right but when she stands up for her position, forcefully as would any male candidate, she is derided and worse.

It's about time someone put the Golden Child under the same damn microscope that the Republicans will!

Clinton is the only one who has the guts, the knowledge and the fighting mettle to stand up to the Republicans in a general election.

She has my vote and my respect. The Preacher has neither.

Posted by: hyperlexis | February 23, 2008 10:20 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's supporters should start a campaign to sack Mark Penn right away. He is the one solely responsible for Hillary's downfall. She should instead hire Bill Clinton as her top strategist. As things go all the hard earned donations of about $3.2 millions paid to Mark Penn for January alone are going to be wasted for nothing. Mark Penn does not have a clue what to do next. His strategies and tactics are so mediocre and sophomoric. His advice to Hillary to have a theatrical outburst today regarding the flyers is not effective and counter productive. I am beginning to wonder which school of communications did he attend and graduate from.

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

Why is Hillary in full retreat?

Well, there are 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.

(Real Democrats don't use confiscatory language when talking about workers' salaries.)

And parents, in particular, are less interested in whether it takes a village to raise decent children than they are in knowing what Bill and Hillary have to offer young people in terms of examples 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.

Then there is the question--"Where's William?"

Bill Clinton oscillates between being underwraps and carefully tethered, lest he alienate even more Democratic voters.

But what would happen if Hillary is actually elected?

How long before the United States, in debt and at war, would have to face another "bimbo eruption" (their words); financial scandal, or embarrassing liaison with the world's corrupt and those who violate human rights?

(Remember the Clinton Administration's embrace of Argentina's corrupt Carlos Menem, and recent revelations about Bill Clinton's dollar diplomacy in the former Soviet Union?)

Of course, not many people seem to be buying the "New Hillary."

Those with long memories will likely think that her inauthentic pose calls to mind the "New Nixon" of 1968--one of the last of a series of image remakes for the eventually disgraced president whose legacy includes a word common to that of Bill Clinton: "impeachment."

Authenicity, transparency and honesty count.

Let's not take a bridge back to the 20th century.

Robert F. Kennedy called politics "an honorable adventure."

It was once, and can be again, with Barack Obama leading the Democratic Party.

Martin Edwin "Mick" Andersen

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | February 23, 2008 10:18 PM | Report abuse

Hillary has latched onto the phrase "let's get real" (which someone must have xeroxed to her) when talking about Obama's candidacy.

But the Clintons themselves need to get real on issues of honesty, ethics and morality.

They both have some explaining to do.

Martin Edwin "Mick" Andersen

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | February 23, 2008 10:17 PM | Report abuse

Whats with the 'Shock & Awe'-style attack from Hillary? These mailers are mild in comparison to the attacks both Obama and Clinton have sustained in recent weeks.

Posted by: maq1 | February 23, 2008 10:14 PM | Report abuse

The more I study the tactics of Hillary, the more it becomes evident that is time for the Clinton's to be relegated to the annals of history. I have been a Clinton supporter for years and after considerable consternation switched to supporting Obama. This uncalled for outburst by Hillary Clinton just confirms that my wife and I made the right choice. A more detialed analysis of what is wrong with Hillary's recored and her campaign antics is available on
http://newpoliticos.blogspot.com/2008_01_01_archive.html

Anyone wishing to discuss this issue further is welcome to email me at shafqat.a.khan@gmail.com

Posted by: shafqat.a.khan | February 23, 2008 10:13 PM | Report abuse

The Clinton's trade agreements not only send American jobs to Mexico and Canada, but also to China and India. All low tech jobs went to Canada and Mexico. All high tech jobs went to India and China. These trade agreements also oepened up American military secrets for the Chinese to steal. All it took these countries were to accomplish all this was to bundle some campaign money for the Clintons.

The other day I was walking on the street and saw a manhole cover on the street. It read "Made in India". Now if we are at a stage where importing heavy cast iron circular discs for manhole covers from half way around the globe is cheaper and better for America, what do we expect the American people to make. The only jobs left in America are the ones that ask 'do you want fries with that'.

For some reason Hillary seems to be more ticked off at Karl Rowe than the rest of the democrats. She is so pissed off at Karl Rowe, that she thinks that comparing Obama to Karl Rowe is a good thing. The people I talk to do not care to hear anymore about Karl Rowe.

The Hillary camp is unable to sell their own snake oil. The earlier the Clintons vanish from the political picture the better it is for America.

Posted by: ChunkyMonkey1 | February 23, 2008 10:12 PM | Report abuse

I thought Hillary did much better than Obama (or Magoo or Huckleberry) at the State of the Black Union confab in New Orleans Saturday. She had to tone down the latest distortions about Obama but didn't let up on her enmity towards Republicans. Such a fiercely partisan person is the last thing we need at this time. The audience didn't seem too enthusiastic about her and she received but brief applause at the end. Nevertheless, as Woody Allen has said, "80% of life is just showing up."

Posted by: filoporquequilo | February 23, 2008 10:12 PM | Report abuse

pkmc83a,

It's not because of Obama that I'm against Hilary Clinton being our president. It's because of Hilary Clinton that I'm against Hilary Clinton being our next president. Why? Because I can't trust someone that has a trail of scandals following her in her past, that's why.

If she doesn't like anyone calling her out then maybe she should take a look at her tactics in her fight to get to the White House.

Posted by: carl2008s | February 23, 2008 10:12 PM | Report abuse

Read it and weep all of you Clinton supporters who can do no better than blindly accept anything Hillary says and be duped into spreading her pack of lies throughout the blogs. Hillary and her supporters wanted a race based on the issues. You begged for "substance". Well, now that you are getting that - you can't handle it.

Here is more proof (reprinted from The Huffington Post) of which candidate is telling lies out of school about Hillary's stance on the subject of NAFTA.
On November 1, 1996, United Press International reported that on a trip to Brownsville, Texas, Clinton "touted the president's support for the North American Free Trade Agreement, saying it would reap widespread benefits in the region."

The Associated Press followed up the next day noting that Hillary Clinton touted the fact that "the president would continue to support economic growth in South Texas through initiatives such as the North American Free Trade Agreement."

In her memoir, Clinton wrote, "Senator Dole was genuinely interested in health care reform but wanted to run for president in 1996. He couldn't hand incumbent Bill Clinton any more legislative victories, particularly after Bill's successes on the budget, the Brady bill and NAFTA."

Yes, we are all expected to just forget that, so that Hillary Clinton's campaign can manufacture supposed "outrage" that anyone would say she supported NAFTA - all at a time her chief strategist, Mark Penn, simultaneously heads a firm that is right now pushing to expand NAFTA into South America.

Posted by: diksagev | February 23, 2008 10:05 PM | Report abuse

She can't have it both ways.

She has told us so many times that she knows how to handle the Rovian Republican attack machine. Yet now she is attacking him for using Rovian tactics. Sounds like he can fight fire with fire, and take the heat at the same time. Looks like he's our candidate.

Posted by: mjones | February 23, 2008 9:57 PM | Report abuse

Please allow me to continue with an examination of Hillary's Phoney claims about Senator Obama's "destructive tactics" in mailers he has sent out contrasting himself and Hillary on the issues. The second mailer that Clinton claims provides false information about her stand on an issue concerns her support of NAFTA, which she is trying her best to deny. It's funny that Hillary constantly boasts of her "35 years experience" and tries to receive credit for her husband's 8 years as President, except when it comes to the failures and scandals of his adminitration. I understand that Hillary has been trying to back track and put distance between herself and NAFTA, which was championed by her husband and signed into law under his administration, ever since she began campaigning for the Democratic nomination. She is trying especially hard to distance herself from her earlier support of NAFTA now that OHIO is being put into play and NAFTA is an issue that does not play well in this key state.

"The chief architects of NAFTA (many who are now wealthy corporate lawyers and lobbyists) are now saying, no, no, Hillary Clinton was really opposed to it. These are the same people, of course, who are looking for jobs in the Hillary Clinton White House. What a total joke, really. This campaign clearly thinks we are all just a bunch of fools."

" Hillary Clinton has made statements unequivocally trumpeting NAFTA as the greatest thing since sliced bread. The Buffalo News reports that back in 1998, Clinton attended the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, and thanked praised corporations for mounting "a very effective business effort in the U.S. on behalf of NAFTA." Yes, you read that right: She traveled to Davos to thank corporate interests for their campaign ramming NAFTA through Congress."

There you have it. Hillary Clinton includes "mandates" in her Universal Health Care Plan. She not only includes them; but the fact that she is for mandates and Senator Obama is NOT has been the primary point she has tried to use to her advantage in contrasting the two plans in 19 debates and inumerable tumps speeches. The answer she gave, in her own words, for how she would mandate coverage specifically mentioned "going after the wages" of workers who refused to sign on voluntarily. I don't se how she can now claim that Senator Obama's mailer, detailing her plan as "forcing" her health care plan on Americans is the least bit innacurate, let alone all of the viscious and negative attack and dirty tricks that Hillary is trying topaint it to be.

Hillary's "flip-flop" on NAFTA is precisely that. Bill Clinton was the champion of NAFTA and got it approved by Congress. Hillary was Pro-NAFTA then, and after Bill signed it into law, she even made a trip to Europe thanking people there for helping to push NAFTA through the US Congress. She may not have been singing that tune lately, since she has been forced to take responsibility for her stand on tough issues since she began campaigning for the nomination, but her earlier stand FOR NAFTA is a part of her public record that she has repeatedly invited voters to look into concerning her "35 years experience".

So, there is really no basis for any of the charges that Clinton is leveling at her opponent. The best she can do is point out that a word taken from an article an a national news magazine, describing her support of NAFTA has since been retracted by that magazine, but there are other examples (such as the one I included) pointing to Hillary's support of NAFTA.

What I find nauseating is the atempt to paint Barrack Obama as "Hillary Clinton" or "Bill Clinton". The Clintons are the people who have initiated all of the negative attacks in this campaign! They are the ones who have borrowed pages from Karl Rove's book of dirty political tricks! Hillary can try to play the part of the victim and moan and groan all she wants about the Obama Campaign Mailers. They accurately represent what she has said. Whether she is trying to say something much different today in her effort to woo the voters in Texas, Ohio, Vermont and Rhode Island is "irrelevant". Hillary has made statement on the public record and now she is trying to run away from her own comments because they are no longer politically expedient in her effort to win this election. If MS. Clinton wants to use her husband as she did to paint herself as a victim of his womanizing - that is between the two of them; but the voters of this country need to look at the cold hard facts and she is no victim of dirty politics by her opposition in this race. If statements Hillary has made, suggesting garnishing the wages of voters in an effort to mandate her Universal Health Care, and trumpeting her support of NAFTA aren't sitting well with voters in Ohio or elsewhere in February of 2008 - that's not Barack Obama's fault!

Posted by: diksagev | February 23, 2008 9:53 PM | Report abuse

What about Hillary's Dirty Tactics in New Hampshire. What about her push polling in Wisconsin and California? The following article in the LA Times is absolutely clear how dirty her tactics are.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/02/breaking-news-p.html

Now that she is on the brink of defeat he is using anything to discredit her opponent. Hillary you time has come. You cannot copy use the same tactics against Senator Kerry in 2004 and apply that to Obama. He is too smart for you. You never supported Kerry in 2004 so you can stand in 2008. Please do not think it will work for you in 2012.

Posted by: sbgamatt | February 23, 2008 9:50 PM | Report abuse

It seems that in order to join the Obama Gang, you must first engage in a Clinton Hit. Its not good, I'm telling you.

The Clinton people have been told from everyone not to offend the Obama voters, they will be needed in the Fall, and this is true. Does this not also apply to the Obama camp? It seems not as the Obama people seem to, with reckless abandon, trash Clinton and her constituents at every opportunity. Its no wonder she blew her stack today. Obama is so nice, but his people are engaging in the gutter sniping and he defends them. In this, Obama is not much different from George W. and his operation. Just ask McCain about South Carolina in 2000.

Do you Obama people really think that this is how you get people to come back together, which is the central premise of the Obama campaign? To end the politics of personal destruction? To end the hate and division, you are actively engaging in hate and which is creating division.

As one seeks the Office of President, so they will operate the office. Bush did this to get into office in 2000 and has run one of the most corrupt administrations ever.

Why is it not enough to be for Obama that you must also be against Clinton?

Sorry Obamaites, your boy isn't going to make it. You are losing 45-50% of the Democrats by how you are sliming Clinton.

It is a disgusting show.

Why not just be for Obama and let that be enough? Or maybe its because that's not enough. Is that it? There is not enough there to be for, and so you must also be against Clinton in order to justify being an Obamaniac.

This is not a vote for the best on American Idol, its not Oprah, its for real.

And what is unreal about it all is not that Obama is not a real talker, he is. But the unreal part is that a supposed Democrat would run against a Clinton like Rush Limbaugh would. Obama is running against the Republican generated caracature of Hillary Clinton, not against the real one. There is a difference you know. And her call to "get real" was a call to get real about her, not about him.

But Obama is so centered on himself and his golden tongue, he just can't see anything else.

There is an old saying that you should be careful the enemies you make, because to beat your enemy you must first become him. So if Clinton is enemy of Clinton and Obama is beating Clinton, that's only because Obama has become more Clinton that Clinton.

You are paving the way for President John McCain. Congratulations Obamaniacs, you are costing the Democratic Party a sure win.

Posted by: pkmc83a | February 23, 2008 9:48 PM | Report abuse

As a Democrat, I am excited by either candidate, Barack or Hillary. After the catastrophic presidency of Bush/Cheney, I have faith either will restore the tarnished glory of this great nation. Ideologically, I believe Barack and Hillary are reasonably close to one another on the issues. My hope is that their campaigns don't erupt in open warfare and tear apart the party in their quest for the nomination. Supporters of either candidate must remember we're on the same side of the spectrum.

Posted by: Minnesota1 | February 23, 2008 9:37 PM | Report abuse

pressF1
Nice post

Posted by: joy2 | February 23, 2008 9:34 PM | Report abuse

Hillary needs to fire all of her advisors...NOW! I have been and will continue to be a supporter of Barack Obama. But I hate to see Hillary embarrassing herself like she has been doing in this campaign. She is a smart woman. Can't she see how ridiculous it is, to be all smarmy on Thursday and then go off on a tirade on Saturday. Remember, "this is the fun part!"

Posted by: joy2 | February 23, 2008 9:30 PM | Report abuse

Wow, Hillary's other side. We saw her fake tears, we saw her fake smiles, now we see her fake anger.

Why doesn't she send her surrogate Bubba to tell the people of Ohio that he also did not support NAFTA? Bill is very quiet about all these bruhaha about NAFTA. Hillary is torn between Texas and Ohio. She has to tell her latino crowd near the Texas boder that NAFTA was good for their people. Then the same day she has to fly to Ohio and tell those people that she is going to reverse the effects of NAFTA. If anybody can have those two faces at the same time, that is Hillary. We remember from her second debate when she said she wanted to give illegal aliens drivers license and within two minutes later changed her story.

Hillary was all kissy kissy at Obama during the debate. Now she is all angry. Did she forget to take her medication?

Posted by: JohnMcCormick | February 23, 2008 9:29 PM | Report abuse

She shows her angry side when she gets criticized.

Either you like that or you don't; but it is the way she is.

If she tries to push her agenda as President, she's going to catch a lot of detailed flak about the specifics in any plan she may propose. If you want to hear a lot of this kind of trash-talking about anyone who makes contrary points to her policy proposals, you'll enjoy her Presidency. To me it's kind of noisy. I don't admire it. I mean, for sure, no matter who gets elected, if the health care system is going to change there's going to have to be a lot of discussion of the specifics, and it's unlikely that any program that eventually gets adopted is going to be entirely like any plan advanced by any candidate right now during this campaign. There will be debate, and compromise, and dealing, and adjustment along the way; that is in the nature of the process. But you can figure that -- substance aside -- the style of the discussion, the tone, will remain the same as it is now, for whichever team ends up in the White House. I personally would prefer to have the cooler tone of the Obama style than all this raspy stuff we're getting right now from Clinton. Other people may feel differently. But it does seem like one reason people who prefer Obama prefer Obama is that they consider the confrontational nature of Washington politics to be a part of the problem -- a dysfunctional aspect of our present leadership. You don't know for sure if Obama can accomplish anything by trying to be more reasonable and moderate in the way he engages people who don't agree with him. But you do know that he will make the attempt. And I would like to see that approach tried.

Posted by: pressF1 | February 23, 2008 9:27 PM | Report abuse

As a life long Democrat and liberal I have never been more excited or proud of my party and the outstanding choices we ofter for the world,s future! I believe Hillary is the past and Obama Hussein is the future and the leader of the Democrat Party!

Our parties strong stand against the Constitution and Rule of Law for Illegal Immigration should bring the Illegal Immigrants into our camp. Indeed, all immigrants from around the world that want to immigrate to the USA but do not want to go thought. the hassle of legal Immigration will support us. Finally American can live up to its creed under the Democrats and Citizens of the world irregardless of Religion, Race, Tribe, Nationally, Education, Diseases or Skills can come to American and be citizens of this great Nation and the Democrat party while slopping at the trough of public welfare! Our growing and expanding population with our teeming masses from sea to polluted sea will drive our wages to third world status and allow to us compete with China, India, and other third world countries and end outsourcing of our jobs.

It may require a balancing act having both the Blacks and Latinos under the same tent with Latino hater of Blacks while Blacks are very upset over Latinos Hi-Jacking their civil rights by equating walking across a border to the nearest welfare office, as the same as blacks experienced with slavery. The Ethic cleansing of Blacks in LA by Illegal Hispanics will also make his task harder, but if anyone can ofter them welfare haven then Obama is the Man.

I think as a seasoned, & experienced drug user Obama and as he says in his book , knowing how to score some blow, he will address how backward, unfair and punitive our drug laws are and legalize drugs. This would release millions of Drug users and drug dealers from prison. They, with their knowledge and experience could go into selling, distribution and expanding the legal drug trade and help our economy and the Black & Hispanic communities. In addition to saving tax payers Tens of Billions now spend in incarceration, prevention and drug fighting cost. Of course, all drugs would have a high tax but still be much cheaper than Illegal drugs. We could earmark the tax receipts from drugs to the millions of Uneducated Immigrants we gave American citizenship to help offset the net cost of 20k per year each cost in public welfare. This would reduced the price of drugs to where the average American citizen could afford good coke, just like the elites and Politicians, This will also reduce the price of creak for our poorer citizens, and make their life more enjoyable for our teeming masses. But I fear legalizing drugs will be beyond even Obama. The drugs lords have so many Billions due to high prices , to share with our Politicians to keep our borders open for drugs, illegal immigrants, and terrorist to pour across, that the special interests will never let him legalize drugs. I know Obama, you will do your best and that is all we can ask!

Posted by: american1 | February 23, 2008 9:25 PM | Report abuse

Destructive tactics, my Aunt Fanny!

At least the latest strategy of the Clinton Campaign has been revealed. I was almost certain that the pundits who thought Hillary was taking a Valedictory approach with her closing remarks in the Debate Thursday night got it wrong. That was not one of those "warm, human moments" for Hillary as she realized that this race was probably over and it was NOT a case of her wanting to go out with dignity if defeat seemed inevitable. Clinton's remarks were CONTRIVED; carefully rehearsed and delivered and then immediately reinforced with e-mails from her Communications Director, Howard Wolfson, the minute the debate was over.

Almost all of the pundits have been saying for weeks that Hillary has no choice but to go negative in an effort to tear Senator Obama down, because she has reached the ceiling as far as voters who will support her. The expert opinion has been that a monumental error by Obama or a successful attack by Clinton to eat away at his support is the only chance Hillary has to salvage the nomination.

I have to give her, and her campaign credit. It is brilliant; not at all honest, but very smart. Hillary made the opening move with her closing remarks in the Thursday night debate; designed to paint herself as the victim who is thinking first of so many Americans who've had a much rougher time handed to them by life. That was phase one; setting the stage for phase two which we are seeing now. The plan (obviously) is to try to delude voters into thinking that Senator Obama is guilty of playing dirty politics and that Hillary is "the victim" of his "destructive tactics". Clinton tried going negative in Wisconsin, and it backfired. She's found a new way to play her dirty tricks which is to attack Senator Obama by convincing voters that he is the one attacking her. It would be a beautiful stroke of genius if it would work, but I think voters this year have proven over and over again that the majority of us are a bit too smart to have the wool pulled over our eyes, because we have studied the issues and we use a little common sense.

Here is what Clinton is charging:

She is characterizing a mailer sent out by the Obama campaign as lies attempting to distort her position. The first point of conflict is:

"Clinton's advisers have repeatedly criticized the Obama campaign's health care mailing, which says her plan for universal coverage would "force" everyone to purchase insurance even if they can't afford it. Her plan requires everyone to be covered, but it offers tax credits and other subsidies to make insurance more affordable."

"Obama's plan does not include the so-called "individual mandate" for adults, and he has argued that people cannot be required to buy coverage if they can't afford it. He has said his first priority is bringing down costs."

There is no lie or distortion here. Clinton claims that the mailer is some kind of blatant lie where is says, "her plan for universal coverage would "force" everyone to purchase insurance even if they can't afford it". Hillary Clinton has publicly stated that she would mandate that EVERY American purchase health care under her plan and she has gone so far as to mention garnishing the wages of Americans as one of the possible ways to make sure that everyone signs up for her health care. If that isn't "forcing" her plan down the throat of ever American, what is it?

Posted by: diksagev | February 23, 2008 9:22 PM | Report abuse

Enough!

Having accused Senator Obama of "change by xerox" only to immediately lift lines from John Edwards, and, advertising in SC that Obama was a Reaganite, Senator Clinton has really gone too far.

We would do well to recall that mudslingers may miss their target ... and wind up with mud on their own hands.

It is time to elevate this campaign, time to move from invective to insight. We can and should expect better from Senator Clinton... she is fully able to do so.

Posted by: pitchersweet | February 23, 2008 9:20 PM | Report abuse

bldlcc,iluvsummer:

I want to associate myself with both your comments about svreader. I have similarly commenetd on her before and what I conclude is that all her scathing criticisms of Senator Obama are merely a reflection as to how she feels about herself. It is classic self-loathing. To quote Shakespeare, "she protesteth too much" because it is a mirror of how she sees herself.

I hate sore losers.

Posted by: jovitman | February 23, 2008 9:19 PM | Report abuse

Obama has been full of it since day one.
Nobody knows anything that he has done, if anything.
His slogans are empty-headed.
His plans for ending the war in Iraq, the "dumb" war, are non-existant.
He is a beginner in the acting profession. He has some talent, but is still an amateur.
What baffles me is how Hillary could listen to all of his clap-trap and insinuations and then say how thrilled she is to be on the stage with him.
They're both out of their minds.
I do prefer Clinton because I think she has more brains and more heart.
But the press has long since anointed Obama and Hillary hasn't a chance.
So it will come down to a choice between two dangerous candidates, Obama and McCain.
The question will be which one of the two is the most dangerous?
I don't know and couldn't choose.
I will have to look elsewhere.

Posted by: lennyjazz | February 23, 2008 9:17 PM | Report abuse

svreader, for your reading pleasure:

O-BA-MA!
O-BA-MA!
O-BA-MA!
O-BA-MA!
O-BA-MA!

Happy reading!

your friend, meldupree (smirk!)

Posted by: meldupree | February 23, 2008 9:15 PM | Report abuse

Right, the great NAFTA deal. Someone explain to me how that has helped Americans or their jobs.

Posted by: carl2008s | February 23, 2008 9:12 PM | Report abuse

What a joke. Clinton and her husband the predator are the dirtiest politicians in history. Probably the most dishonest and immoral too. Nothing but human debris.

Posted by: LarryG62 | February 23, 2008 9:12 PM | Report abuse

svreader: Take a deep breath and think about the bigger picture. It's not about Obama or Clinton, it's about America's future and place in the world. It's about my future and your future and that of millions of other people. It's about electing someone who shows the potential to work well with both Democrats and Republicans in Congress to get policies on healthcare, education, the economy, ending the war, saving the environment, implemented. Policies that benefit every American whether Democrat, Republican, Green Party or Libertarian. A president does not act in a vacuum s/he has to be able to forge coalitions. I happen to believe the best person to do this is Barack Obama.

As disappointed as you are about Obama's successes (given that you support Clinton) reflect on this: you cannot turn an Obama supporter into a Clinton supporter by insulting us, belittling our intelligence, taking the positions of the few who may have been rude to you as representative of all, and threatening revenge if your candidate loses. Calm down. Present what you think is great about Hillary Clinton (without knocking Barack Obama) and you might sway someone. Tell people they are morons for not supporting your candidate and you've lost them. Is that so difficult to understand?

Posted by: iluvsummer | February 23, 2008 9:11 PM | Report abuse

Obama's honest, Hillary isn't. She praised NAFTA but needs a distraction.

People aren't stupid.

Millions will never vote for her.

Posted by: steveforester | February 23, 2008 9:08 PM | Report abuse

Didn't Hilary Clinton say she might garnish people's wages who can afford health insurance but wouldn't go with her universal health care plan? And why didn't she directly answer the question when George Stephanopoulos asked her about wage garnishing more than once? I do not trust that she will have a better health care plan for Americans.

Posted by: carl2008s | February 23, 2008 9:07 PM | Report abuse

Obama has been full of it since day one.
Nobody knows anything that he has done, if anything.
His slogans are empty-headed.
His plans for ending the war in Iraq, the "dumb" war, are non-existant.
He is a beginner in the acting profession. He has some talent, but is still an amateur.
What baffles me is how Hillary could listen to all of his clap-trap and insinuations and then say how thrilled she is to be on the stage with him.
They're both out of their minds.
I do prefer Clinton because I think she has more brains and more heart.
But the press has long since anointed Obama and Hillary hasn't a chance.
So it will come down to a choice between two dangerous candidates, Obama and McCain.
The question will be which one of the two is the most dangerous?
I don't know and couldn't choose.
I will have to look elsewhere.
Or read a good book.

Posted by: lennyjazz | February 23, 2008 9:03 PM | Report abuse

I recall yet another Hillary lie when she ran for the Senato in New York she had no intention of running for the Presidency in 2008 is what she said go back and look it it up

Believe anything she says at your own and the countries risk

Posted by: stephanj | February 23, 2008 9:01 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton has shown bad management whenever she had important tasks assigned to her.
1) Her utterly mismanaged campaign.
2) Failed healthcare
3) Travelgate
4) Iraq War.

Considering this awful display of lack of leadership, vision and character, i cannot undersand how can any of the HRC supporters can say she is the most experienced or ready for President!!

Additionally she does not have the character and personality to unite people for a common cause. She is too arrogant and divisive.

All this is evidence that she is not fit to be a President.

Her latest outburst and personal attack on Barack Obama for factual and non-personal flier shows her immaturity and lack of character.

The fliers were factual and Barack Obama should continue doing that. HRC wanted a debate on policies and she should respond factually rather than hyesterically like she did.

I think the HRC supporters are delusional to support this crazy woman!!!

Posted by: venky1 | February 23, 2008 9:00 PM | Report abuse

The Clinton's problem is , they don't know how to deal with or accept the TRUTH because it's not something they have ever learned to practice.

Posted by: cakemanjb | February 23, 2008 8:57 PM | Report abuse

Obama (the HMO's representative in congress ) attacks anyone who pushes a universal health care. It is deeply immoral and shameful for this country if he is elected. I want Obama fans to think about this: if people are allow to be uninsured under Obama's plan, the insurance company will be able to deny coverage for those who are very ill and really need help, on basis such as preexisting condition. This is exactly the problem of the current system. If you really want change in this, please rethink your vote, for the sake of old and sick and humanity. You will be like that some day if you do not want to move to Canada.

Posted by: sgr_astar | February 23, 2008 8:57 PM | Report abuse

Oh please. It's not okay for anyone else to point out things about Hilary Clinton? Oh but it's perfectly okay for Hilary Clinton to continually attack and find every opportunity to pick at Obama and demean him. Shame on you, Hilary Clinton. Look in the mirror before you start pointing fingers.

Posted by: carl2008s | February 23, 2008 8:56 PM | Report abuse

cntrvilleCitoyen.Do you really think you fooled anybody but yourself? No democrat with a brain would ever say what you just said. When you compare both candidates to McCain and his backward thinking, when you get out of the WW2 america the big dog attitude, when you realize the world has changed and is not what is represented in movies, then maybe you will understand. The appeal of the right is to bigotry in all of its forms. They(you)want to drive a wedge between races, ethnicities, sexes and those of different sexual orientations. That's the only way you know to win. In the words of your patron saint george,"fool me once shame on you, fool me twice cant get fooled again. GET MY DRIFT?

Posted by: jestindam | February 23, 2008 8:54 PM | Report abuse

joapow8,uc2it4us:

Joapow8:You are not a lifelong dem but a lifelong republican and a liar. Be honest and admit who you are. The muslim charge is false and a canard being leveled by the bigots who don't want a black man in the White House.

uc2it4us:As a person of the Jewish faith, I too was alarmed at the comments by the "Reverend jeremiah Wright." He is a furst class anti-semite and Farrakhan is a vile anti-semite in the mold of a Hitler.

I don't believe in guilt by association and Senator Obama has condemed both "Reverend Wright's" comments and has condemned Farrakhan as he must. Just because David Duke calls himself a republican doesn't mean that every republican supports the kkk. Politics makes strange bed fellows. It's your actions in response to abject bigotry and hatred that count.

David Axelrod, who is Jewish, is Senator Obama's campaign manager. I have to believe if there was even a whiff of anti-semitism coming from Senator Obama that David Axelrod would not be his campaign manager and I would never support any candidate that held such views.

Posted by: jovitman | February 23, 2008 8:52 PM | Report abuse

Does not matter much both will destroy this Nation by giving Amnesty to 20 to 30 million of uneducated welfare loving Latinos. Then when they bring all their friends and family in the US it will be enough to turn the USA into a Catholic, Spanish speaking third world Cesspool!

Barack |S. Obama is showing his white middle class upbringing and profound misunderstanding of the Black experience when he equates Latinos walking across the Border to the nearest welfare office as the same thing as Blacks experienced in Slavery and the fight for their Civil Rights. Obama, Hillary and the Democrats are in fact abandoning Blacks for the new minority Latinos. It is the beginning of the end for Black political power and their civil rights. Latinos has replaced blacks as the Minority to pander and promote. Latinos hater for Blacks and racist hater for everyone not a member of the Race will affect blacks first but in time destroy this Nation. As the Racist hate group, La Raza says everything for the race and nothing for the rest. Anyone that reads La Raza Manifesto and listens to Latino politicians & activist is the USA & Mexico should have no doubt what the future of this Nation will be. Unless we close our Borders and enforce our Immigration laws. But like the Jews in Germany listening to Hitler it is easier, less stressful and more Political Correct to close our eyes, ears, and mind,s than be Political Incorrect and face the truth about what Mexico,s and the Latinos organizations agenda and goals really are. The Republicans love the cheap labor for the rich with the poor and middle class paying the 20K per year in welfare! The Democrats mouth waters at the thought of another 100 millions or so voter on welfare to vote for the Democrats party. We are giving this Nation to Mexico & in time will lead to another Catholic, Spanish speaking, third world Cesspool of Crime, Corruption, Poverty and Misery!

Considering the horrific illegal alien problem in this country- that costs us BILLIONS and brings in more violent crime, for Obama to be pandering to the illegal aliens is SHAMEFUL!

Obama's speech to La Raza:

(La Raza (The Race), Largest Hispanic organization in the U.S.
Lobbies for racial preferences, bilingual education, stricter hate crimes laws, mass immigration, and amnesty for illegal aliens )

Obama said the recent Senate immigration debate "was both ugly and racist in a way we haven't see since the struggle for civil rights."
SHAMEFUL!

Obama told La Raza that the mass protests lately of for immigration rights of Mexicans is equal in greatness to the civil rights protest of the past!
SHAMEFUL!

Omama supports La Raza's, the "DREAM Act," which would mandate states to offer in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens -- thus providing them with benefits not available to U.S. citizens from other states, as well as amnesty and other atrocities. Obama urged Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to sign the Dream Act, a bill that would make illegal immigrant students who graduate from high school eligible for college aid. (Schwarzenegger vetoed a similar measure last year.)
SHAMEFUL!

Obama is currently displayed as banner bo thy on the Project Islamic Hope site. Some of the founders of this organization have been indicted for terrorist support.

Posted by: american1 | February 23, 2008 8:52 PM | Report abuse

I guess Hillary doesn't remember this add.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Clinton_keeps_up_healthcare_attack.html
This is a big stunt, because all of the media began to question whether she has given up or not. She trying to make her supporters believe that she is still trying to fight so that they can keep raising money.

What a joke!!!

Posted by: johnthebassist | February 23, 2008 8:52 PM | Report abuse

Hey, 'sv', you are just not making a of of sense, man. Given your posts, we all know who you support and maybe -maybe- where you stand on some issues. That is your rigfht as an American citizen. But, seriously, do you think that everyone who doesn't see the world through your particular color of glasses is somehow less endowed with the inalienable right to have those opposing views? This is America, right? We do live in a purported Democracy, right? Freedom of speech, association, etc. is still guaranteed by the constitution, right? Then, why all of the negativity and vitrolic posturing? It doesn't serve to advance the level of constructive discourse at all.

Don't hate, just participate!

Posted by: bldlcc | February 23, 2008 8:51 PM | Report abuse

Hillary; shame on you!... shame on you!....shame on you!...
i will keep saying it untill you all vote for me!

Posted by: avazi10 | February 23, 2008 8:49 PM | Report abuse

Senator Clinton's "outrage" is completely contrived and planned as is her every move. She follows the script as it's laid out for her by Messrs. Penn and Bill.

She should not be nominated for or elected to the Presidency. We'll never know what deals and evasions will come forth from the White House. Power will corrupt and absolute power will corrupt absolutely.

Robert Koontz
Major, USMCR (Retired)

Posted by: robear | February 23, 2008 8:48 PM | Report abuse

The media has given Obama a free pass. I do not know of any other election where the media has given up its civic responsibility to scrutinize the candidates. The only logical reason I can think of is, they do not want to be called racist.
I will say this to the Obama supporters, you will need Hillary to put the Democratic party back together or we will have McCain as the next President

Posted by: y2kidd | February 23, 2008 8:48 PM | Report abuse

She doesn't look very Presidential.

Posted by: mimi424 | February 23, 2008 06:35 PM

What presidents should look like? Male white and handsome?

Posted by: sgr_astar | February 23, 2008 8:45 PM | Report abuse

It's crazy how you people follow Obama simply because the "Media" has favorite him. It's practically an a cult following that will lead to the down fall of the US! He is all "promises" without any real answers! If you stop and actually to him for once, you will see he's empty. Exactly what good would that be for the US? Get a grip on reality the President cannot make ANY real changes without Congress!! He's running a smear campaign "off' camera.... how is that change??? Same old politics.

Posted by: glamourchild1 | February 23, 2008 8:41 PM | Report abuse

svreader, bwn:

Your arguments against Senator Obama and comparinh him to McGovern and Kerry are completetly off the mark.

First of all, I was only 12 when Senator McGovern ran but I wish I could have voted for him. Senator McGovern was one of the most decent, principled and honest public officials ever to serve in the U.S. Senate. The likes of men like him we rarely ever see. Perhaps Senator Feingold follows in his great tradition.

The demographics of this election are so unprecedented. There are more young people, blacks and latinos voting than ever before and this new emerging democratic majority will make the difference in an Obama victory. Traditional democrats will come home this November and quite frankly I think Senator McCain's campaign will implode. This emerging NY Times story about his relationships with lobbyists is only beginning to emerge and the central premise of his candidacy, namely that he is a reformer and fights lobbyists influence in Washington will reveal that he is a liar and a hypocrite.

Posted by: jovitman | February 23, 2008 8:40 PM | Report abuse

The attack on Barack Obama was clearly a sign of desperation on the part of Hillary Clinton.

She has become a bitter woman after everyone deserted her. Whites, blacks, the young and the old. Even the Latinos.

She should realize that she and her husband are not getting a third term to the White House next year and the best thing they can do is to join us in the campaign to defeat the Republicans in November to make Barack Obama our next President.

Posted by: wkebede | February 23, 2008 8:39 PM | Report abuse

Keep trying Hillary, Maybe something will stick, your sounding and looking desperate.

when the people speak on March 4th I hope you listen!

Posted by: scootab | February 23, 2008 8:38 PM | Report abuse

What is obvious about the ads, depsite the defenses of Obama supporters on its accuracy, is that THEY ARE NEGATIVE ADS.

Everyday Obama reveals something "new" about how he is an "old" politician.

Out spending opponents while dodging debates, Rezko, spending 700K on super delegates, foregoing public financing, using establishment support.

Soon, many Obama supporters will simply be HOPING that Obama is not politics as usual. HOPING that the despite the current evidence of politics as usual, he will CHANGE if and when he gets the chance to run for office in the GE, or they'll HOPE he'll CHANGE if and when he gets a chance to take the oath.

Posted by: camasca | February 23, 2008 8:38 PM | Report abuse

Ok. Let's see. How to make this comment PC enough to pass mustor with the WaPo censors and still remain relevant? Some conundrum.

Anyway. I just want to say to all posters, particularly those eminating from a certain valley in CA, who would assume that American citizens who do not share approved political sensibilities (which means that they agree with a certain CA poster, of course); do not possess the requisite cognitive abilities to decide whom to vote for without being castigated for our profligacy for having exercised our God-given rights to make our own choices, absent some missionary liberal having given us permission to do so - we can think for ourselves! Thank you very much.

No, Chicken Little ( and you know who you are), the sky will not be falling if voters choose to disagree with you and your presidential choice. Vote your convictions. Allow me to vote mine, without suffering your rancor. Indeed, your version of politics evokes a scary " Do as I say or I will enforce my opinions upon you." mentality. The ideals of America are better, or at least - ontologically speaking - should be better than that. B

Posted by: bldlcc | February 23, 2008 8:36 PM | Report abuse

It's about time that Clinton gets mad at Obama. He says nice uplifting words but in the back room he is just like every other rotten politician using the tactics of the Republicans and Karl Rove. He even has the gaul to say that her complaint is "tactical". What a joke! I am sure he does not believe that or a single word he says. He just promises everyone everything all of the time which he knows he could NEVER DELIVER. He has finally been called out! NOW HILLARY STAY MAD!!!! AND FIGHT BACK!!!

Posted by: AZdave | February 23, 2008 8:35 PM | Report abuse

I believe Obama's literature to be accurate.

I was opposed to NAFTA, as were millions of my fellow union members. I remember the fight over its ratification. NAFTA was ratified under Bill Clinton only after Clinton and his wife strongly supported NAFTA and actively campaigned Congress to ensure its ratification.

Critics of NAFTA, including millions of union members, warned of the devastating effects it would have on the American economy and jobs; the Clintons and Congress turned deaf ears. Our warnings have come to pass, and now Clinton wants to distance herself from the adverse effects of NAFTA.

Insofar as the healthcare issue goes, I watched the debate and she specifically stated that healthcare under her plan would be mandatory--just as social security is mandatory. She also did not dispute Obama's point that under her plan citizens who failed to obtain her mandatory healthcare would be heavily fined. Sounds to me that whether or not someone can afford healthcare, under her plan they will be forced to purchase it.

Posted by: txgall | February 23, 2008 8:32 PM | Report abuse

I am a 71 year old life long Democrat, have not over voted Republican, But you can be darn sure I will not vote for a muslin. Check out FREEDOM's ENEMIES, "THE BARACK FILES'. It just might make you think before you vote.

Posted by: JoAPow8 | February 23, 2008 8:32 PM | Report abuse

There is no good choices in this election. In the face of a massive economic downturn, we need a leader that will be honest with the people and make some tough choices. But all these candidates are telling their radical voter bases what they want to hear. Universal healthcare, making Bush's tax cut permanent, government program to save the housing market. All of these ideas inevitably add more debt to the country that is already up to its eyeballs in debt.

What needs to happen is that

government spending needs to be cut by a substantial amount and no more wasteful government programs such as universal healthcare that we can ill afford at this point.

taxes have to rise to cover some of the deficits created by previous spending.

consumer credits must remain tight to avoid more wasteful deficit spending by ordinary Americans and businesses.

economic growth driven by crazy consumer spending on cheap imports should scale back. Instead of resorting to protectionism to "fix" the trade imbalance, just let the economy adjust itself by squeezing consumer spending.

the housing market will take a major correction whether we like it or not. Government bailouts will do more harms than good.

the US military must pull out of Iraq.

no more support for ethnic or religious based independence movements that creates deep hatred for America in the world. We are not the world's policeman.

prices of oil, gas and coal should go up to reflect tighter supplies and environmental damage, and also give alternative energies a necessary boost.

Encourage investment on domestic science and technology, which are the bedrocks of the American superiority. Outsourcing technology R&D to foreign countries is both short-sighted and extremely dangerous.

Posted by: neolib | February 23, 2008 8:26 PM | Report abuse

Colbert I. King: In your article you state: "Hillary Clinton can't win the African American vote because Barack Obama has that bloc sewn up." You are 100% correct! It reminds me how many Blacks actually thought and still do, that OJ wasn't a despicable murderer. Obviously, I'm not making an analogy between the two in a way to construe that Barack Obama isn't an honorable public servant. But, the Black community has a way of rallying around their own, based on the strictly color. To even infer this fact, I would be labeled a racist. Which everyone who knows me would say, it's the farthest thing from the truth. When CBS fired football analyst of 12 years Jimmy "The Greek" Snyder for making remarks viewed as racist, it was hardly that bigoted but he was burned at the stake. Black rappers denigrate women and other minorities. When Louis Farrakhan makes his typical anti-Semetic tirades, I don't hear any outrage from the Black community or about the fact that Barack Obama's spiritual advisor and pastor Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. has publicly admitted admiration of anti-Semites like Louis Farrakhan. I'm not going to parse words with you or anyone on how Black Barack Obama is, or whether I'm as White as he is. The fact is, he wasn't in the Senate for the "Hillary" war vote, and he voted for every war appropriation since he's been in office, just like Hillary. How convenient that at one time he pledged to use public funding in the general election. That was before he knew he could raise 1 million a day. All his past dealings with Resko, will be public knowledge too. What we get with Hillary, is at least a known quantity. I wanted Edwards or Biden, but they weren't meant to be. Now on, I'm am Independent. I want substance, and not fluff! I don't need a Black Tony Robbins in the White House! As previously written by another responder, I Am A Lifelong (60 years) Democrat and a 5th generation American and a combat veteran, I Will Not Vote For Obama in November. The media has fixed this election! We're looking at 4 more years of a Bush clone, that's named McCain.

Posted by: uc2it4us | February 23, 2008 8:26 PM | Report abuse

The problem is that Obama is hypocritical in many fronts, he does not practices what he preaches, many examples -

1. See that Obama's Exelon Nuclear Plan related legislature, the freshman senator Obama, started to legislate to protect neighbors of Exelon plants from the harm of Exelon nuclear leaks in Illinois, end up with a rewritten bill, sought by Excelon and nuclear industry lobbyists, resulted that the state and local authorities would have no regulatory oversight of nuclear power plants.
Obama, since then, had received large amount of donations from the chairman of the Excelon. In addition, Obama gets campaign donations from a lobbying group for the Nuclear Energy Institute.

In Iowa, Obama mislead the voters his legislative accomplishments on the campaign trail. Obama told Iowa voters that he had "passed" a nuclear notification bill but the fact is and Obama has to know that, in fact this bill was not passed in the end.

2. See that Obama personally seek Razko's help purchasing his house, at the time Rezko is under federal investigations. Rezko's wife purchased the house and an adjacent lot at the market prices and resold the house to the Obamas at dramatically reduced prices. Later on, the Obamas sold the combined property for a profit. Pure? Innocent mistake? Either Obama is too stupid or he is too dishonest.

3. See that Obama took back and ate his pledge - "Yes," he wrote. "If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election." But now he publicly deny there is a pledge when MaCain challenged him.

4. See that Obama would refuse to debate in states he is ahead afraid to loose the edge (he has only agree to debate in the states that he falls behind on the polls) while Senator Clinton would agree to debates at all primary states to properly serve voters side to side comparison. He is trying to play games with voters.

5. Now, Obama said those words (of Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick) were his words. And new revelations of his wide range of cut and past from other politicians' statement and policies are serious.

6. Obama's popularity is based on Oprah phenomena and stadium-sized road shows. The innocent mass gatherers have great desire to be "uplifted". Independent thinkers want dialogues and exchange of ideas. Stadium road shows do not provide and Obama do not intend to interact intellectually with the voters. It is good enough for him to yell loud all the time and no need to check the substances and facts.

Posted by: sangliu | February 23, 2008 8:26 PM | Report abuse

Obama's ads are similar to the "Harry and Louise" ads by the attack dogs of Health Care industry against Clinton in 93.

What a different guy this Obama is, using the same dirty tactics as the past.

Posted by: camasca | February 23, 2008 8:24 PM | Report abuse

Badger3:

I think we had this conversation before. Why would you support McCain as a democrat and give him the opportunity to appoint possibly 3 U.S. Supreme Court justices as President? The average age of each U.S. Supreme Court Justice is 68, so there is a good possibility the next President will have a chance to appoint up to 3 U.S. Supreme Court justices.

In addition, if McCain is elected, he will continue to appoint hard right justices to the federal bench and believe me he will to demonstrate to the hard right that he is a true believer.

What is at stake with a federal judiciary, including the U.S. Supreme Court that are dominated by hard right justices? Consider the following:the right to petition your government, right to assemble, right to habeas corpus, right to organize, right to vote, freedom of speech, the press, women having the right to an abortion, determining the constitutionality of our environmental, health, consumer and safety laws, discrimination in the workplace, sexual harassment, rights of homosexuals and so much more that I can enumerate.

The stakes are enormous in this next election. I find very little solace in your assertion that even if McCain is elected President, the dems will probably still control the U.S. Senate. May I remind you again that it was a majority dem U.S. Senate that appointed Scalia and Clarence Thomas and a majority of dem U.S. Seanators that voted for Roberts and Alito.

I am so dismayed by the level of vitriol both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton's supporters hurl at each other. It is ad hominem nonsense but I guess it is to be some what expected because both sides want their candidate to win so badly that they portray each other's candidate like they are rat poison.

For the record I support Senator Obama because Senator Clinton disappointed me with her 2002 vote on the Iraq War Resolution and her explanations for voting for the resolution I have found lacking in intellectual honesty but at the end of the day, if she were the nominee, which at this point looks improbable, I would happily support her because we can't afford another 4 more years of republican rule.

Posted by: jovitman | February 23, 2008 8:24 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's not afraid to fight, because she's fighting for you!

Posted by: niksiz | February 23, 2008 8:24 PM | Report abuse

Clinton has clearly demonstrated that she is the most presidential -- strong, decisive and knows the facts. During his press conference Senator Obama was tentative (hem'ming and hawing), contradictory and evasive. He said that he would have to check with his staff regarding the fliers and then said that they were sent out prior to the newspaper article setting the record straight regarding NAFTA and Senator's Clinton position. He knew that his fliers were false with respect to the "boon" reference. Likewise, he could not defend the health care flier other than to try to deflect the confrontation by saying Clinton had attacked him previously on the same issue -- how transparent does Obama have to be before people start to pay attention?

Posted by: mo897 | February 23, 2008 8:24 PM | Report abuse

I have been a strong support of Hillary. I am latino from Texas. But during the last week I have been looking at her negative campaign with reluctance. When I saw her earlier today shouting "Shame on you Barack Obama" I couldn't believe it.

Today I decided what few days ago started to be a possibility: to support Barack Obama.

I am tired of negativity. The bright moment she got at the end of Austin debate has been totally erased by today's ranting.

Posted by: JpAcosta | February 23, 2008 8:23 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters --

You have no idea what "angry" really is.
If he gets the nomination, you'll find out in November.

Obama is the new McGovern!

It's going be worth four years of President McCain just to see all you arrogant sob's cut down to size.

Posted by sweader
--------------------------------------
Amen, double amen. Another liberal like Kerry. Kerry-ran against an incompetent with a 30percent approval. Made him look like a liberal fool. Will we never learn.

Posted by: bnw173 | February 23, 2008 8:20 PM | Report abuse

Four words: des per a tion

Posted by: martiniano | February 23, 2008 8:20 PM | Report abuse

democrats have a short memory.in 2000,they lost by 500 votes.a little more faith from a few more democrats could have prevented the iraq disaster.

Posted by: sd71 | February 23, 2008 8:19 PM | Report abuse

I am SOOOO looking forward to Hillary losing this nomination and just going away.

I am SOOOO looking forward to not having to see the regurgitated stump lines from her supporters, posted all over the internet's forums.

I am SOOO sick of hearing the load of BS that Hillary Clinton is at all qualified, experienced or "Ready to Lead on Day One"...GAG.


Hillary's supporters blindly accept and repeat every empty campaign slogan, and refuse to look at facts-like her voting record- and sound like uniformed dimwits.

Bye, now, Hillary...and Good riddance to y'all.

Posted by: julieds | February 23, 2008 8:16 PM | Report abuse

"I think, on balance, NAFTA has been good for New York and for America." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) News Teleconference Jan. 5, 2004 as reported on Meet the Press. So-- what was the Karl Rove moment here?
And on healthcare from USA TODAY:
"The New York senator has criticized presidential rival Barack Obama for pushing a health plan that would not require universal coverage. Clinton has not always specified the enforcement measures she would embrace, but when pressed during a television interview, she said: "I think there are a number of mechanisms" that are possible, including "going after people's wages, automatic enrollment."

Under her plan, she said, health care "will be affordable for everyone" because she would limit premium payments "to a low percent of your income.""

So, Mrs. Clinton would decide whether we could "afford" health care -- and if she decides we can "afford" it -- she'll take it out of our wages or enroll us and send us the bill whether we want it or not. Sorry ... I just don't buy that this flyer is not a factually correct criticism of her plan, no pun intended. You can argue, on the nuances but a full-blown finger shaking diatribe, a "shame on you" moment? Those should be saved for campaign materials that truly distort and misrepresent one's position -- hmmm, like Sen. Clinton's distortions of Sen. Obama's 100% pro-choice voting record in Illinois. I again am not sure who is running Mrs. Clinton's message but it is startling that she could do such a whiplash between the conciliatory tone at the Austin debate and this overheated response on these arguably truthful mailers. She has been ill-served by her campaign; she deserved better. I hope she salvages her reputation and dignity so that she can be a legislative lion a la Teddy Kennedy in the Senate for years to come. Yes We Can!

Posted by: Omyobama | February 23, 2008 8:10 PM | Report abuse

AN OPEN LETTER TO BARACK OBAMA

Your mailings, pointed out by Mrs. Clinton today, make you a hypocrite. Saying one thing in public, than you use mailings that are wrong, deceiving and hit below the belt.

You SHOULD be ashamed of using a quote from a newspaper that the newspaper itself retracted as not being a correct quote.

The Obama health care plan is inferior. You only need basic reading skills to read the Clinton health care plan and they your mailing, and see you're either using hyperbole or are simply printing and distributing an untruth. The Clinton web site (see link below) says: The tax credits will ensure that working families never have to pay more than a limited percentage of their income for health care.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/

You are practicing the OLD politics of Washington and your claims of practicing the "politics of hope" and giving voters a different kind of choice have now been obliterated much like the spy satellite shot down earlier this week by the USS Lake Erie, named after that body of water on the northern border of Ohio. Obama is clearly cherry picking, parsing, asking what the definition of is, is, in order to make his attack.

Perhaps your candidacy, now rogue just like the satellite, will meet the same fate in the state bordered by its namesake lake.

Wouldn't that be eerie?

Posted by: bmasck | February 23, 2008 8:09 PM | Report abuse

SHAME ON YOU HILLARY !!! You are so evil and abusive and certainly not suitable for white house. I thought your husband said one of the biggest achievements of his presidency is signing of NAFTA. You Clintons will say/do anything and everything to get elected. You are not only morally bankrupt but are curse on humanity. I have not seen such an inspiring and clean campaign run from any candidate other that Senator Obama and these negative words are highly reprehensible.

Posted by: forjarigirlonly | February 23, 2008 8:09 PM | Report abuse

STEPHANOPOULOS: But, yet, Senator Clinton, we actually have that mailing and let me show our viewers quickly what you were talking about, because you referred to it.

It says that Hillary's plan will -- excuse me, let me read this again -- "forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can't afford it. You pay a penalty if you don't."

And I want to bear down on this question one more time, because they're claiming this issue of the penalty. And a lot of independent health care experts, many who worked with you in 1994, say that without these enforcement mechanisms, you simply can't get to universal coverage, you can't claim to have universal coverage, so there's no difference between your plan and Senator Obama's.

And, I mean, you talked about automatic enrollment. Will you garnish wages of people who don't comply, don't buy the insurance?

CLINTON: George, we will have an enforcement mechanism. Whether it's that or it's some other mechanism through the tax system or automatic enrollments.

Posted by: tchanta | February 23, 2008 8:08 PM | Report abuse

It cannot be, in the long run, a good thing for Mrs. Clinton to come across as an angry schrew...it looks desperate and distateful.
She can't stop Obama's momentum on the issues, apparently, so now it's about tactics.
It's sad and beneath her.

Posted by: scottcassel | February 23, 2008 8:04 PM | Report abuse

What nerve!!
The queen & king of sleaze,slander and dirty politics complaining because someone had the nerve to tell the truth about them.

Hopefully the Clintons will be just a bad memory after Texas & Ohio

Posted by: myword
--------------------------------------
I really hope no bad event will happen next week to burst your bubble. It would kill you folks. Read your words. Classy. Right.

Posted by: bnw173 | February 23, 2008 8:04 PM | Report abuse

Hillary now: "Enough about the speeches, and the big rallies, and then using tactics right out of Karl Rove's playbook," she said angrily. "This is wrong and every Democrat should be outraged."

Bill, days after the 2004 election, from The Rove Legacy, right here in the WaPo: "The Clintons recognize the skill Rove has brought to politics and admire his craft, if not his ideology. Just days after the November 2004 election, Bill Clinton pulled Rove aside at the dedication of the William J. Clinton Presidential Library in Arkansas. "Hey, you did a marvelous job, it was just marvelous what you did," Clinton told Rove, according to the book "The Way to Win: Taking the White House in 2008," by John F. Harris and Mark Halperin. "I want to get you down to the library. I want to talk politics with you. You just did an incredible job, and I'd like to really get together with you and I think we could have a great conversation."

So, who is actually using tactics right out of the Rove playbook?

I sure hope Obama gets a copy of this article soon - it'd make a great comeback to this fake outrage.

Posted by: pagun | February 23, 2008 8:02 PM | Report abuse

These Obama pamphlets criticizing the mandatory part of her health plan and her favoring NAFTA have been circulating for weeks. Why didn't Hillary Clinton bring this up in Thursday's debate? It's as if she is making it up each day. We don't need another president like that! Hillary was so in favor of NAFTA that she spoke at the World Economic Summit in Davos in 1998 singing its praises. In my opinion, both Bill and Hillary Clinton are more interested in globalization than they are in taking care of our own country's working class. For example: Check the Clintons' ties with India.

Posted by: joy2 | February 23, 2008 8:02 PM | Report abuse

The printout on this is already at eighty-eight pages.
That's a lot of words.
I compose slowly. I bet it's now at ninety pages.
The hand will come down on voting day.
As it has come down these ninety pages now and more.

Posted by: abovetheassault | February 23, 2008 7:59 PM | Report abuse

Clearly it's desperation time for Hillary. The polls all are trending to Obama. Her claim to being the most electable does not agree with the latest head-to-head polls with McCain either. Reports of her campaign of extravagant and wasteful spending are also very damaging. Furthermore, Obama is bringing in record crowds all across Texas and this is driving her crazy. Now the latest insult is that her director of outreach in the Rio Grande Valley, Texas state Rep. Aaron Pena, was spotted dancing at an Obama rally. "I will maintain my commitment," the lawmaker told the Rio Grande Guardian. "But it appears to be increasingly evident who's going to win."

So it is not surprising that Ms Clinton might have lost it today and went off on this wild tirade claiming the Obama campaign was peddling lies in some fliers about her positions on NAFTA and her health care reform package. Obama responded calmly that everything in the fliers was accurate. The end is near for the Clinton campaign.

Posted by: zb95 | February 23, 2008 7:58 PM | Report abuse

Bless their hearts. Now the Obamanites can read minds. Before the could change good old English words to suit their own meaning".. for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country. She doesn't really mean that. "the only neuclear bill iI have passed is the Xelon bill." He didn't mean passed he meant shelved. " Dr. King did great works for civil rights but it still took Johnson to make his dreams happen" (not exact quote but close enough) Racist, according to Obamanites. Now they know exactly what Hillary is thinking. Amazing. How arrogant can you be. Puts George Bush to shame.

Posted by: bnw173 | February 23, 2008 7:57 PM | Report abuse

Obama outspent Hillary by over 3 to 1 in ad dollars in Wisconsin.

Obama is winning with cash and advertising.

This is why Obama will not try anything new with public financing if he gets to the GE.

It is another example of how Obama is the same politician we're used to, just different packaging.

Posted by: camasca | February 23, 2008 7:54 PM | Report abuse

What nerve!!
The queen & king of sleaze,slander and dirty politics complaining because someone had the nerve to tell the truth about them.

Hopefully the Clintons will be just a bad memory after Texas & Ohio

Posted by: myword | February 23, 2008 7:54 PM | Report abuse

Just completed reading Hillary's Health Choices Plan on her Website and Barack Obama is correct.

On NAFTA Hillary new the unemployment consequnces when her husband pushed the deal yet she remained silent.

There is no sound foundation for Hillary's attack except she is falling in the polls.

Obama 2008

Posted by: Maddogg | February 23, 2008 7:53 PM | Report abuse

So "Billary" can't handle the truth about her own record? Amazing!

http://osi-speaks.blogspot.com/2008/02/billary-blows-up-on-obama-reveals-she.html#links

Posted by: KYJurisDoctor | February 23, 2008 7:50 PM | Report abuse

The moment of the debate

The Clinton campaign is calling Hillary's response to "name a challenging moment of her life" during the primary debate in Austin, Texas on Tuesday as "The moment of the debate." In fact, the Hillary campaign is actively planning on running an advertising blitz starting today that features this "moment."

The 60 second spot called "Resolved" shows much of Clinton's final moment at Thursday's debate during which she said, "You know the hits I've taken are nothing compared to what goes on every single day in the lives of people across our country."
What the ad does not show, and the media outlets have failed to cover is that, this "moment" has occurred before. In fact, it is taken word-for-word from a speech by President Bill Clinton in 1992.
While CNN covered this story in brief, and glossed over showing actual video of the event, this is 2008 and we have youtube. In this must see video, the youtube user "canttrussit" has put together a remarkable clip.
Please watch this video. Please pass it on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JOQorP1F20

Posted by: lavago75 | February 23, 2008 7:43 PM | Report abuse

Oh my goodness someone here, stated that "can't we pick the smart one for once". Yes We Can! We are choosing Obama over the the Supposed to Be Smart, Experienced One and at Legislation - Hillary Clinton. BTW if she is Supposed to be so smart then How in the hell did she Manage to spend over a 100million dollars in a few months time span? Not Very Smart and a Point of Bad Management. There is a Story on Hillary about Governing Campaign and it was stated on the article -"If she can't manage her own campaign correctly then How is She Going to Run a Country? Obama started out with nothing and had less money then her and yet he can manage his money better than Hillary and McCain(he is already in a hole that he may not be able to dig himself out of because of that 4 million dollar bank loan; in which he may have to take public funding but he he could only spend 54million for his campaign and he is now only at 5million and he is trying to get out of it. Not happening).

Obama did not pledge and if you read wht he actually Said he just wanted that as option on the table. One should Never assume unless it Assured. She can't do Neither.

BTW here ia a website for Obamaa's legislation - http://www.ilga.gov/senate/SenatorBills.asp?MemberID=747&GA=93

Posted by: TheFuture1 | February 23, 2008 7:41 PM | Report abuse

Poor old desperate Hillary is the pot calling the kettle black after her Rovaian attacks in New Hampshire on Obama's teen drug use and hubby Bill playing the race card in South Carolina.

Posted by: coloradodog | February 23, 2008 7:39 PM | Report abuse

If Hillary's point is about experience, then Biden, Dodd, and Richardson had plenty more. Hillary isn't even the most experienced Senator from New York. Her exp. leading health care in 93-94 failed because it didn't get bipartisan support. And I'm supposed to believe she'd get that support as president?

Posted by: jmhhc | February 23, 2008 7:33 PM | Report abuse

Remember Lynne Cheney scolding John Edwards as a "bad, bad man" after Edwards debated her husband during the 2004 election? Hillary channeled Lynne Cheney today -- which ironically was textbook Karl Rove: distract attention from your candidate's vulnerability by making your opponent the issue. This rant might galvanize those who she already had at hello, but it did nothing to attract new voters to her. See http://roadkillrefugee.wordpress.com/2008/02/23/election-2008-hillary-rant-channels-lynne-cheney/

Posted by: roadkillrefugee | February 23, 2008 7:32 PM | Report abuse

In 6 years, Clinton has had 5 sponsored bills signed into law. In a little over 3 years, Obama has sponsored or co-sponsored 570 bills with 15 being signed into law. Obama's sponsored/co-sponsored bills include those related to weapons control, public accountability for use of federal funds, lobbying and electoral fraud, climate change, nuclear terrorism, care for returned U.S. military personnel. Forget all the screaming and hollering from either side, go to the Library of Congress website and see the ACTUAL records of the candidates.

Posted by: alewismd | February 23, 2008 7:32 PM | Report abuse

She's bi-polar, no doubt.
The tears were fake.
The temper if fake.
She's a bi-polar actress. Last we saw this type of twisted sick thinking was from Judy Garland who they kept behind closed doors as they drugged her. Maybe Hillary needs to go back behind the doors and regain her composure. Oh that's right. She doesn't have any. She wouldn't know what that was because she's lied for so long, she can't help herself anymore. Medication on the way!

Posted by: kfelter1 | February 23, 2008 7:30 PM | Report abuse

Well, nothing else has worked for her, neither tears, nor lies, nor solemnity as she tells us she's one with the masses. So it's time for histrionics. Anything, anything that might possibly work. We're in the end game and I'm thinking we'll see a lot more from the expert on Rove's playbook.

Posted by: lstrauss2 | February 23, 2008 7:28 PM | Report abuse

More great advice from Mark Penn? How much did this shiny piece of advice cost the Hillraisers? I'm guessing about $100,000. Money well spent. Shows you how she'll run the country.

Seriously.... she put out mailers in NH completely LYING about Obama's position on abortion. Now she's mad that his mailings tell the truth about her positions.

The only good part is that she did this way before the primary, before too many people could be deceived by that "nice" act she put on the other night. They might have turned soft, had sympathy, and voted for her out of pity. (NH Crying Game, part 2.) Now she's shown her real colors, that all that "vulnerable" stuff was a crock.

My guess.... their internal polling showed that vulnerabilty act didn't do anything for her, so now it's back to being a hardass. That's been tried before.

We now know Hillary will fight on to the bitter end. Hopefully voters wil continue to reject her as they have done for 11 contests in a row, and by overwhelming margins as they have done in 5 contests.

Posted by: xcrunner771 | February 23, 2008 7:27 PM | Report abuse

The things Hillary is whining about are old news. The pamphlets are from last summer and the Newsweek article came out in 1996. She is way over the top and it is going to make it hard to vote for her if she does manage the nomination. She is right on the verge of screwing things up for the Democrats at the same time McCain is about to create a major train wreck for the Republicans. Unbelievable. I never thought she was this obsessed.

Posted by: ElectricBill | February 23, 2008 7:27 PM | Report abuse

Yo HRC we're sick of you attacking the other guy. I want to know what you will do for me. It's time that politics changes and you're old school. In with the new!

Posted by: FLvet | February 23, 2008 7:27 PM | Report abuse

The things Hillary is whining about are old news. The pamphlets are from last summer and the Newsweek article came out in 1996. She is way over the top and it is going to make it hard to vote for her if she does manage the nomination. She is right on the verge of screwing things up for the Democrats at the same time McCain is about to create a major train wreck for the Republicans. Unbelievable. I never thought she was this obsessed.

Posted by: ElectricBill | February 23, 2008 7:27 PM | Report abuse

The things Hillary is whining about are old news. The pamphlets are from last summer and the Newsweek article came out in 1996. She is way over the top and it is going to make it hard to vote for her if she does manage the nomination. She is right on the verge of screwing things up for the Democrats at the same time McCain is about to create a major train wreck for the Republicans. Unbelievable. I never thought she was this obsessed.

Posted by: ElectricBill | February 23, 2008 7:27 PM | Report abuse

Hello My Dear Fellow Democrats;

I support Obama, with passion.

BUT no body who supports either one of them-at least no democrat should even consider supporting any Republican at this point in our history because what that means now, is at minimum, a quid pro quo, nomination of a Right Winger to the Supreme Court.

If that happens in the next 4 years we will loose our country for as long as anyone reading here will live.

We gotta keep our rhetoric in check. Support our candidates with dignity and class, be humble and classy in victory and defeat, then rally together around our candidate.

Posted by: drw3344 | February 23, 2008 7:19 PM | Report abuse

Can't wait until March 4 and Billary finally gets finished off.

Posted by: bushisacrook | February 23, 2008 7:17 PM | Report abuse

The mailer has been out for weeks, but Hillary waits 2 days after the debate to become "outraged." Interesting. Planned? Sure looks like a staged event.

Posted by: aint2sure | February 23, 2008 7:17 PM | Report abuse

pjkiger1 | February 23, 2008 06:45 PM

I agree pj although from reading I see that Hillary did exaggerate her claim.

But I am in agreement with you. I was dismayed that Obama is even doing that. I wish he would stay completely focused on inspiration-that is what got me on board.

Posted by: drw3344 | February 23, 2008 7:13 PM | Report abuse

svreader wrote:

Obama has doomed his campaign by ticking off Clinton supporters to the point that we will not only not vote for him but will actively support McCain.
-----------------------------
What has Obama done exactly to "tick off" Clinton supporters? Win elections? Put out a factual mailer?

Posted by: smc91 | February 23, 2008 7:12 PM | Report abuse

Obama Nomination: Obama will beat McCain in a route of record magnitude. The groundswell of political capital that will result from this will translate through his skillful leadership into some truly historic policy changes that will literally save our country from the brink of mediocrity.

Clinton Nomination: Too close to call. McCain might win by winning the independents and the Republican's ability to drive up the Clinton negatives. Of course, Bush's ties to McCain, will drag him down, but compared to Clinton, even I might vote for McCain because I suspect he is probably really a moderate.

Primary fight thoughts: Hillary's fake tears, fake anger and fake respect for her opponent masks hatred, much in the same way Bush's cowboy persona masked a lazy, mean dimwit.

Posted by: pdurand | February 23, 2008 7:11 PM | Report abuse

I'm a hard core Democrat who's looking forward to voting against Obama if he's the nominee.

Millions of other Democrats feel just as angry as I do.

Obama's Clinton-bashing supporters will reap what they sow.

Instead of focusing on policy issues they focused on destroying the positive legacy of Bill Clinton's Presidency.

The least Clinton supporters can do is to return the favor and make sure that Obama never sets foot in the Whitehouse and send him back to Chicago where he belongs.

Posted by: svreader | February 23, 2008 7:11 PM | Report abuse

What an actress she is.. this is hysterical. I can't wait to see her blowup on National TV.. he face red, her eyes bulging.. I totally can't take it.
And if any of you don't want to vote for Obama, great! Take Hillary with you when you leave the country.
Ta-ta!

Posted by: kfelter1 | February 23, 2008 7:10 PM | Report abuse

I keep hearing statements such as:

"You Obama supporters are delusional!" - bettiboop70

"By now it should be apparent to you that you cannot reason with Obamamoonies. They attack our candidate irrationaly because ,deep down inside, they know that she is the most qualified to be president." - brigittepj

"I urge everone who is high on Obama to put down the crack pipe" - svreader

"Clinton has supporters who think with their own minds...Obama has followers who are willing to jump off an abyss blindly for him." - poh123

You may not like Obama, but we are not idiots for supporting him. Everyone has their reasons for choosing the President they want. I've done extensive research on both candidates, but some of you apparently haven't. Obama has actually accomplished a good deal, sponsoring several low-key but important pieces of legislation. As for this "cult" you've likened his support to...it's called charisma.

You don't have to like him, but please respect that we have good and sufficient reasons to like him ourselves. I don't see Obama supporters making such statements as the ones I've highlighted. Please don't assume we're blind or foolish.

Posted by: ShorinBJ | February 23, 2008 7:08 PM | Report abuse

Obama is not ready for the Repuglican attack machine. Beside, have you noticed he looks like J Fred Muggs? HRC will be ready to hit the ground running on Day One. You Go Girl.

Posted by: rahaha | February 23, 2008 7:06 PM | Report abuse

Let's face it, the Obama campaign didn't need this distraction and whoever in the campaign authorized it should take a few weeks off.

Although I'd like to see Obama apologize for the flyers, I'm also sure he'd be attacked by Clinton as soon he does. Plus having lived through her negative ads filled with half-truth ads in Wisconsin, I don't see her taking responsibility and apologizing for those ads any time soon.

So grow up Clinton campaign, and do the right thing and stop destroying the Democratic Party. If I was a Republican in Texas, I'd cross over and vote for her - it would guarantee McCain's election.

Posted by: odonnell521 | February 23, 2008 7:02 PM | Report abuse

Obama is inspiring countless millions of Democrats to vote for anyone but him.

Keep it up Obama supporters.

You're going to put McCain in the Whitehouse!!!

It will be worth it, just to see you cut down to size.

Posted by: svreader | February 23, 2008 06:47 PM

-------------------

LMAO at this moronic post.

Posted by: bushisacrook | February 23, 2008 7:00 PM | Report abuse

What an incredible acting job on the part of Hillary Clinton. To pull out a political flier from weeks ago and make it out to be some big deal as if he had claimed she was the illegitimate daughter of Dick Nixon or something. What does the flier actually say- not much.

It's not like he accused her of pimping her daughter in Wisconsin- which she did.

It's not like he accused her brother of getting paid to get people pardoned by her husband- all of which happened.

It's not like he blamed her and her husband, because she was at ever cabinet meeting, for selling out the working people of the United States through NAFTA and by offer most favored Nation status to China- which is exactly what they did. Out sourcing started under Clinton not Bush.

I have to say "the lady doth protest too much."

It is up to the forth estate to set the record straight if they have the guts to face the Clinton attack machine.

Posted by: krazybadger | February 23, 2008 7:00 PM | Report abuse

to CliffinWA: so now the game has changed so much that those who showed poor judgement and voted for the war did the right thing, while those who showed great judgement and spoke out against it were wrong and naive.

Many of us spoke out against the war because we had watched Bush make a poor case for sending our military there. We were proved right and those that supported the idiot in the WH showed themselves to be naive.

You should be angry for being misled, but partly you are to blame for being so trusting and naive. Good luck with the McCain thing and being in Iraq until your great-grandchildren are old enough to fight there.

Posted by: cbl-pdx | February 23, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

See it by yourself:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=e18Qa56tMBU

(Hillary Promises to Garnish Wages For Her Healthcare)

Posted by: tchanta | February 23, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

It's going to be refreshing to have this infighting over with, which it will be on March 4. Hillary, you ought to be ashamed of yourself for voting for the Iraq war, the Patriot Act, and calling the organized military force of another nation "terrorists".

You have the blood of 4000 American soldiers killed, 30,000 wounded, and 150,000 Iraqis killed and wounded smeared all over your face.

-Wexler

Posted by: WWWexler | February 23, 2008 6:57 PM | Report abuse

Thank God somebody is holding the Clintons to task for their support of NAFTA. Clinton disappointed me so much when he did that that I voted for Bob Dole; this was the first time I voted for any Republican. He disgusted me so much that I promptly changed my party affiliation to independent. How could the leader of the Democratic Party desert the working man? If I couldn't count on the support of the Democratic president, then what was the point of my aligning myself with that party? And now she and her campaign say, "Oh, that was Bill's position, not hers." Excuse me! Hasn't she been blathering lately about her 35 years of experience in public life? Well, eight of those years were when she was First Lady; if she wants to get professional credit for her close association with the then sitting president then she has to share in the criticism of the positions he took. Honey, you can't have it both ways. Neither She nor Bill are true Democrats. They both are cynical opportunists, and he is a pathological liar and she is his enabler. Personally I am sick and tired of them both pointing their fingers while seething in feigned righteous indignation; what a couple of phonies.

Posted by: csintala79 | February 23, 2008 6:54 PM | Report abuse

I guess "FAKE TEARS" no longer work so lets try "FAKE ANGER". Linking Obama to Rove is as cheap a shot as the Xerox line or as phony as "I didn't have sex with THAT woman". Everything about HRC is fake. She'd rather destroy Obama and split the party then lose. Watch her increase the negative attacks as her situation becomes more desperate. Hopefully the people of Texas and Ohio will see through this smoke screen and reject her.

Posted by: giantfan | February 23, 2008 6:53 PM | Report abuse

Didn't I just hear Hillary say to Obama in Austin with a false smile: "I am honored, I am honored" that she could sit next to him. Well, she sure changed in two days, showing herself the two-faced hypocrite she really is. I would not buy a used car from either of the Clintons.

Posted by: dunnhaupt | February 23, 2008 6:53 PM | Report abuse

NOTICE: REALITY CHECK: Clinton claims 35 years of experience: Do the math. She graduated law school at age 25, she is now 60. So she is saying that everything she did in between was relevant experience? Her first work in politics was as a campaign worker for BARRY GOLDWATER. Her first job was at the Rose Law Firm where she focused on making as much money as she could. Relevant experience? No. She got a job on board of directors at Wal-Mart where she successfully frustrated employees attempts to unionize. There was also her involvement in the real estate, namely the White Water land scams, Travel Gate, Vincent Foster. She only has SEVEN years in elective office where she soon gained the reputation as QUEEN OF EARMARKS. Hillary and truth are total strangers. As they say, FIGURES DON'T LIE BUT LIARS CAN FIGURE

Posted by: rhbate | February 23, 2008 6:52 PM | Report abuse

Rather than spending great amounts of time countering false attacks by the Clinton campaign & others, Barack's campaign maintains a "Know the Facts" blog on his website (http://factcheck.barackobama.com/). I highly recommend visiting this site. Almost every time something controversial hits the press, the campaign responds with the facts in this forum.

Posted by: mikekubo | February 23, 2008 6:52 PM | Report abuse

JimSheridan - You're kidding, right? Hillary's unleashed all sorts of vitriol at Obama and his supporters. The only "divisive" thing Obama's done is shatter Clinton's illusion of entitlement and inevitability. He turned the nomination process into an actual contest. It's not his fault that she wasn't expecting it. As far as alienating voters, here are a few choice alienating words: "fairy tail", "Jesse Jackson won in South Carolina", "Republican tactics", "empty words", etc. By your reckoning Obama's supposed to just suck it up and Hillary can spew all she wants. Doesn't work that way, sorry.

Posted by: treetopflyer | February 23, 2008 6:51 PM | Report abuse

Obama is fighting two members of the DC establishment at the same time: Biatch Clinton and McBushCain. I just donated another $50 to Obama's campaign. Clinton has supported NAFTA all the way- period. McBushCain is just another Bush. Obama is pure class and smarter than his competitors combined.

Posted by: bushisacrook | February 23, 2008 6:50 PM | Report abuse

I think Barak will get blasted as weak on terrorism. Why is there so little coverage about the 900+ lies, oops, I mean erroneous intelligence statements about Iraq having WMD including a State of the Union Address suggesting Saddam was seeking nuclear ability and might already have dirty-bomb material to give Bin Laden.
Not to mention we were all told authorization for war would only be used to get inspectors back in. I remember the mood of the country and the intense pressure so soon after 911. I thought we had no choice, we had to do something, I figured we would just bomb them until they let inspectors back in. I mean, I was fooled and resent it! But I fear more a President who would sit on his hands while our best intelligence said America was at risk. Obama did not have to actually cast a vote, did not have to make the hard decision based on the fictitious "facts" at the time and knew he would not be held accountable because he was merely a state legislator. I am not fooled by the high flying rhetoric about changing politics; this is a cold and calculating politician. And we are to believe he will change politics? No wait, it is the world he promises to change! Some Floridians have some land for you.

Posted by: CliffinWA | February 23, 2008 6:50 PM | Report abuse

Obama is inspiring countless millions of Democrats to vote for anyone but him.

Keep it up Obama supporters.

You're going to put McCain in the Whitehouse!!!

It will be worth it, just to see you cut down to size.

Posted by: svreader | February 23, 2008 6:47 PM | Report abuse

Att: svreader | February 23, 2008 03:39 PM
(Post is in upper 20% at toward the top)


With respect to electing the smart one for a change-I am in complete agreement. I have always been impressed with Hillary's intellect.

However, if you have any friends who are attorney ask them, or check the internet and discover what it means to graduate from Harvard Law School Magna Cum Laude as well as President of the Law Review.

For a change both of our candidates are very bright. But it is possible that if we elect the one you suggest-the smart(est) one you may be casting a vote for Obama! I a NOT saying that Obama is brighter than Hillary, but there is certainly no evidence that she is brighter than him.

There is however, another very important issue: judgment. I am an engaged citizen who reads a lot-and I can show you volumes of information- available BEFORE the Iraq invasion- that refuted every one of Bush's points. I will support Hillary if she is our candidate but I consider that a substantial lapse of judgment on her part. With access to who knows how much extra intelligence, how could Hillary (along with the rest of our congressmen who supported the invasion) know less than me-just Joe citizen who reads!

Posted by: drw3344 | February 23, 2008 6:46 PM | Report abuse

I'm an Obama supporter, but the truth is that Hillary does have a valid point when she says that the Obama mailer on her healthcare plan contains false and misleading information. (You can read the Annanberg Center's analysis at http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/harry_louise_again.html and judge for yourself.)
I wish that the Obama campaign would stay away from this sort of thing. It's not only wrong but unnecessary, since Obama doesn't need to go negative. He makes a very logical and persuasive argument on behalf of his own health care reform plan, and that's enough to win over most people. The truth is that there's not a substantial difference between what he and Hillary are proposing. The major question is who would be best able to form the sort of bipartisan coalition that will be needed to make it a reality, and Obama definitely has the edge there, I think.

Posted by: pjkiger1 | February 23, 2008 6:45 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is uninspiring and she has to many ties to old time Democrats who want to call all of the shots.

I have stopped listening to her because Obama is fresh blood and because she seems to be so desperate that she is searching for any kind of leverage that will allow her to win the nomination.

Her experience is not so impressive. Obama is certainly more sophisticated than the governor of the small state, Arkansas, who became president, Bill Clinton.

Her position is negative. That doesn't offer any hope.

Next week she might adopt a new tactic. It will put another nail in her coffin.

Posted by: robertjames1 | February 23, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse

kevin --

As you well know, nothing I post comes from anyone else but me.

I wish I could say the same about you.

I can't wait to see McCain tear Obama to pieces.

You really need to be cut down to size.

I wish you worked for one of my companies, so I could fire you!!!

Posted by: svreader | February 23, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse

hillary is this another right wing conspiracy you and you husband have been negative for along time you can dish it out but you can't take it go home hillary and bake bill some cookies

Posted by: buckball54 | February 23, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse

I'm sure her words had an impact on all twelve people who give a crap about her by now. The Hillary campaign is like Spinal Tap when it ended its long run, opening for puppet shows at amusement parks. Maybe the only thing that can save her now is Jazz Odyssey.

Posted by: TheTruth | February 23, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Get real, Obama supporters!
The mailers were inaccurate:
1. the universal health care coverage will not force people to buy coverage even if they can't afford it. It will make it affordable first. Your candidate lies.
2. Clinton never claimed NAFTA was a boon. Even the paper that suggested that retracted their story. But your fliers have not retracted it. Again, your candidate lies.

Your candidate claims one thing in his speech and does something else.

No wonder, people think obama supporters are delusional. Just get real!

Posted by: sphossain | February 23, 2008 6:42 PM | Report abuse

Att: svreader | February 23, 2008 03:39 PM

With respect to electing the smart one for a change-I am in complete agreement. I have always been impressed with Hillary's intellect.

However, if you have any friends who are attorney ask them, or check the internet and discover what it means to graduate from Harvard Law School Magna Cum Laude as well as President of the Law Review.

For a change both of our candidates are very bright. But it is possible that if we elect the one you suggest-the smart(est) one you may be casting a vote for Obama! I am NOT suggesting he IS smarter than Hillary, but there is certainly no evidence that his intellectual prowess is below hers.

There is however, another very important issue: judgment. I am an engaged citizen who reads a lot-and I can show you volumes of information- available BEFORE the Iraq invasion- that refuted every one of Bush's points. I will support Hillary if she is our candidate but I consider that a substantial lapse of judgment on her part. With access to who knows how much extra intelligence, how could Hillary (along with the rest of our congressmen who supported the invasion how could they know less than me-just Joe citizen who reads!

Posted by: drw3344 | February 23, 2008 6:41 PM | Report abuse

Another below the belt smear from the queen of sleaze and immoral business and political ethics

Sleazerlly, please remind us again what the heck YOUR experience is.

Fist lady and a bad one at that: no baking cookies (arrogant classless), travelgate, heath care debacle (incompetent), Republican landslide (no leadership), letting Bill play with interns, (corrupt to the core).

Experience shaking down Marc Rich for cash in exchange for a pardon from her husband. Destroying records subject to an investigation, Whitewater corruption, a small investment that magically turns into a fortune, and on and on.

If that's experience we can count on, then let's all run the other way and reject this dishonest, arrogant, mean, vindictive, self-pitying, thin skinned, vicious hack. Also, we have to keep Bill out of the White House so he doesn't attempt to sexually abuse any more interns.

Cigar anyone?

Posted by: ben2 | February 23, 2008 6:39 PM | Report abuse

She. is. losing. her. mind! Not only does she not know whether to be honored to be running against Obama or scold him, she also can't remember saying she'd garnish wages for health care and that she was for NAFTA.

Posted by: JenniferJ1 | February 23, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

I'm surprised the Post article doesn't tell you that those mailings have been out for at least two weeks. Clinton complained about the picture in them at the beginning of the month...saying they are reminiscent of the ads that led to the downfall of her last failed healthcare plan.

Truth is, Clinton has known about these mailings for weeks now and chose now to make a big deal out of them because she realizes she got her hat handed to her in the Texas debate. She has no other legs to stand on...so she's hoping voters are so stupid they won't realize that this lame argument is her last ditch,desperate effort to win them over.

Posted by: noozdude | February 23, 2008 6:36 PM | Report abuse

To svreader:

You know? I have been reading your posts on this and numerous other sites for a while; and, while I find some of your comments entertaining, in an odd, macabre sort of way, I could never really pin point why I equally find them so terribly troubling, until now that is.

You are not advocating the free exchange of ideas in a free democratic context. Not at all. Rather, like some fascist demogogue, you purport to tell others how we should think. And, further characterize anyone who deigns to exercise their God-given cognitive abilities to arrive at a course of action not sanctioned by you, as being dumb, moronic, etc., etc, etc. You are a sanctimonious , one note playing chicken little. And, in my humble opinion, represent a shining example of why I reject liberal, missionary-based "I know what's best for you because you poor backward thinking individuals can't possibly be expected to think for yourselves." socio-political ideology.

Even though I disagree with many of the post of lowatreasures and poh123, neither even come close to your degree of bullying, and both seem sincere in their beliefs.

The fact of the matter is that whomever either you or I, or anyone else for that matter, votes for is their individual choice.

Please support and vote for your candidate of choice as is your right as an American citizen; but also realize that you are not the only individual on this earth with a functioning brain (although having read your threads, I may be giving you too much credit.)

I would not care if you were Democrat or Republican; male or female, a paid campaign staffer or peanut gallery exhorter. Please just spare us the fascist, fear-mongering rhetoric. We have endured enough of that ilk over the past seven and a half years. B

Posted by: bldlcc | February 23, 2008 6:36 PM | Report abuse

She must be nuts, come on now. Her words are so defensive, hardly what one would expect of someone presidential. Maybe a good Vice President?

Posted by: paulnolan97 | February 23, 2008 6:36 PM | Report abuse

Though I am a Democrat I am looking forward to McCain cleaning either Obama's or Clinton's clock in November. They are the two worst candidates we Dems have fielded since Dukakis and Mondale and their thorough drubbings ought to provide us with a lesson as we look to 2012.

Posted by: CntrvilleCitoyen | February 23, 2008 6:35 PM | Report abuse

Hillary wants Democrats to lose election in November so that she can run in 2012 again. In any other way I can not explain her behavior.

Hillary Clinton truly wants the Democrats to fail in November unless it is herself running.

Just think about it. Who did Bill Clinton help ever since he was President?? Did he help Al Gore?? No! Did he help Kerry ? No! Not much. Bill Clinton will only help his family mebers, Hillary now and 2012; Chelshy later on.

Likewise, Hillary Clinton has no interest in the success of any other Democratic Candidates but herself.

This is the only way I can interprete her continuing the campaign, so negatively.

Hillary wants McCain to succeed in November. Any other way I can never understand her.

Posted by: pmcsnim | February 23, 2008 6:35 PM | Report abuse

She doesn't look very Presidential.

Posted by: mimi424 | February 23, 2008 6:35 PM | Report abuse


I think once Hillary is disposed of the issue of qualification, competence and experience will result in another republican victory. Many democrats do not have the excuse of youth in believing polls suggesting Obama has the better chance. We should all know the most pressing concern come November will be who is best qualified to be commander in chief and McCain is already staking claim to that moniker.

Posted by: CliffinWA | February 23, 2008 6:34 PM | Report abuse

No one's buying Hillary.

Go Away.

Posted by: PulSamsara | February 23, 2008 6:34 PM | Report abuse

I think what's most pathetic about Hillary's meltdown is her utter hypocrisy and lies. This is the same woman that mailed out a card to voters in Wisconsin asking which of these people will Obama choose not to cover with his health care plan. It was, clearly, an attack on Obama's plan for universal health care coverage. So for Hillary to stand there... angrily asking "since when do Democrats attack each other's universal health care plans?" is just... stunning. Does she think we really don't remember her own mailings from just a couple weeks ago?

Posted by: DogBitez | February 23, 2008 6:33 PM | Report abuse

Observing Bill Clinton's almost daily petulant temper tantrums when an audience member expresses support for the Obama candidacy; and, now Hillary coming unseamed suggests that she and Slick are very close to loosing it. The "serial groper" is unable to accept the fact that he's trying to peddle a defective product; i.e. Hillary. This is a woman who hasn't managed so much as a corner vegetable stand, or for that matter her own marriage; but, of course you could count Whitewater, and her tenure as "Madam" for Bill's White House Brothel. So what possibly is there that qualifies Bill's official "Bimbo Containment Chief" for the Presidency? Further, Hillary's increasingly frequent crying jags raises a legitimate concern about her mental stability. But, having meticulously planned their coveted return to the White House for several years now, the Clintons will certainly not exit the scene with grace or dignity. This is the political duo that honed "The Politics Of Personal Destruction" into an artform; and, most certainly will not tolerate, who is in their mind, the "upstart Obama" to derail Hillary's pre-choreographed coronation. Greg Neubeck

Posted by: gneubeck | February 23, 2008 6:31 PM | Report abuse

Clinton Attacks Change and Hope by Comparing Obama to Bush. Now That's a Low Blow. It's Also Baffling that Someone Would be Campaigning Against Change and Hope.

No wonder she lost 11 primaries in a row. Get ready for her losing streak to continue on Tuesday.

People don't want a candidate who embraces mudslinging and swift boating tactics.

Obama just keeps looking better and better, no matter what kind of mud gets thrown at him.

Posted by: kevinschmidt | February 23, 2008 6:30 PM | Report abuse

I don't like Hillary but come November, if she is the party nominee, I will grudgingly support her without any doubt. Being a loyal democrat, that is a line I wouldn't cross. I don't want a 80 yr. old guy with lobbyists surrounding him entering the white house and start some adventure in the middle east.
Can we expect Hillary supporters to do the same if Obama is the nominee?
More than likely...no. If McCain picks Pawlenty as his running mate, I will happily vote for McCain. We're going to have a democratic majority in Congress and the Senate anyway.
Obama has the most liberal voting record in the Senate. In Illinois he was the only member in the Senate to vote against increasing jail time for sex offenders. I'm a moderate democrat. He is way to liberal for me.

Posted by: badger3 | February 23, 2008 6:30 PM | Report abuse

Hello!

I am from Brazil, work at ONG and know well how work universal health care in the world. We have here at Brazil the "SUS" (Healt Unique System)almost equal Universal Health Care. It's a big illusion this project from Hillary, when she say that nobody will need to pay additional plan. It's lie! In any place of the world health always was very expensive and have much costs... We have at Brazil the "SUS" but it have not same quality of the privates services. when we need of doctor by SUS, nor always we have doctor and quality of services when we need. I pay taxs for it and I use not. I have my additional private plan that I pay all mounth because is necessary have other.
If people at USA dialogue with any europeans etc, they will say same things for you from USA: They will say that pay Universal Health Care, but they have a additional private plan because the services are better. Why this?
The Universal Health Care is not extensive for all services. For example, if someone want more services then you need pay more taxs for him.
The unique country that Universal Health Care still is working right is the Canadá, but will beggin to have some problems. We know that Canadá is a country with population smaller, when compared with USA, China, Brazil and others. Canadá is a country more young than USA and have less poors, imigrants and social problems.
We know that USA have a big population with many unemployeds, poors, imigrants, less educated people and older. Imagine who will pay more taxs at USA? Imagine who will use the services of the Universal Health Care at USA? Imagine who will need of a addtional private plan at USA?
What Obama said is not lie, is totaly true. You need to dialogue with people of others countries that have Universal Health Care, before to say "yes" because just one project.
I found that the problem of the health there must to be debated with all society after the election be the president Obama or Hillary or McCain.

Hugs from Brazil
Dalmo

Posted by: Dalmo1 | February 23, 2008 6:30 PM | Report abuse

SHE'S KIDDING RIGHT??!!! Oh, at first it was crying and now this. What's she's doing again is playing "Poor me the victim" which i find shameful and a sham. I guess when she in fact send out misleading mailers it was okay, but when Obama sends out the facts she sends out a rallying cry to the voters of Ohio. She playing a game of "come to my rescue form the big Black Boogie man." What a sham she is.

Posted by: JGibbs123 | February 23, 2008 6:30 PM | Report abuse

So why is it that if she says anything about Obama twisting the truth, she is either bitter, angry or sad?? I thought he called the type of attack campaigning he is endorsing "silly season" and said we need to focus on what is best for the country. That's right!! When she said he used part of someone's speech, she was speaking the truth. I guess the truth is "silly season" to Obama.

Posted by: xfiler | February 23, 2008 6:30 PM | Report abuse

At this critical time, US faces many challenges: our economy has a tendency to fall into recession; Iraq war is still going on; our security needs to be strengthened; many people long for the universal heath insurance. In order to tackle so many issues facing US, American people need the best qualified President and Command-In-Chief to lead this nation. With her integrity, her over 30-years proven records in public services, her strength, her passion and her dedication to fight for the working-class people's good life, Hillary Clinton is the best qualified leader for the Democratic Party and our nation. Majority of Americans and I have been fully convinced that Hillary is ready to serve as US President from Day One, and she will lead our nation to move forward in the right direction. I, as an educated person, strongly support Hillary in her presidential campaign.

Posted by: linyuan | February 23, 2008 6:30 PM | Report abuse

I looked at both of their healthcare plans, and I can't say that the Obama campaign's claim is all that off base.

Frankly, I think Clinton's proposal, if enacted, would be more likely to provide true universal coverage -- but the very issue of the extra cost and the mandatory coverage aspect may make it very difficult to get it enacted.

I voted for Senator Clinton when I lived in NY in 2000, and I think she's a viable candidate, but I voted for Obama in the primary, and I'll be supporting him in November if the momentum continues.

I think that it will, no matter how hard Clinton tries to blunt the momentum with these debatable tactics.

Obama in 2008, my prediction. Who's going to be the Veep?

And will RFK Jr. be the head of the EPA under a Democratic administration? I doubt Gore would take the job.

Posted by: crd203 | February 23, 2008 6:29 PM | Report abuse

To rn_ragan and others who share his/her views:

Yes. You are most correct. I fear our majority are unaware that they wear blinders and that their emperor wears no clothes.
Of course, there is no prize for being correct in this most important choice when the correct choice loses.

Please continue to express yourself and pay no mind to the arrogant ones who try to belittle. Thank you for your sentiments.

Posted by: jmlynch926 | February 23, 2008 6:29 PM | Report abuse

Hillary makes these complaints concerning descriptions of her mandates, and yet she has not been straightforward with the American people about her health care plan and its mandates.


Questions that she refuses to answer are:

1) Though she states: "The refundable tax credit will be designed to prevent premiums from exceeding a percentage of family income", she has refused to state the AMOUNT of that percentage, or even give a range of values.

2) When pressed by George Stephanopolis about her penalties for people who refuse to buy health insurance, she refused to give an answer.

She wants it both ways: she wants to cry foul when she is correctly characterized as mandating purchase of private insurance, but she will not explain in detail how her mandates might be sensitive to low income earners. What a whiner!

Posted by: JamesCaroll | February 23, 2008 6:29 PM | Report abuse

To rn_ragan and others who share his/her views:

Yes. You are most correct. I fear our majority are unaware that they wear blinders and that their emperor wears no clothes.
Of course, there is no prize for being correct in this most important choice when the correct choice loses.

Please continue to express yourself and pay no mind to the arrogant ones who try to belittle. Thank you for your sentiments.

Posted by: jmlynch926 | February 23, 2008 6:28 PM | Report abuse

It looks like the great uniter - Senator Obama - has gotten off to a bad start uniting. His campaign and his supporters have insured they've aliented the roughly 50% of Democratic voters who support Senator Clinton. I know that us Clinton supporters are all old and stupid and mean and every other awful thing and Clinton herself is a lying manipulative Biatch (I think that's the euphemism you use). But still if Obama can't unite the Democrats but has driven a wedge through the party with the help of the media, how will he ever unite with the Republicans? Once Obama has the nomination you will realize that all that Repub. support was just anti-Clinton bs and those Repubs will support McCain 100%. At that point they will say - YOU BEEN PUNKED - and they will be right.

Posted by: JimSheridan | February 23, 2008 6:28 PM | Report abuse

I looked at both of their healthcare plans, and I can't say that the Obama campaign's claim is all that off base.

Frankly, I think Clinton's proposal, if enacted, would be more likely to provide true universal coverage -- but the very issue of the extra cost and the mandatory coverage aspect may make it very difficult to get it enacted.

I voted for Senator Clinton when I lived in NY in 2000, and I think she's a viable candidate, but I voted for Obama in the primary, and I'll be supporting him in November if the momentum continues.

I think that it will, no matter how hard Clinton tries to blunt the momentum with these debatable tactics.

Obama in 2008, my prediction. Who's going to be the Veep?

And will RFK Jr. be the head of the EPA under a Democratic administration? I doubt Gore would take the job.

Posted by: crd203 | February 23, 2008 6:27 PM | Report abuse

I could never undertand why Hillary voted for Kyl-Lieberman. What on earth was in the woman's head? The answer is, political calculation was in her head. A Clinton is a focus group-driven animal, the way Bush is an ideology-driven animal. Political calculation always will job one in her pretty little head, and it will lead her into error over and over again, just as it has in the past, until the voters in N.Y. finally pull the plug.
Hillary cannot lead this nation. She can only manage and profit from the waffling in front of hard choices that passes for political process these days.
Posted by: fzdybel | February 23, 2008 04:35 PM

Do you know anything about the Iran Revolutionary Guard? If you do, please explain to me how they are not a terrorist organization. This is the same group that hi-jacked the British ship last year and held the crew members as hostages.

Posted by: badger3 | February 23, 2008 6:27 PM | Report abuse

The slander and rhetoric of HRC, and her faithful Post posse just isn't going to work. Now let's see... HRC is telling us that Barack is no better than Karl Rove, and her quasi-democratic base is telling us Barack is simply a drug addicted homosexual and we're the nasty ones, willing to do whatever it takes to win an election? Essentially, what's happening here is HRC is damaging what's left of her legacy, yet if she must, such is life. I'm entirely confident that our movement will stay above this!

Posted by: twofeathers50 | February 23, 2008 6:27 PM | Report abuse

It's a veritable vast Obama-wing conspiracy!

Posted by: eddwuu | February 23, 2008 6:27 PM | Report abuse

Hillary makes these complaints concerning descriptions of her mandates, and yet she has not been straightforward with the American people about her health care plan and its mandates.


Questions that she refuses to answer are:

1) Though she states: "The refundable tax credit will be designed to prevent premiums from exceeding a percentage of family income", she has refused to state the AMOUNT of that percentage, or even give a range of values.

2) When pressed by George Stephanopolis about her penalties for people who refuse to buy health insurance, she refused to give an answer.

She wants it both ways: she wants to cry foul when she is correctly characterized as mandating purchase of private insurance, but she will not explain in detail how her mandates might be sensitive to low income earners. What a whiner!

Posted by: JamesCaroll | February 23, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse

Sapa posted: "Is it just me, or does Hillary look like Rebecca DeMornay in The Nanny, about to blow her stack? First it's the mud-slinging Hillary. Then, it's the soft-spoken, experienced Hillary. Now, it's the mad, outraged Hillary. Geeze- What's next? Sister, holier-than-thou, Hillary? No- I forgot. Huckabee has that role. Yuh-"

No, I think Don Asmussen in the San Francisco Chronicle got it right on Feb. 1 this year. See: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/01/DDASMUSSENBR.DTL&hw=don+asmussen&sn=007&sc=750

...and no, I don't work for the Chronicle or Asmussen, nor am I compensated or reimbursed in any manner for saying something positive about something that makes me smile...

Posted by: gkouye | February 23, 2008 6:25 PM | Report abuse

I looked at both of their healthcare plans, and I can't say that the Obama campaign's claim is all that off base.

Frankly, I think Clinton's proposal, if enacted, would be more likely to provide true universal coverage -- but the very issue of the extra cost and the mandatory coverage aspect may make it very difficult to get it enacted.

I voted for Senator Clinton when I lived in NY in 2000, and I think she's a viable candidate, but I voted for Obama in the primary, and I'll be supporting him in November if the momentum continues.

I think that it will, no matter how hard Clinton tries to blunt the momentum with these debatable tactics.

Obama in 2008, my prediction. Who's going to be the Veep?

And will RFK Jr. be the head of the EPA under a Democratic administration? I doubt Gore would take the job.

Posted by: crd203 | February 23, 2008 6:24 PM | Report abuse

Why does svreader continue to "swift boat" obama with Karl Rove tactics?

Could it be because he as well the rest of the Clintoons are desperate, again?

They lack all credibly.

Posted by: kevinschmidt | February 23, 2008 6:23 PM | Report abuse

It looks like the great uniter - Senator Obama - has gotten off to a bad start uniting. His campaign and his supporters have insured they've aliented the roughly 50% of Democratic voters who support Senator Clinton. I know that us Clinton supporters are all old and stupid and mean and every other awful thing and Clinton herself is a lying manipulative Biatch (I think that's the euphemism you use). But still if Obama can't unite the Democrats but has driven a wedge through the party with the help of the media, how will he ever unite with the Republicans? Once Obama has the nomination you will realize that all that Repub. support was just anti-Clinton bs and those Repubs will support McCain 100%. At that point they will say - YOU BEEN PUNKED - and they will be right.

Posted by: JimSheridan | February 23, 2008 6:22 PM | Report abuse

I looked at both of their healthcare plans, and I can't say that the Obama campaign's claim is all that off base.

Frankly, I think Clinton's proposal, if enacted, would be more likely to provide true universal coverage -- but the very issue of the extra cost and the mandatory coverage aspect may make it very difficult to get it enacted.

I voted for Senator Clinton when I lived in NY in 2000, and I think she's a viable candidate, but I voted for Obama in the primary, and I'll be supporting him in November if the momentum continues.

I think that it will, no matter how hard Clinton tries to blunt the momentum with these debatable tactics.

Obama in 2008, my prediction. Who's going to be the Veep?

And will RFK Jr. be the head of the EPA under a Democratic administration? I doubt Gore would take the job.

Posted by: crd203 | February 23, 2008 6:22 PM | Report abuse

There is a rumour starting already in some blogs that Hillary is plotting a 2012 come back by polarizing Democratic voters and sabotaging Obama's path to the White House. With Obama in the white house, she cannot campaign until 2016 but witha McCain win, she can try again in 2012. Looks like HillBill couple made a cold calculation and dragging this war as much as possible to polarize the voters.

Posted by: jj2000 | February 23, 2008 6:21 PM | Report abuse

svreader,

It is your posts that are making you look stupid, again. All you do is lie and post Clintoon propaganda.

There is no substance to your comments, only pathetic and desperate "swift boat" rhetoric.

Posted by: kevinschmidt | February 23, 2008 6:19 PM | Report abuse

"obama is a narcissist who wrote two books about himself when no one knew who he was."

So writing an autobiography is narcissistic?

FYI, while Obama served as the chief editor of the Harvard Law Review (the first African-American to be chief editor), he was approached by publishers and encouraged to write a book.

"No one knew who he was"? Hardly. While you were watching Wheel of Fortune, some of us were paying attention to him.

Posted by: afgooey74 | February 23, 2008 6:18 PM | Report abuse

Sen. Hillary don't act like you are so
original. Educated people like Obama use
other educated idea's.

Posted by: sardony1 | February 23, 2008 6:18 PM | Report abuse

There is a rumour starting already in some blogs that Hillary is plotting a 2012 come back by polarizing Democratic voters and sabotaging Obama's path to the White House. With Obama in the white house, she cannot campaign until 2016 but witha McCain win, she can try again in 2012. Looks like HillBill couple made a cold calculation and dragging this war as much as possible to polarize the voters.

Posted by: jj2000 | February 23, 2008 6:17 PM | Report abuse

The Clinton's have always accused others of doing the things they themselves are doing. Like when they were talking to reporters about the grand jury and then blaming Ken Star for doing it. All this story tells me is that Hillary has adopted the Karl Rove play book. And that doesn't surprise me at all.

Posted by: eco-pharm | February 23, 2008 6:17 PM | Report abuse

Sapa posted: "Is it just me, or does Hillary look like Rebecca DeMornay in The Nanny, about to blow her stack? First it's the mud-slinging Hillary. Then, it's the soft-spoken, experienced Hillary. Now, it's the mad, outraged Hillary. Geeze- What's next? Sister, holier-than-thou, Hillary? No- I forgot. Huckabee has that role. Yuh-"

No, I think Don Asmussen in the San Francisco Chronicle got it right on Feb. 1 this year. See: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/01/DDASMUSSENBR.DTL&hw=don+asmussen&sn=007&sc=750

...and no, I don't work for the Chronicle or Asmussen, nor am I compensated or reimbursed in any manner for saying something positive about something that makes me smile...

Posted by: gkouye | February 23, 2008 6:17 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is doing a 'Bill Clinton'. She feigns indignation in order to change the newsline of the last 48 hours which is "Hillary cannot possibly win and she knows it".

She waves papers while Bill waves his finger. She denies truth with a faux anger. She offers her supporters the false hope of a fight.

Obama has been telling the Democrats for six months now that his plan was superior because he mandates children's coverage, but does not seek to socialize medicine and make it a government program.

This is total Clintonian. She cries. She shouts. She needs to chill and change!

Posted by: unteal | February 23, 2008 6:16 PM | Report abuse

svreader,

It is your posts that are making you look stupid, again. All you do is lie and post Clintoon propaganda.

There is no substance to your comments, only pathetic and desperate "swift boat" rhetoric.

Posted by: kevinschmidt | February 23, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

How many of the Obama supporters just plain don't like women? Not most to be sure but no small number.

You guys sound like right wing radio. Hillary can't be everything she is being called it is just not possible.

There does not seem to be a story line.

Posted by: mul | February 23, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

It's a shame that in this most important election since 1932, we are most likely going to elect a man that was a city councilman 4 years ago. It's no time for om the job training, look what it got us in 2000. Hillary is the only one to trust now, the only one with the right stuff this year. No pastorial speeches please, just the facts on what it will take to get the job done. Hope is not enough, change to what? Change is what Bush brought, change for the worse. Vote for Hillary Clinton. Let Obama gain experience for 8 years. He'll still be a young man. Not now, Not at this time. Her time is now, his time is 2016.

Posted by: tuttlegroup | February 23, 2008 6:14 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters --

You have no idea what "angry" really is.
If he gets the nomination, you'll find out in November.

Obama is the new McGovern!

It's going be worth four years of President McCain just to see all you arrogant sob's cut down to size.

Posted by: svreader | February 23, 2008 6:13 PM | Report abuse

Like candidate like supporter. Karl Rove's tactics are fully embraced by svreader.

Posted by: kevinschmidt | February 23, 2008 6:13 PM | Report abuse

"obama is a narcissist who wrote two books about himself when no one knew who he was."

So writing an autobiography is narcissistic?

FYI, while Obama served as the chief editor of the Harvard Law Review (the first African-American to be chief editor), he was approached by publishers and encouraged to write a book.

"No one knew who he was"? Hardly. While you were watching Wheel of Fortune, some of us were paying attention to him.

Posted by: afgooey74 | February 23, 2008 6:13 PM | Report abuse

Like candidate like supporter. Karl Rove's tactics are fully empbraced by svreader.

Posted by: kevinschmidt | February 23, 2008 6:12 PM | Report abuse

Sapa posted: "Is it just me, or does Hillary look like Rebecca DeMornay in The Nanny, about to blow her stack? First it's the mud-slinging Hillary. Then, it's the soft-spoken, experienced Hillary. Now, it's the mad, outraged Hillary. Geeze- What's next? Sister, holier-than-thou, Hillary? No- I forgot. Huckabee has that role. Yuh-"

No, I think Don Asmussen in the San Francisco Chronicle got it right on Feb. 1 this year. See: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/01/DDASMUSSENBR.DTL&hw=don+asmussen&sn=007&sc=750

...and no, I don't work for the Chronicle or Asmussen, nor am I compensated or reimbursed in any manner for saying something positive about something that makes me smile...

Posted by: gkouye | February 23, 2008 6:12 PM | Report abuse

It's really sad: they had a rather good debate on CNN and then Clinton's and Obama's campaigners spoil it all. Both would be more than qualified to improve things for this country. But after all this negativity people start to get disillusioned again. As a result, people's support for the next (hopefully democratic) president may be half-hearted.
Without a nation behind, however, neither one of them can succeed. Please stop this negativity. If Clinton carries on like that she might lose her campaign AND her dignity. What a pity if she did.

Posted by: jan84 | February 23, 2008 6:11 PM | Report abuse

svreader,

It is your posts that are making you look stupid, again. All you do is lie and post Clintoon propaganda.

There is no substance to your comments, only pathetic and desperate "swift boat" rhetoric.

Posted by: kevinschmidt | February 23, 2008 6:10 PM | Report abuse

Poor old Hillary, she's finally flipped. The Inevitable One has become the Desperate One. She's coming across now as some grumpy old fifth-grade teacher who's lost control of the kids with a bit of life in them. Can you imagine her at international politics: "Shame on You Mr. Putin, now go and stand in that corner!" The more her shabby campaign is turning into a shambles, the sillier she becomes and, worse, she's definitely not looking presidential. She should withdraw now, before she loses her dignity entirely.

Posted by: leander | February 23, 2008 6:09 PM | Report abuse

It's really sad: they had a rather good debate on CNN and then Clinton's and Obama's campaigners spoil it all. Both would be more than qualified to improve things for this country. But after all this negativity people start to get disillusioned again. As a result, people's support for the next (hopefully democratic) president may be half-hearted.
Without a nation behind, however, neither one of them can succeed. Please stop this negativity. If Clinton carries on like that she might lose her campaign AND her dignity. What a pity if she did.

Posted by: jan84 | February 23, 2008 6:09 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters are the best friends McCain and the Republican Party have ever had.

They've making everyone who loved life during Bill Clinton's administration dislike Obama and hate his supporters.

Good luck winning the election without 1/2 the Democratic Party.

I hope your parents refuse to pay your tuition and throw all you spoiled brats out of their basements.

Posted by: svreader | February 23, 2008 6:08 PM | Report abuse

Sapa posted: "Is it just me, or does Hillary look like Rebecca DeMornay in The Nanny, about to blow her stack? First it's the mud-slinging Hillary. Then, it's the soft-spoken, experienced Hillary. Now, it's the mad, outraged Hillary. Geeze- What's next? Sister, holier-than-thou, Hillary? No- I forgot. Huckabee has that role. Yuh-"

No, I think Don Asmussen in the San Francisco Chronicle got it right on Feb. 1 this year. See: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/01/DDASMUSSENBR.DTL&hw=don+asmussen&sn=007&sc=750

...and no, I don't work for the Chronicle or Asmussen, nor am I compensated or reimbursed in any manner for saying something positive about something that makes me smile...

Posted by: gkouye | February 23, 2008 6:08 PM | Report abuse

Hillary can't have it both ways. She can't possibly think that every single family needing health insurance in the US is going to join her scheme voluntarily. I mean, get real.

If her Healthcare plan is going to be universal coverage, it will have to force people to join. If it isn't going to force them, it isn't going to be universal ... which is exactly what she accuses Obama's plan of being.

The whole debate is unreal. There's no way the final legislation will be what's in their manifestoes. There's no guarantee a President can even force a healthcare plan through at all. Just ask Hillary, she knows.

Posted by: kevrobb | February 23, 2008 6:07 PM | Report abuse

So Much for Clinton Ending the Campaign on a High Note. Her Campaign Tries to "Swift Boat" Obama for Accepting a Small Donation Years Back from a Former "Weather Underground" Member Who is Now a College Professor Specializing in Education. This is Scumbag Tactics on the Part of the Clinton Staff. Clinton Should Rein Them In, or She is Responsible Along with Them.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4330128&page=1

Posted by: kevinschmidt | February 23, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

I would like to offer a A message to the youth vote in Texas and Ohio and across the United States as a 28 year old Mexica-American, who is a product of the Chicago public school system.

(A vote for Obama is a vote for promises and hope that can't be kept. Here is why - He has been running a campaing that is truly short sided "how do I defeat Hillary Clinton". When a Democrats actually goes up against a Republicans in a general election we will realy need to be able to defend actual positions and actions that we will take as a party. If all we have as a party is an idea of what we want to do and hold that only up to the hopes and dreams of what we want to acomplish, we will see a very tough general election for the democats. Looking at the possibility of McCain being the Republican nominee someone who only has to be pro-active in his attacks and as usuall the democrats have to take the less effective stand of defending their views we could very possibly loose the election.

Enough of the popularity contest - we need a candidate that can change the momentum of the Republican Party, their 2 terms in office, and constant gridlock in Washington. Vote for Hillary Clinton - she trully is a candidate for change, someone who has shown proven results. I can say this, and beleive, because I am living prove that an immigrant, son of a single mother, and self-made proud American and working proffesional, is making it in the world because of the changes she has fought for in her career.)

Posted by: jflore6 | February 23, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

So Much for Clinton Ending the Campaign on a High Note. Her Campaign Tries to "Swift Boat" Obama for Accepting a Small Donation Years Back from a Former "Weather Underground" Member Who is Now a College Professor Specializing in Education. This is Scumbag Tactics on the Part of the Clinton Staff. Clinton Should Rein Them In, or She is Responsible Along with Them.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4330128&page=1

Posted by: kevinschmidt | February 23, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

svreader.my response:

sd71 --

Is it any wonder that Hillary has so much stronger support among Ph.D's than Obama does?

Obama only does well with BS graduates.

People like you and I look at the actual issues. We're trained to look past personalities.

I'm not Asian, but I've got enormous respect for Asian values of education, hard work, and self-reliance.

The fact that Senator Clinton has such high levels of support in the Asian community just goes to show that people who follow the issues and make rational decisions support Senator Clinton.

"Gung-shi-fat-tai!" "Shing-yen-qui-la!"

i look for three things:

who is best qualified for president ? i look at intellectual capacity,talent, depth and breath in knowledge of issues,internal and foreign policy.record of accomplisments. respect for diversity.

what is in it for me in the deal ?

what noble social purpose will it serve.all the rest being equal i will vote for a woma,a black or asian

Posted by: sd71 | February 23, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

Hillary can't have it both ways. She can't possibly think that every single family needing health insurance in the US is going to join her scheme voluntarily. I mean, get real.

If her Healthcare plan is going to be universal coverage, it will have to force people to join. If it isn't going to force them, it isn't going to be universal ... which is exactly what she accuses Obama's plan of being.

The whole debate is unreal. There's no way the final legislation will be what's in their manifestoes. There's no guarantee a President can even force a healthcare plan through at all. Just ask Hillary, she knows.

Posted by: kevrobb | February 23, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

svreader.my response:

sd71 --

Is it any wonder that Hillary has so much stronger support among Ph.D's than Obama does?

Obama only does well with BS graduates.

People like you and I look at the actual issues. We're trained to look past personalities.

I'm not Asian, but I've got enormous respect for Asian values of education, hard work, and self-reliance.

The fact that Senator Clinton has such high levels of support in the Asian community just goes to show that people who follow the issues and make rational decisions support Senator Clinton.

"Gung-shi-fat-tai!" "Shing-yen-qui-la!"

i look for three things:

who is best qualified for president ? i look at intellectual capacity,talent, depth and breath in knowledge of issues,internal and foreign policy.record of accomplisments. respect for diversity.

what is in it for me in the deal ?

what noble social purpose will it serve.all the rest being equal i will vote for a woma,a black or asian

Posted by: sd71 | February 23, 2008 6:04 PM | Report abuse

By turning down an offer from Carl Rove to manage his campaign, Obama have since proved himself to be much better then Rove in mongering hatred to benefit himself.

Posted by: sgr_astar | February 23, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, Shame On You! Barack Hussein Obama. I never saw any presidential candidate as this stupid as him. oh, except GWBush.

Posted by: hgogo | February 23, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

Sapa posted: "Is it just me, or does Hillary look like Rebecca DeMornay in The Nanny, about to blow her stack? First it's the mud-slinging Hillary. Then, it's the soft-spoken, experienced Hillary. Now, it's the mad, outraged Hillary. Geeze- What's next? Sister, holier-than-thou, Hillary? No- I forgot. Huckabee has that role. Yuh-"

No, I think Don Asmussen in the San Francisco Chronicle got it right on Feb. 1 this year. See: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/01/DDASMUSSENBR.DTL&hw=don+asmussen&sn=007&sc=750

...and no, I don't work for the Chronicle or Asmussen, nor am I compensated or reimbursed in any manner for saying something positive about something that makes me smile...

Posted by: gkouye | February 23, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

svreader,

It is your posts that are making you look stupid, again. All you do is lie and post Clintoon propaganda.

Truly pathetic and desperate.

Posted by: kevinschmidt | February 23, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

Enough. After accusing Senator Obama of "change by xerox," Senator Clinton went on to use a phrase from John Edwards.

Now another "outrage." Haggling over a brochure makes a great media moment, but it does nothing to enhance the contest.

Now is the time to find high ground, not to slip into increased mudslinging. It's easy to forget that when mud is thrown, you might miss your target, but the mud is still on the thrower's hands.

Posted by: pitchersweet | February 23, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

Have you seen the cartoon clip of Senator Obama driving Miss Hillary like the movie Driving Miss Daisy? I think Senator Obama is driving Miss Hillary crazy with this campaign. She is irrational. One day she is honored and couple days later she talking to him like a child, "Shame on you."

It's okay for her to tout the differences between the health care plans but he can't. Forgive me this is America and he can, too. And that trade deal her husband pushed that she as first lady gained so much experience from is a part of her record whether she likes it or not. She can't pick and choose which part of her husband's legacy that she wants to take credit for in this campaign.

She is getting really sad and small. I am so disappointed in her. The only way she can get news coverage is to throw a hissy fit. Misplace aggressive...should have thrown it on those aides wasting her campaign money. Then, she could send some flyers, too.

I think this working grandmother over 55 will send another contribution to Senator Obama.

Posted by: tsm1 | February 23, 2008 6:01 PM | Report abuse

Wow, considering that Karl Rove learned his play book from the Clintons, this is almost like the pot calling the kettle black, except I'm not really sure that Obama has said anything wrong here.

Maybe there are some minor mischaracterizations in the mailings, but challenging Clinton's policy issues hardly seems unfair. Especially given how much Clinton has run on residual goodwill left over from her husband's administration, and claims credit for experience for her years "in" the White House (West Wing, East Wing distinctions aside), she deserves to answer for NAFTA job losses resulting from those policies. Bill Clinton pushed through NAFTA over the objections of 60% of Americans, and now Americans have been hurt by it, so how is Hillary any different on this issue? She can't claim credit for positive things from her husband's eight years without also taking lumps for the bad.

Posted by: blert | February 23, 2008 6:01 PM | Report abuse

I don't know how the rest of you all feel, but for me it boils down to this:

I am a lifelong Democratic Party member and an Obama supporter. And I tell you this, a victory by McCain would be better in my book then a victory by Hillary. Much to my own dislike, I will turn my yellow dog card in for the blue one.

It is sad, but for me there is no other way to see it.

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 23, 2008 6:01 PM | Report abuse

I don't know how the rest of you all feel, but for me it boils down to this:

I am a lifelong Democratic Party member and an Obama supporter. And I tell you this, a victory by McCain would be better in my book then a victory by Hillary. Much to my own dislike, I will turn my yellow dog card in for the blue one.

It is sad, but for me there is no other way to see it.

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 23, 2008 6:01 PM | Report abuse

svreader,

It is your posts that are making you look stupid, again. All you do is lie and post Clintoon propaganda.

Truly pathetic and desperate.

Posted by: kevinschmidt | February 23, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Lets hope that Hillary and Obama go down to the wire and have to fight it out at the Dem. Convention. It will show the American public who and what they really are. Maybe shades of Chicago 1968?

These two are pretty much alike in policy and personal objectives. Hillary wants to be the first woman president. Obama wants to be the first black president and both of them would and will say and do anything to achieve that goal. The reality of rehtoric they eschew about the love of country is baloney. What they both love is the thought of living in The White House for four years and etching their names in the rock of history.

The only qualified candidate in this election period is John McCain. Steadfast in principle, true character, experienced in all facets of government and what it takes to get things done, can work with conservatives,and liberals, votes on what he believes is right and not just on party lines, and has a real hold on foreign policy and what it takes to keep America safe in the critical times we live in.

Flashback to George McGovern during the last Democratic debate where Obama stated he would meet with Raul Castro on unconditional terms. I'm sure at least he lost the Cuban vote with that statement.

My only hope is that the what I refer to as THE JIMMY CARTER DISEASE DOES NOT INFECT THE MAJORITY OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC. The chronic symptoms are a severe hatered of the party in power to the extent that anything is better than what we have now. After all the only reason CARTER was elected was the fact that NIXON left in disgrace. An antidote for this disease would be if President Bush would try to endear himself somewhat to the American Public so that the American Public will vote with there brain and not with their heart in the next election.

Posted by: ziggy1 | February 23, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Wow. Now I know why the call her Shrillary. It fits. The flyers are nothing new, but now their news? Her campaign is in a tailspin, she is not connecting with voters, and she claims to be the most prepared? BS. You know, I used to have a lot of respect for her. Now, I just wish she and Bill would simply go away. The Clinton years were good ones, but Bill's personal moral bankruptcy brought us 8 years of garbage. You know, when the Republicans say that everything is all Bill Clinton's fault, sometimes it's hard to argue. If he only kept his pecker in his pants, we never would have had George Bush.

Hillary is doing nothing to inspire this country and Obama is. And for everybody complaining that he simply stealing everybody's ideas, these two have been that far apart in their ideas anyway.

I had been a Hillary supporter at the start, but everyday she open's her pie hole the more convinced I become that I got real - real smart by voting for Obama in Virginia.

Bye, Bye Shrillary. Sorry that the uppity young Black buck had to spoil your coronation.

Posted by: VeloStrummer | February 23, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Enough. After accusing Senator Obama of "change by xerox," Senator Clinton went on to use a phrase from John Edwards.

Now another "outrage." Haggling over a brochure makes a great media moment, but it does nothing to enhance the contest.

Now is the time to find high ground, not to slip into increased mudslinging. It's easy to forget that when mud is thrown, you might miss your target, but the mud is still on the thrower's hands.

Posted by: pitchersweet | February 23, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Wow. Now I know why the call her Shrillary. It fits. The flyers are nothing new, but now their news? Her campaign is in a tailspin, she is not connecting with voters, and she claims to be the most prepared? BS. You know, I used to have a lot of respect for her. Now, I just wish she and Bill would simply go away. The Clinton years were good ones, but Bill's personal moral bankruptcy brought us 8 years of garbage. You know, when the Republicans say that everything is all Bill Clinton's fault, sometimes it's hard to argue. If he only kept his pecker in his pants, we never would have had George Bush.

Hillary is doing nothing to inspire this country and Obama is. And for everybody complaining that he simply stealing everybody's ideas, these two have been that far apart in their ideas anyway.

I had been a Hillary supporter at the start, but everyday she open's her pie hole the more convinced I become that I got real - real smart by voting for Obama in Virginia.

Bye, Bye Shrillary. Sorry that the uppity young Black buck had to spoil your coronation.

Posted by: VeloStrummer | February 23, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Ha ha!

Worst Hillary photo ever.

Posted by: alarico | February 23, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

I see an air of truth in what Hillary is trying to convey..but being too emotional about it displays weakness. She should learn to take things like this in her stride and still show her leadership skills. Else, she is in no way better than a Senator, which Barack is. Being the President is about leadership, maturity, good judgement , wisdom and holding your cool in the face of adversity.

President Bush is very, very mature - for that matter. The man can smile away vicious attacks and stick by his men, good or bad even in calamity - both excellent leadership qualities, which made him a President for 8 years.

Posted by: mdsubramonia | February 23, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

well..that does it for me...Hillary...wouldnt vote for her ...dont agree with what she stands for...and quite frankly...just dont like her...now Obama on the other hand...I liked him a lot in the beginning....he probably would have gotten my vote...BUT...now Hillary has really pointed out some of his apparently many short comings...and she may have a point....she is probably right...she knows the "business" better than I...so It looks like my vote goes to McCain...

Posted by: Veritas2008 | February 23, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Clinton campaign attacks Obama by taking something out of context on Iraq war - and the result is a slamming in the press and Obama supporters' indignation.

Obama campaign attacks Hillary with a misattribution of a non-quote to her - and the result is "Clinton attacks Obama tactics" as a headline and Obama supporters call HC desperate, with no indignation for their man.

It's fun to see the idealists lack fidelity to their idealism. I guess it's all politics, after all. Some of us sit on the sidelines and judge both campaigns harshly, while overall supporting both candidates! Call us the pragmatists I guess.

Posted by: kemurph | February 23, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Today's outburst from Hillary Clinton reveals the tactics behind her warm words at the end of the Texas debate. Clinton sought to paint herself as the amicable one, only to be wronged two days later by the "Karl Rove playbook" of Obama. Yet again, her advisors recognize that the only role Clinton plays effectively is that of the victim.

Posted by: shvartza911 | February 23, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

svreader,

It is your posts that are making you look stupid, again. All you do is lie and post Clintoon propaganda.

Truly pathetic and desperate.

Posted by: kevinschmidt | February 23, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Which is it Hillary?

1. Nice (at the debate) or mean (like this weekend)?
2. For or against NAFTA?
3. Candidate of experience or candidate of change?
4. Is Obama a kitten who will be slaughtered by the GOP or a "Karl Rove"?

No wonder you are losing. You are political doppelganger.

BTW, would people like the Amish who would oppose mandated health care on moral grounds be forced to buy your health care? I like the Obama's plan gives people like the Amish some liberty.

Posted by: Tetris | February 23, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Ha ha!

Worst Hillary photo ever.

Posted by: alarico | February 23, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, Shame On You! Barack Hussein Obama. I never saw any presidential candidate as this stupid as him. oh, except GWBush.

Posted by: hgogo | February 23, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

well..that does it for me...Hillary...wouldnt vote...dont agree withwhat she stands for...and quite frankly...just dont like her...now Obama on the other hand...I liked him a lot in the beginning....he probably would have gotten my vote...BUT...now Hillary has really pointed out some of his apparently many short comings...and she may have a point....she is probably right...she knows the "business" better than I...so It looks like my vote goes to McCain...

Posted by: Veritas2008 | February 23, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

I don't know how the rest of you all feel, but for me it boils down to this:

I am a lifelong Democratic Party member and an Obama supporter. And I tell you this, a victory by McCain would be better in my book then a victory by Hillary. Much to my own dislike, I will turn my yellow dog card in for the blue one.

It is sad, but for me there is no other way to see it.

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 23, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Obama has doomed his campaign by ticking off Clinton supporters to the point that we will not only not vote for him but will actively support McCain.

Posted by: svreader | February 23, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

I don't know how the rest of you all feel, but for me it boils down to this:

I am a lifelong Democratic Party member and an Obama supporter. And I tell you this, a victory by McCain would be better in my book then a victory by Hillary. Much to my own dislike, I will turn my yellow dog card in for the blue one.

It is sad, but for me there is no other way to see it.

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 23, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

I don't know how the rest of you all feel, but for me it boils down to this:

I am a lifelong Democratic Party member and an Obama supporter. And I tell you this, a victory by McCain would be better in my book then a victory by Hillary. Much to my own dislike, I will turn my yellow dog card in for the blue one.

It is sad, but for me there is no other way to see it.

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 23, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is a very bitter and angry person.

Posted by: gmundenat | February 23, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is now being condescending to all those who support Obama when she said that he can hold those big rallies and make great speeches. The subtext of her outburst today is that people are followers and unthinking cult lemmings of this mass movement that Obama has inspired. The mailings have been in circulation for quite sometime now and should have been addressed at the debate, if they had indeed torked this kind of "spontaneous" outburst from her. Puhleaze!!!! I started off being a Hillary supporter, but saw through her meanness and shenanigans, anything to win.

I am now an Obama supporter and after today, I will be sending him money to shore up his campaign. Hillary is toast and her manufactured PMS moment today only confirmed to me, her arrogant notion that she is the only one who can be commander in chief from day 1. NOT. Get lost Hillary. You are not even good enough to be considered for VP. Today, you lost big time. Good riddance.

Posted by: amylaly | February 23, 2008 5:55 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is now being condescending to all those who support Obama when she said that he can hold those big rallies and make great speeches. The subtext of her outburst today is that people are followers and unthinking cult lemmings of this mass movement that Obama has inspired. The mailings have been in circulation for quite sometime now and should have been addressed at the debate, if they had indeed torked this kind of "spontaneous" outburst from her. Puhleaze!!!! I started off being a Hillary supporter, but saw through her meanness and shenanigans, anything to win.

I am now an Obama supporter and after today, I will be sending him money to shore up his campaign. Hillary is toast and her manufactured PMS moment today only confirmed to me, her arrogant notion that she is the only one who can be commander in chief from day 1. NOT. Get lost Hillary. You are not even good enough to be considered for VP. Today, you lost big time. Good riddance.

Posted by: amylaly | February 23, 2008 5:55 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is now being condescending to all those who support Obama when she said that he can hold those big rallies and make great speeches. The subtext of her outburst today is that people are followers and unthinking cult lemmings of this mass movement that Obama has inspired. The mailings have been in circulation for quite sometime now and should have been addressed at the debate, if they had indeed torked this kind of "spontaneous" outburst from her. Puhleaze!!!! I started off being a Hillary supporter, but saw through her meanness and shenanigans, anything to win.

I am now an Obama supporter and after today, I will be sending him money to shore up his campaign. Hillary is toast and her manufactured PMS moment today only confirmed to me, her arrogant notion that she is the only one who can be commander in chief from day 1. NOT. Get lost Hillary. You are not even good enough to be considered for VP. Today, you lost big time. Good riddance.

Posted by: amylaly | February 23, 2008 5:55 PM | Report abuse

Putdownthekoolaid --

Follow your own advice and put down your MDMA Kool Aid.

Republicans are chomping at the bit to have Obama as the Democratic candidate.

That's why Rush Limbaugh and other right-wing radio hosts told their listeners to screw up the primary by voting for Obama.

If only registered Democrats were allowed to vote in the primaries, Clinton would have won hands down.

Nothing I post comes from anyone's talking points.

If they want to copy from me, that's fine.

Obama will lose.

The only question is whether its in the primaries or the national election.

That's a promise from everyone in this country that doesn't like having an empty suit shoved down our throats.

All your posts do is strengthen our resolve to never have him in the Oval office.

A lot of us used to want a Clinton/Obama ticket.

Now, we'd be much happier to never hear his empty BS from him or his supporters ever again!!!


Posted by: svreader | February 23, 2008 5:55 PM | Report abuse

When Hillary first failed at bringing about healthcare coverage why did the issue just vanish from then President Clinton's agenda ? Why wasn't it something the Clintons pursued throughout the rest of his two terms in office and why would anyone believe that she could get anything done now -- especially when she takes so much money from lobbyists from drug companies ?

Posted by: EDYL31 | February 23, 2008 5:55 PM | Report abuse

Wow. Now I know why the call her Shrillary. It fits. The flyers are nothing new, but now their news? Her campaign is in a tailspin, she is not connecting with voters, and she claims to be the most prepared? BS. You know, I used to have a lot of respect for her. Now, I just wish she and Bill would simply go away. The Clinton years were good ones, but Bill's personal moral bankruptcy brought us 8 years of garbage. You know, when the Republicans say that everything is all Bill Clinton's fault, sometimes it's hard to argue. If he only kept his pecker in his pants, we never would have had George Bush.

Hillary is doing nothing to inspire this country and Obama is. And for everybody complaining that he simply stealing everybody's ideas, these two have been that far apart in their ideas anyway.

I had been a Hillary supporter at the start, but everyday she open's her pie hole the more convinced I become that I got real - real smart by voting for Obama in Virginia.

Bye, Bye Shrillary. Sorry that the uppity young Black buck had to spoil your coronation.

Posted by: VeloStrummer | February 23, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Putdownthekoolaid --

Follow your own advice and put down your MDMA Kool Aid.

Republicans are chomping at the bit to have Obama as the Democratic candidate.

That's why Rush Limbaugh and other right-wing radio hosts told their listeners to screw up the primary by voting for Obama.

If only registered Democrats were allowed to vote in the primaries, Clinton would have won hands down.

Nothing I post comes from anyone's talking points.

If they want to copy from me, that's fine.

Obama will lose.

The only question is whether its in the primaries or the national election.

That's a promise from everyone in this country that doesn't like having an empty suit shoved down our throats.

All your posts do is strengthen our resolve to never have him in the Oval office.

A lot of us used to want a Clinton/Obama ticket.

Now, we'd be much happier to never hear his empty BS from him or his supporters ever again!!!


Posted by: svreader | February 23, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is a very bitter and angry person.

Posted by: gmundenat | February 23, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Have you seen the cartoon clip of Senator Obama driving Miss Hillary like the movie Driving Miss Daisy? I think Senator Obama is driving Miss Hillary crazy with this campaign. She is irrational. One day she is honored and couple days later she talking to him like a child, "Shame on you."

It's okay for her to tout the differences between the health care plans but he can't. Forgive me this is America and he can, too. And that trade deal her husband pushed that she as first lady gained so much experience from is a part of her record whether she likes it or not. She can't pick and choose which part of her husband's legacy that she wants to take credit for in this campaign.

She is getting really sad and small. I am so disappointed in her. The only way she can get news coverage is to throw a hissy fit. Misplace aggressive...should have thrown it on those aides wasting her campaign money. Then, she could send some flyers, too.

I think this working grandmother over 55 will send another contribution to Senator Obama.

Posted by: tsm1 | February 23, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse

I thought Clinton was going out on a high note. WTF is this? I am a 5th generation Washingtonian.... I will be voting For OBAMA in November.

Posted by: johng1 | February 23, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Which is it Hillary?

1. Nice (at the debate) or mean (like this weekend)?
2. For or against NAFTA?
3. Candidate of experience or candidate of change?
4. Is Obama a kitten who will be slaughtered by the GOP or a "Karl Rove"?

No wonder you are losing. You are political doppelganger.

BTW, would people like the Amish who would oppose mandated health care on moral grounds be forced to buy your health care? I like the Obama's plan gives people like the Amish some liberty.

Posted by: Tetris | February 23, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

APPEAL TO EMOTION IS WHAT IS LEFT TO SEN. CLINTON. THIS HAS WORKED SO FAR.

THE CRITICISM SHE SEEMS SO ANGRY ABOUT ARE NOT NEW.SO WHY IS THE REACTION SO DIFFERENT?

BECAUSE SHE IS LOSING...

HER CONCLUSION IN THE LAST DEBATE WERE ONLY THE BEGINNING OF THIS STRATEGY:

1. FIRST TO MAKE AS IF CONCEDING DEFEAT; SO THAT MC CAIN COULD UPSTAGE ATTACKS ON OBAMA. ALSO DOING SO WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER EXPECTATIONS AND GIVE ANY VICTORY WITH THE SMALLEST MARGIN ANOTHER READING, OVERSHADOWING THAT ONLY IMPROBABLE HUGE MARGIN IN BOTH OHIO AND TEXAS WOULD GIVE MORE HOPE TO HER CAMPAIGN.

2. IMPLEMENT THE PLAN OF GETTING REALLY NASTY DURING OHIO DEBATE WHILE FAKING LEGITIMATE OUTRAGE. BY BEING NASTY, SHE WILL TRANSFORM OBVIOUS DESPERATION INTO LEGITIMATE DISMAY.

THAT IS A NICE TRY

BUT THE QUESTION IS: WHAT IS THE NEW ON OBAMA CRITICISM THAT WAS NOT EXPRESSED IN TEXAS DEBATE? WHY DIDN'T SHE THEN GET UPSET?

IT TOOK HILLARY 2 MONTHS TO MOVE FROM SURPLUS TO DEFICIT IN HER CAMPAIGN. THE BAD NEW WAS WELL MANAGED WITH THE ART OF SECRECY SHE EXCELS IN.

BUT HOW DO WE TRUST A SO-CALLED EXPERIENCED LEADER WITH OUR TRILLION DOLLARS BUDGET OVER 4 YEARS AS WE KNOW SHE CANNOT BE TRUSTED WITH JUST FEW MILLION OF HER CAMPAIGN?

I MEAN, COME ON...

Posted by: amich | February 23, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

Obama says Clinton would be a lousy President. Clinton says Obama would be a lousy President.

They're both right!

Posted by: Rob_ | February 23, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

from obama in india's papers-
"Too often flawed strategies like racial profiling have had a disproportionate effect on Indian-Americans. Too often, restrictions at our borders have prevented entry for many students and family members who seek nothing more than opportunity and reunification with loved ones,"

the problem is that hillary and he support family reunifican for these people but neither can do anything about it.the 49 republican in the senate,including john mccain,without exception,keep stonewalling them. it is the same on schip,iraq, you name it.

there is nothing different between what obama or hillary will do. the republican will stonewall either and make sure nothing ever gets done. she is more experienced and has bigger accomplisments like helping schip and fmla pass.he is looking for his.

Posted by: sd71 | February 23, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

I don't know how the rest of you all feel, but for me it boils down to this:

I am a lifelong Democratic Party member and an Obama supporter. And I tell you this, a victory by McCain would be better in my book then a victory by Hillary. Much to my own dislike, I will turn my yellow dog card in for the blue one.

It is sad, but for me there is no other way to see it.

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 23, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

I am a lifelong 5th generation Washingtonian.... I will be voting For OBAMA in November.

Posted by: johng1 | February 23, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

posted by svreader: "jj --

Nobody pays me anything to post these comments.

How much does Obama pay you to crap on the Clintons?

Grow up. People like Senator Clinton and are getting to really hate Obama supporters because she's got great policy ideas, he's an empty suit, and his supporters are a bunch of glorified moonies.

Obama's an empty suit.
He hasn't had an original idea in his life.
Without his writers and his teleprompter he's mute.

Wake up, grow up, and smell the coffee!!!"

Umm, yeah... so smell the coffee but no more donuts any more?

...sorry, I couldn't help myself.

I believe that you aren't being paid by the Clintons -- they're usually much more subtle in their attacks.

Anyway, I can't help but be amused by the feigned outrage over Hillary suddenly learning for the first time about this old mailer when supposedly it was handed to her at a campaign event. I'm actually kind of looking forward to see if the Ohio debate has some of the excitement that was sorely lacking in the Texas debate. I hope the extra time gives her writers enough time to come up with some better lines than the weak Xeroxing jibe. This outrage bodes well for fireworks :-)

Posted by: gkouye | February 23, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Enough. After accusing Senator Obama of "change by xerox," Senator Clinton went on to use a phrase from John Edwards.

Now another "outrage." Haggling over a brochure makes a great media moment, but it does nothing to enhance the contest.

Now is the time to find high ground, not to slip into increased mudslinging. It's easy to forget that when mud is thrown, you might miss your target, but the mud is still on the thrower's hands.

Posted by: pitchersweet | February 23, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Wow. Now I know why the call her Shrillary. It fits. The flyers are nothing new, but now their news? Her campaign is in a tailspin, she is not connecting with voters, and she claims to be the most prepared? BS. You know, I used to have a lot of respect for her. Now, I just wish she and Bill would simply go away. The Clinton years were good ones, but Bill's personal moral bankruptcy brought us 8 years of garbage. You know, when the Republicans say that everything is all Bill Clinton's fault, sometimes it's hard to argue. If he only kept his pecker in his pants, we never would have had George Bush.

Hillary is doing nothing to inspire this country and Obama is. And for everybody complaining that he simply stealing everybody's ideas, these two have been that far apart in their ideas anyway.

I had been a Hillary supporter at the start, but everyday she open's her pie hole the more convinced I become that I got real - real smart by voting for Obama in Virginia.

Bye, Bye Shrillary. Sorry that the uppity young Black buck had to spoil your coronation.

Posted by: VeloStrummer | February 23, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Putdownthekoolaid --

Follow your own advice and put down your MDMA Kool Aid.

Republicans are chomping at the bit to have Obama as the Democratic candidate.

That's why Rush Limbaugh and other right-wing radio hosts told their listeners to screw up the primary by voting for Obama.

If only registered Democrats were allowed to vote in the primaries, Clinton would have won hands down.

Nothing I post comes from anyone's talking points.

If they want to copy from me, that's fine.

Obama will lose.

The only question is whether its in the primaries or the national election.

That's a promise from everyone in this country that doesn't like having an empty suit shoved down our throats.

All your posts do is strengthen our resolve to never have him in the Oval office.

A lot of us used to want a Clinton/Obama ticket.

Now, we'd be much happier to never hear his empty BS from him or his supporters ever again!!!


Posted by: svreader | February 23, 2008 5:48 PM | Report abuse

Putdownthekoolaid --

Follow your own advice and put down your MDMA Kool Aid.

Republicans are chomping at the bit to have Obama as the Democratic candidate.

That's why Rush Limbaugh and other right-wing radio hosts told their listeners to screw up the primary by voting for Obama.

If only registered Democrats were allowed to vote in the primaries, Clinton would have won hands down.

Nothing I post comes from anyone's talking points.

If they want to copy from me, that's fine.

Obama will lose.

The only question is whether its in the primaries or the national election.

That's a promise from everyone in this country that doesn't like having an empty suit shoved down our throats.

All your posts do is strengthen our resolve to never have him in the Oval office.

A lot of us used to want a Clinton/Obama ticket.

Now, we'd be much happier to never hear his empty BS from him or his supporters ever again!!!


Posted by: svreader | February 23, 2008 5:48 PM | Report abuse

Is it just me, or does Hillary look like Rebecca DeMornay in The Nanny, about to blow her stack? First it's the mud-slinging Hillary. Then, it's the soft-spoken, experienced Hillary. Now, it's the mad, outraged Hillary. Geeze- What's next? Sister, holier-than-thou, Hillary? No- I forgot. Huckabee has that role. Yuh-

Posted by: Sapa | February 23, 2008 5:48 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is a very bitter and angry person.

Posted by: gmundenat | February 23, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Have you seen the cartoon clip of Senator Obama driving Miss Hillary like the movie Driving Miss Daisy? I think Senator Obama is driving Miss Hillary crazy with this campaign. She is irrational. One day she is honored and couple days later she talking to him like a child, "Shame on you."

It's okay for her to tout the differences between the health care plans but he can't. Forgive me this is America and he can, too. And that trade deal her husband pushed that she as first lady gained so much experience from is a part of her record whether she likes it or not. She can't pick and choose which part of her husband's legacy that she wants to take credit for in this campaign.

She is getting really sad and small. I am so disappointed in her. The only way she can get news coverage is to throw a hissy fit.

I think this working grandmother over 55 will send another contribution to Senator Obama.

Posted by: tsm1 | February 23, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Enough. After accusing Senator Obama of "change by xerox," Senator Clinton went on to use a phrase from John Edwards.

Now another "outrage." Haggling over a brochure makes a great media moment, but it does nothing to enhance the contest.

Now is the time to find high ground, not to slip into increased mudslinging. It's easy to forget that when mud is thrown, you might miss your target, but the mud is still on the thrower's hands.

Posted by: pitchersweet | February 23, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Enough. After accusing Senator Obama of "change by xerox," Senator Clinton went on to use a phrase from John Edwards.

Now another "outrage." Haggling over a brochure makes a great media moment, but it does nothing to enhance the contest.

Now is the time to find high ground, not to slip into increased mudslinging. It's easy to forget that when mud is thrown, you might miss your target, but the mud is still on the thrower's hands.

Posted by: pitchersweet | February 23, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Wow. Now I know why the call her Shrillary. It fits. The flyers are nothing new, but now their news? Her campaign is in a tailspin, she is not connecting with voters, and she claims to be the most prepared? BS. You know, I used to have a lot of respect for her. Now, I just wish she and Bill would simply go away. The Clinton years were good ones, but Bill's personal moral bankruptcy brought us 8 years of garbage. You know, when the Republicans say that everything is all Bill Clinton's fault, sometimes it's hard to argue. If he only kept his pecker in his pants, we never would have had George Bush.

Hillary is doing nothing to inspire this country and Obama is. And for everybody complaining that he simply stealing everybody's ideas, these two have been that far apart in their ideas anyway.

I had been a Hillary supporter at the start, but everyday she open's her pie hole the more convinced I become that I got real - real smart by voting for Obama in Virginia.

Bye, Bye Shrillary. Sorry that the uppity young Black buck had to spoil your coronation.

Posted by: VeloStrummer | February 23, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

his boy, OBAMA is indeed a phenom.God preserve him. I do not think he is siding with the BLACK or WHITE: He is meant for all. I am pleased he did distance HIMSELF from the black activists and the white affiliates: These tendencies of identifying with a race or cliques is what has destroyed HUMANITY and he has noted that... He is meant for all. I think he has a special mission.
I WAS INTRIGUED LISTENING TO THE DEBATE IN TEXAS THAT WHILST 'OLDER' HILLARY (THOUGH VERY LOVABLE, I MUST SAY) WAS SCORING POINTS.. AND WISHING TO BE ELECTED.. Obama just made it clear that there is an URGENCY which far surpasses the need to be elected and be made 'FAMOUS',
I ALWAYS WONDER WHY HE HAS STAKED HIS LIFE FOR A DIFFICULT JOB LIKE THE 'PRESIDENCY'. WITH HIS INTELLECT (WHICH ALL CAN SEE) HE CAN BE EXTRAORDINARILY SUCCESSFUL IN ANY ENDEAVOUR.. BUT he realises if he does not change the down-spiralling of GOOD living philosophies and kindness to humanity.. He soon would be roped into war and be killed.

Posted by: williampines1 | February 23, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

his boy, OBAMA is indeed a phenom.God preserve him. I do not think he is siding with the BLACK or WHITE: He is meant for all. I am pleased he did distance HIMSELF from the black activists and the white affiliates: These tendencies of identifying with a race or cliques is what has destroyed HUMANITY and he has noted that... He is meant for all. I think he has a special mission.
I WAS INTRIGUED LISTENING TO THE DEBATE IN TEXAS THAT WHILST 'OLDER' HILLARY (THOUGH VERY LOVABLE, I MUST SAY) WAS SCORING POINTS.. AND WISHING TO BE ELECTED.. Obama just made it clear that there is an URGENCY which far surpasses the need to be elected and be made 'FAMOUS',
I ALWAYS WONDER WHY HE HAS STAKED HIS LIFE FOR A DIFFICULT JOB LIKE THE 'PRESIDENCY'. WITH HIS INTELLECT (WHICH ALL CAN SEE) HE CAN BE EXTRAORDINARILY SUCCESSFUL IN ANY ENDEAVOUR.. BUT he realises if he does not change the down-spiralling of GOOD living philosophies and kindness to humanity.. He soon would be roped into war and be killed.

Posted by: williampines1 | February 23, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Putdownthekoolaid --

Follow your own advice and put down your MDMA Kool Aid.

Republicans are chomping at the bit to have Obama as the Democratic candidate.

That's why Rush Limbaugh and other right-wing radio hosts told their listeners to screw up the primary by voting for Obama.

If only registered Democrats were allowed to vote in the primaries, Clinton would have won hands down.

Nothing I post comes from anyone's talking points.

If they want to copy from me, that's fine.

Obama will lose.

The only question is whether its in the primaries or the national election.

That's a promise from everyone in this country that doesn't like having an empty suit shoved down our throats.

All your posts do is strengthen our resolve to never have him in the Oval office.

A lot of us used to want a Clinton/Obama ticket.

Now, we'd be much happier to never hear his empty BS from him or his supporters ever again!!!


Posted by: svreader | February 23, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

his boy, OBAMA is indeed a phenom.God preserve him. I do not think he is siding with the BLACK or WHITE: He is meant for all. I am pleased he did distance HIMSELF from the black activists and the white affliates: These tendencies of identifying with a race or cliques is what has destroyed HUMANITY and he has noted that... He is meant for all. I think he has a special mission.
I WAS INTRIGUED LISTENING TO THE DEBATE IN TEXAS THAT WHILST 'OLDER' HILLARY (THOUGH VERY LOVABLE, I MUST SAY) WAS SCORING POINTS.. AND WISHING TO BE ELECTED.. Obama just made it clear that there is an URGENCY which far surpasses the need to be elected and be made 'FAMOUS',
I ALWAYS WONDER WHY HE HAS STAKED HIS LIFE FOR A DIFFICULT JOB LIKE THE 'PRESIDENCY'. WITH HIS INTELLECT (WHICH ALL CAN SEE) HE CAN BE EXTRAORDINARILY SUCCESSFUL IN ANY ENDEAVOUR.. BUT he realises if he does not change the down-spiralling of GOOD living philosophies and kindness to humanity.. He soon would be roped into war and be killed.

Posted by: williampines1 | February 23, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

What a poor excuse for someone who would represent as my President. I was supporting Hillary up until about 3 weeks ago. The more I got to know and learn about her and her ploicies the more I dis-like her/them. The opposite is true for Obama. Not only have I switched to Obama, I also recently gave $500 to his campaign. I believe that this side of Hillary will push even men like myself towards Obama. No man, especially those like myself in Ohio, want a President that acts like she did today. I now see firsthand why everyone says she's the most polarizing candidate of all time. I believe that she will lose TX and OH by more than 10 points.

Posted by: donald_jones | February 23, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

posted by svreader: "jj --

Nobody pays me anything to post these comments.

How much does Obama pay you to crap on the Clintons?

Grow up. People like Senator Clinton and are getting to really hate Obama supporters because she's got great policy ideas, he's an empty suit, and his supporters are a bunch of glorified moonies.

Obama's an empty suit.
He hasn't had an original idea in his life.
Without his writers and his teleprompter he's mute.

Wake up, grow up, and smell the coffee!!!"

Umm, yeah... so smell the coffee but no more donuts any more?

...sorry, I couldn't help myself.

I believe that you aren't being paid by the Clintons -- they're usually much more subtle in their attacks.

Anyway, I can't help but be amused by the feigned outrage over Hillary suddenly learning for the first time about this old mailer when supposedly it was handed to her at a campaign event. I'm actually kind of looking forward to see if the Ohio debate has some of the excitement that was sorely lacking in the Texas debate. I hope the extra time gives her writers enough time to come up with some better lines than the weak Xeroxing jibe. This outrage bodes well for fireworks :-)

Posted by: gkouye | February 23, 2008 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Cowgirl Hillary: Obama, I'm a-callin' you out! You been spreadin' untruths about me and mine.

Obama: But Hillary, they're true. And you've known about them for quite awhile now.

Cowgirl Hillary: That don't make no nevermind. You done me wrong and you got to pay in Ohio.

Obama: Good. We'll debate. We'll talk.

Cowgirl Hillary: I got no truck with words, Obama. You can Xerox them things, you know.

Obama: I've heard.

Cowgirl Hillary: Ohio! you hear me, Obama. We're gonna settle this once and for all, you no-account varmint!

Obama: Hillary, you need a long rest. I think you're tired.

Me, too, Barack. Me, too.

Posted by: stburke40 | February 23, 2008 5:44 PM | Report abuse

So let me recap: Senator Clinton fumed today because Senator Obama sent mailers to Ohio voters informing them that Senator Clinton's healthcare plan imposes penalties on those who won't participate in her program and also enlightens them about her past support of NAFTA. What's not true in those statements? This claim by Senator Clinton comes after she and her machine have spent the last several weeks throwing everything including the kitchen sink at Senator Obama. If anyone has taken a page from Karl Rove's playbook, it's Senator Clinton. In fact, I made that very point in past posts. Had Senator Clinton not been running such a negative campaign perhaps voters would take pause and seriously consider her assertion. Instead, they understand that Senator Obama is justified in defending himself against Senator Clinton's distortions of his record. In Wisconsin, for instance, exit polls indicated that a large majority agreed that Senator Clinton's attacks were unfair as compared to Senator Obama's. I guess this is a classic case of karma or as Joy Behar of The View wisely puts it: "When you spit in the air, don't be surprised if it hits you in the face." Senator Clinton, the victim, just isn't plausible.

Posted by: leo2thenet | February 23, 2008 5:43 PM | Report abuse

Cowgirl Hillary: Obama, I'm a-callin' you out! You been spreadin' untruths about me and mine.

Obama: But Hillary, they're true. And you've known about them for quite awhile now.

Cowgirl Hillary: That don't make no nevermind. You done me wrong and you got to pay in Ohio.

Obama: Good. We'll debate. We'll talk.

Cowgirl Hillary: I got no truck with words, Obama. You can Xerox them things, you know.

Obama: I've heard.

Cowgirl Hillary: Ohio! you hear me, Obama. We're gonna settle this once and for all, you no-account varmint!

Obama: Hillary, you need a long rest. I think you're tired.

Me, too, Barack. Me, too.

Posted by: stburke40 | February 23, 2008 5:43 PM | Report abuse

By turning down an offer from Carl Rove to manage his campaign, Obama have since proved himself to be much better then Rove in mongering hatred to benefit himself.

Posted by: sgr_astar | February 23, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Stick to a message, Clinton.

1. You are gracious then mean.
2. Obama is a kitten, now he's a Karl Rove.
3. You are the experienced candidate, then the candidate of change, and then the experience candidate once again.
4. Obama can't debate substance and then he goes too far.
5. You're for NAFTA before you're against it.
6. You vote for Iraq before you oppose it.

No wonder you have an image as a calculating politico.

And regarding healthcare mandates, would Clinton force the Amish to purchase healthcare?

Posted by: Tetris | February 23, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

sv, what is this aversion you have to every poll currently out that clearly shows Sen. Obama beating Sen. McCain while your candidate loses to Sen. McCain?

Like the endless string of tactics put forth by Sen. Clinton, the electability issue is a loser. The fact is, the two are very similar on issues. There is one discernible difference between the two: voters are embracing Sen. Obama's inclusive message and rejecting Sen. Clinton's divide and conquer tactics.

Voters are not rejecting her positions, they are rejecting her politics. And all the change in the world of tactics will not do anything to rectify her problem.

Posted by: jeff.cronin | February 23, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

By turning down an offer from Carl Rove to manage his campaign, Obama have since proved himself to be much better then Rove in mongering hatred to benefit himself.

Posted by: sgr_astar | February 23, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

posted by svreader: "jj --

Nobody pays me anything to post these comments.

How much does Obama pay you to crap on the Clintons?

Grow up. People like Senator Clinton and are getting to really hate Obama supporters because she's got great policy ideas, he's an empty suit, and his supporters are a bunch of glorified moonies.

Obama's an empty suit.
He hasn't had an original idea in his life.
Without his writers and his teleprompter he's mute.

Wake up, grow up, and smell the coffee!!!"

Umm, yeah... so smell the coffee but no more donuts any more?

...sorry, I couldn't help myself.

I believe that you aren't being paid by the Clintons -- they're usually much more subtle in their attacks.

Anyway, I can't help but be amused by the feigned outrage over Hillary suddenly learning for the first time about this old mailer when supposedly it was handed to her at a campaign event. I'm actually kind of looking forward to see if the Ohio debate has some of the excitement that was sorely lacking in the Texas debate. I hope the extra time gives her writers enough time to come up with some better lines than the weak Xeroxing jibe. This outrage bodes well for fireworks :-)

Posted by: gkouye | February 23, 2008 5:40 PM | Report abuse

sapa --

Your post wasn't funny or clever the first time. Please don't keep reposting it.

You're just making yourself look stupid.

Posted by: svreader | February 23, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

By turning down an offer from Carl Rove to manage his campaign, Obama have since proved himself to be much better then Rove in mongering hatred to benefit himself.

Posted by: sgr_astar | February 23, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Cowgirl Hillary: Obama, I'm a-callin' you out! You been spreadin' untruths about me and mine.

Obama: But Hillary, they're true. And you've known about them for quite awhile now.

Cowgirl Hillary: That don't make no nevermind. You done me wrong and you got to pay in Ohio.

Obama: Good. We'll debate. We'll talk.

Cowgirl Hillary: I got no truck with words, Obama. You can Xerox them things, you know.

Obama: I've heard.

Cowgirl Hillary: Ohio! you hear me, Obama. We're gonna settle this once and for all, you no-account varmint!

Obama: Hillary, you need a long rest. I think you're tired.

Me, too, Barack. Me, too.

Posted by: stburke40 | February 23, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

LOL

Bill and Hillary Clinton were the MODELS for Karl Rove's playbook.

This would be funny except that it's so embarrassing both for the Clintons' and for the party. So sad.

Oh well...the beat goes on - but just till March 5th.

Then, bye-bye, Hi! (And good riddance.)

Posted by: miraclestudies | February 23, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

By turning down an offer from Carl Rove to manage his campaign, Obama have since proved himself to be much better then Rove in mongering hatred to benefit himself.

Posted by: sgr_astar | February 23, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse

The Obama campaign strategy is pure genius. She took the bait and now her support of NAFTA and her wage garnishing aspect of her Health Care reform package will be highlighted on local and national prime time news and all the Sunday morning talk shows. I believe this is the end of the Clintons... finally!

Posted by: zb95 | February 23, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse

So let me recap: Senator Clinton fumed today because Senator Obama sent mailers to Ohio voters informing them that Senator Clinton's healthcare plan imposes penalties on those who won't participate in her program and also enlightens them about her past support of NAFTA. What's not true in those statements? This claim by Senator Clinton comes after she and her machine have spent the last several weeks throwing everything including the kitchen sink at Senator Obama. If anyone has taken a page from Karl Rove's playbook, it's Senator Clinton. In fact, I made that very point in past posts. Had Senator Clinton not been running such a negative campaign perhaps voters would take pause and seriously consider her assertion. Instead, they understand that Senator Obama is justified in defending himself against Senator Clinton's distortions of his record. In Wisconsin, for instance, exit polls indicated that a large majority agreed that Senator Clinton's attacks were unfair as compared to Senator Obama's. I guess this is a classic case of karma or as Joy Behar of The View wisely puts it: "When you spit in the air, don't be surprised if it hits you in the face." Senator Clinton, the victim, just isn't plausible.

Posted by: leo2thenet | February 23, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse

sv, what is this aversion you have to every poll currently out that clearly shows Sen. Obama beating Sen. McCain while your candidate loses to Sen. McCain?

Like the endless string of tactics put forth by Sen. Clinton, the electability issue is a loser. The fact is, the two are very similar on issues. There is one discernible difference between the two: voters are embracing Sen. Obama's inclusive message and rejecting Sen. Clinton's divide and conquer tactics.

Voters are not rejecting her positions, they are rejecting her politics. And all the change in the world of tactics will not do anything to rectify her problem.

Posted by: jeff.cronin | February 23, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse

sv, what is this aversion you have to every poll currently out that clearly shows Sen. Obama beating Sen. McCain while your candidate loses to Sen. McCain?

Like the endless string of tactics put forth by Sen. Clinton, the electability issue is a loser. The fact is, the two are very similar on issues. There is one discernible difference between the two: voters are embracing Sen. Obama's inclusive message and rejecting Sen. Clinton's divide and conquer tactics.

Voters are not rejecting her positions, they are rejecting her politics. And all the change in the world of tactics will not do anything to rectify her problem.

Posted by: jeff.cronin | February 23, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

What a poor excuse for someone who would represent as my President. I was supporting Hillary up until about 3 weeks ago. The more I got to know and learn about her and her ploicies the more I dis-like her/them. The opposite is true for Obama. Not only have I switched to Obama, I also recently gave $500 to his campaign. I believe that this side of Hillary will push even men like myself towards Obama. No man, especially those like myself in Ohio, want a President that acts like she did today. I now see firsthand why everyone says she's the most polarizing candidate of all time. I believe that she will lose TX and OH by more than 10 points.

Posted by: donald_jones | February 23, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

How many of the Obama supporters just plain don't like women? Not most to be sure but no small number.

You guys sound like right wing radio. Hillary can't be everything she is being called it is just not possible.

There does not seem to be a story line.

Posted by: mul | February 23, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

bharadp,
The guy with the empty resume managed to raise more money, had excellent strategies, ideas and ran a classy show while the experienced candidate collected less money, wasted most of it in Vegas ( I am sure Bill must have utilised some of it for his own extra curricular activities in Vegas). So, I my question is, what the heck you are talking about?

Posted by: jj2000 | February 23, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Health Plans , no health plans. Universal, non-universal - everything comes with a cost.

In a capitalist economy like the US, there is no free lunch.

The Republicans are brass-tacks about that and that earns full points for John Mc Cain.

Mc Cain , if he shows utmost restraint in the face of grave provocations - holding his maturity and cool, has a good chance to carry the crowd. Do not go on the attack - hold your cool.

Restraint, maturity, consensus - win. Emotions and negative tactics loose- golden rule.

Posted by: mdsubramonia | February 23, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

So let me recap: Senator Clinton fumed today because Senator Obama sent mailers to Ohio voters informing them that Senator Clinton's healthcare plan imposes penalties on those who won't participate in her program and also enlightens them about her past support of NAFTA. What's not true in those statements? This claim by Senator Clinton comes after she and her machine have spent the last several weeks throwing everything including the kitchen sink at Senator Obama. If anyone has taken a page from Karl Rove's playbook, it's Senator Clinton. In fact, I made that very point in past posts. Had Senator Clinton not been running such a negative campaign perhaps voters would take pause and seriously consider her assertion. Instead, they understand that Senator Obama is justified in defending himself against Senator Clinton's distortions of his record. In Wisconsin, for instance, exit polls indicated that a large majority agreed that Senator Clinton's attacks were unfair as compared to Senator Obama's. I guess this is a classic case of karma or as Joy Behar of The View wisely puts it: "When you spit in the air, don't be surprised if it hits you in the face." Senator Clinton, the victim, just isn't plausible.

Posted by: leo2thenet | February 23, 2008 5:33 PM | Report abuse

n2itiveus wrote:

Just one more fake, scripted, diatribe from the Clinton campaign.
-------------------------------
I totally agree with this. Everything she does appears to be scripted. Her campaign still can't find a consistent tone, and their desperation is showing. Frankly, I'm tired of the angry, scowling Hillary.

Posted by: smc91 | February 23, 2008 5:33 PM | Report abuse

The Obama campaign strategy is pure genius. She took the bait and now her support of NAFTA and her wage garnishing aspect of her Health Care reform package will be highlighted on local and national prime time news and all the Sunday morning talk shows. I believe this is the end of the Clintons... finally!

Posted by: zb95 | February 23, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

How many of the Obama supporters just plain don't like women? Not most to be sure but no small number.

You guys sound like right wing radio. Hillary can't be everything she is being called it is just not possible.

There does not seem to be a story line.

Posted by: mul | February 23, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Do they think they won't be held responsible when they manage to tear the Democratic party apart?

The superdelegates could put an END to this at any time. They choose NOT to. They WILL have to answer for that decision.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 23, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Health Plans , no health plans. Universal, non-universal - everything comes with a cost.

In a capitalist economy like the US, there is no free lunch.

The Republicans are brass-tacks about that and that earns full points for John Mc Cain.

Mc Cain , if he shows utmost restraint in the face of grave provocations - holding his maturity and cool, has a good chance to carry the crowd. Do not go on the attack - hold your cool.

Restraint, maturity, consensus - win. Emotions and negative tactics loose- golden rule.

Posted by: mdsubramonia | February 23, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

svreader, you are a broken record. Give it up.

Posted by: PutDownTheKoolaid | February 23, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's mock outrage aside, what's the big deal. Obama's mailers do not distort her positions. She has voted time and again for NAFTA. She has called NAFTA one of her husband's legislative achievements. She has said that with her universal healthcare plan, it might be necessary to garnish the wages of those who don't pay.

Massachusetts has a similar plan to Hillary's. It's implementation has been a dismal failure. Premiums have gone up in the state more than the national average, and people are now being mandated to pay insurance premiums they can't afford. Massachusetts' universal plan requires a 30 year old single male making 30K a year to pay over 300/month in premiums. That's not affordable. Mandating that people get coverage they can't afford is not a solution to the health care crisis.

As far as distorting positions, Hillary has distributed mailers suggesting Obama was not pro-choice (a blatant falsehood).

Obama and Hillary disagree on their approach to health care. Obama proposes achieving universal health care by making affordable, quality health care available to all. Hillary proposes achieving universal health care by mandating that people buy it. I tend to agree with Obama. The reason people are uninsured is not because they don't want health care. It's because they can't afford it. By investing in technology, preventive care and open competition among government and private insurance providers, Obama's plan would lower costs and make insurance more affordable.

Posted by: BarackTheVote | February 23, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

How many of the Obama supporters just plain don't like women? Not most to be sure but no small number.

You guys sound like right wing radio. Hillary can't be everything she is being called it is just not possible.

There does not seem to be a story line.

Posted by: mul | February 23, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Health Plans , no health plans. Universal, non-universal - everything comes with a cost.

In a capitalist economy like the US, there is no free lunch.

The Republicans are brass-tacks about that and that earns full points for John Mc Cain.

Mc Cain , if he shows utmost restraint in the face of grave provocations - holding his maturity and cool, has a good chance to carry the crowd. Do not go on the attack - hold your cool.

Restraint, maturity, consensus - win. Emotions and negative tactics loose- golden rule.

Posted by: mdsubramonia | February 23, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Why is it that we are not suppose to question the patriotism of Sen. Obama? No flag on his lapel; not putting his hand over his heart when playing our national anthym; claiming to be the alter ego of JFK, a WWII hero,who went to war just like the rest of us poor veterans and, a man of words and deeds. Maybe the 5 years of his singing "...tanah airku, disanalah aku berdiri,"...our native country, where we all arise to stand guard, may have stuck in his mind during his formative years. Apparently, over there, they don't put their hands over their hearts when singing their national anthym. With his wife Michelle, declaring that obviously reflect their not being proud of America all their years growing, but only until recently, must be known to those who are especially drawn by his big words but sans deeds.

Posted by: Campoton | February 23, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

BRAVO, Senator Clinton!!

When you have stood up for yourself in the past bloggers and political pundits have bashed your resolve. You have been unable to say that patriarchy is truly more entrenched than racism. This race has truly proven that.

IF we are so unfortunate that you do not win the Democratic nomination, then let it be that you fought wih all your might, that you defended your character and your words, that you maintained your resolve.

Even when a newspaper admits you did not say what they claimed, Mr Obama does not withdraw his LIES. I may have forgiven "plagiarism" but I can not forgive his blatant disregard for the truth.

Senator Clinton, you make me proud!

Posted by: magsb145 | February 23, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Health Plans , no health plans. Universal, non-universal - everything comes with a cost.

In a capitalist economy like the US, there is no free lunch.

The Republicans are brass-tacks about that and that earns full points for John Mc Cain.

Mc Cain , if he shows utmost restraint in the face of grave provocations - holding his maturity and cool, has a good chance to carry the crowd. Do not go on the attack - hold your cool.

Restraint, maturity, consensus - win. Emotions and negative tactics loose- golden rule.

Posted by: mdsubramonia | February 23, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

By turning down an offer from Carl Rove to manage his campaign, Obama have since proved himself to be much better then Rove in mongering hatred to benefit himself.

Posted by: sgr_astar | February 23, 2008 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Do the Clinton's, and those elected officials who have supported Clintonian campaign tactics, think they won't be held responsible when they manage to tear the Democratic party apart?

The superdelegates could put an END to this at any time. They choose NOT to. They WILL have to answer for that decision.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 23, 2008 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Obama's health plan is not universal at all and he hides the deficiencies of his plan by attacking Hillary's. See a recent article in the NYT "2 plans and many questions on the uninsured" (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/23/us/politics/23health.html?pagewanted=2&ref=politics). This article states that Obama "all but denies the existence of free riders - I don't see those folks". Free riders are individuals who receive uncompensated medical care and 16% of these individuals had family incomes of at least 4 x the federal poverty level. Of the $41.1 billion of uncompensated care they account for $5.8 billion. The uncompensated cost is passed on to you and I who have health insurance. For all of Obama's claims of community work, he obviously has little experience with health care.

As a physician, I can attest to the many cases of the uninsured coming through the ER. They may get turned away from private hospitals but not from University or Teaching hospitals. They are cared for until medically stable.

While there are people who truly cannot afford health care as it is currently provided, there are others such as the example given in the article who prefers to use her income on gym membership and amateur photography. A universal plan that has a mandate and intends to overhaul the system and makes health care affordable to all is the only plan that makes sense.

Posted by: alee21 | February 23, 2008 5:28 PM | Report abuse

How many of the Obama supporters just plain don't like women? Not most to be sure but no small number.

You guys sound like right wing radio. Hillary can't be everything she is being called it is just not possible.

There does not seem to be a story line.

Posted by: mul | February 23, 2008 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Is it just me, or does Hillary look like Rebecca DeMornay in The Nanny, about to blow her stack? First it's the mud-slinging Hillary. Then, it's the soft-spoken, experienced Hillary. Now, it's the mad, outraged Hillary. Geeze- What's next? Sister, holier-than-thou, Hillary? No- I forgot. Huckabee has that role. Yuh-

Posted by: Sapa | February 23, 2008 5:28 PM | Report abuse

alligator tears
now to teeth
in desperate verge
upon the reef
stunned disbelief
sears the air
with shriek, anon
lost and gone
as to a thief

Posted by: ralphodavis | February 23, 2008 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Okay, so if I understand correctly, all the Hillary supporters who are going to vote for McCain if Obama's the nominee are saying:

Making tax cuts for the rich permanent is better than repealing them.
The status quo in health care is better than making it affordable to most people.
An open-ended commitment to having troops in Iraq is better than a smart, conditional pullout of combat troops, based on advice from those in the Pentagon.
A man who claims to disavow lobbyists while having them run his campaign is more trustworthy than someone who openly admitted past drug use.
A candidate who will essentially continue the most repugnant policies of George Bush is better than one who'll reverse them.
A man who sings "Bomb Iran" is more stable than one who's willing to sit down and talk with people we don't like.

A vote for McCain is a vote for George Bush, simple as that. There's no way anyone can say that about Clinton OR Obama. Supporters of both candidates need to use their heads and make sure there's a Democrat in the White House in November.

Posted by: treetopflyer | February 23, 2008 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Desperation time for ol' Hillary. Tears to try to make her look human didn't work. Now, shrill outrage. Finally, shriller and shriller. Pathetic.

There's no reason this country shouldn't have a woman prez...but you're not it. Accept it. Move on.

Posted by: checkered1 | February 23, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

Obama's health plan is not universal at all and he hides the deficiencies of his plan by attacking Hillary's. See a recent article in the NYT "2 plans and many questions on the uninsured" (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/23/us/politics/23health.html?pagewanted=2&ref=politics). This article states that Obama "all but denies the existence of free riders - I don't see those folks". Free riders are individuals who receive uncompensated medical care and 16% of these individuals had family incomes of at least 4 x the federal poverty level. Of the $41.1 billion of uncompensated care they account for $5.8 billion. The uncompensated cost is passed on to you and I who have health insurance. For all of Obama's claims of community work, he obviously has little experience with health care. As a physician, I can attest to the many cases of the uninsured coming through the ER. They may get turned away from private hospitals but not from University or Teaching hospitals. They are cared for until medically stable.

While there are people who truly cannot afford health care as it is currently provided, there are others such as the example given in the article who prefers to use her income on gym membership and amateur photography. A universal plan that has a mandate and intends to overhaul the system and makes health care affordable to all is the only plan that makes sense.

Posted by: alee21 | February 23, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

On May 3, 2005 the AP reported that President Clinton announced the launch of a ten year initiative to combat childhood obesity, saying "We've got to change the eating habits of America's young people."
On February 21, 2008, Politico.com reported that $1300.00 was spent on Dunkin Donuts by Hillary Clinton's campaign in her battle to win the Democratic nomination. "I'm Hillary Clinton and I approve this chocolate covered, creme-filled donut."

Posted by: RichardMiller333 | February 23, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

I see now: svreader is actually smarter than those Obama supporters with the BS degrees. Well, svreader, you sure had me fooled. It seems like you can barely copy from the campaign script they handed to you. What is it, thirty comments now, and not an original thought yet? So far we've heard that Obama supporters are stupid, that you will vote for a Republican, and a bunch of vague threats about how you and your buddies will "remember" what the Obama supporters did to you. Not very impressive.

Posted by: PutDownTheKoolaid | February 23, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

alligator tears
now to teeth
in desperate verge
upon the reef
stunned disbelief
sears the air
with shriek, anon
lost and gone
as to a thief


Posted by: ralphodavis | February 23, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

Is it just me, or does Hillary look like Rebecca DeMornay in The Nanny, about to blow her stack? First it's the mud-slinging Hillary. Then, it's the soft-spoken, experienced Hillary. Now, it's the mad, outraged Hillary. Geeze- What's next? Sister, holier-than-thou, Hillary? No- I forgot. Huckabee has that role. Yuh-

Posted by: Sapa | February 23, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

Do the Clinton's, and those elected officials who have supported Clintonian campaign tactics, think they won't be held responsible when they manage to tear the Democratic party apart?

The superdelegates could put an END to this at any time. They choose NOT to. They WILL have to answer for that decision.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 23, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

It is time media stopped giving BO a free ride. He is really running on an empty resume. No accomplishments. Even many of BO's supporters canNOT list even ONE achievement.

All the kumbaya preached by BO is fine, but that alone is not enough. We need a president with more substance than BO.

Posted by: bharadp | February 23, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

alligator tears
now to teeth
in desperate verge
upon the reef
stunned disbelief
sears the air
with shriek, anon
lost and gone
as to a thief


Posted by: ralphodavis | February 23, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Obama isn't any different than the rest of the politicans. He is bamboozling and hoodwinking everyone. (Words) Two words he seems to know. (Words)

Posted by: loiswhitfield | February 23, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

This issue strikes to the core why I support Obama over Clinton, despite the fact that they would both get my vote in the fall.

Clinton talks up her experience and history in power as if it is a plus. With healthcare, here is what her experience has shown her: nothing.

Her push for universal healthcare in the 90's was scuttled because her plan contained provisions that were toxic to many people. The attack ads by the drug companies were effective because they did not have to lie about some of the plan aspects.

After going through that, did she remove some of the most toxic parts of the plan? The mandatory participation? NO.

She hollers that Obama would be beaten up by the GOP in the fall, yet does not want to acknowledge that her healthcare plan would be shredded by the GOP in the fall.

Obama merely points that out and he is Karl Rove?

I think now.

Posted by: steveboyington | February 23, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

It is time media stopped giving BO a free ride. He is really running on an empty resume. No accomplishments. Even many of BO's supporters canNOT list even ONE achievement.

All the kumbaya preached by BO is fine, but that alone is not enough. We need a president with more substance than BO.

Posted by: bharadp | February 23, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Obama's health plan is not universal at all and he hides the deficiencies of his plan by attacking Hillary's. See a recent article in the NYT "2 plans and many questions on the uninsured" (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/23/us/politics/23health.html?pagewanted=2&ref=politics). This article states that Obama "all but denies the existence of free riders - I don't see those folks". Free riders are individuals who receive uncompensated medical care and 16% of these individuals had family incomes of at least 4 x the federal poverty level. Of the $41.1 billion of uncompensated care they account for $5.8 billion. The uncompensated cost is passed on to you and I who have health insurance. For all of Obama's claims of community work, he obviously has little experience with health care. As a physician, I can attest to the many cases of the uninsured coming through the ER. They may get turned away from private hospitals but not from University or Teaching hospitals. They are cared for until medically stable.

While there are people who truly cannot afford health care as it is currently provided, there are others such as the example given in the article who prefers to use her income on gym membership and amateur photography. A universal plan that has a mandate and intends to overhaul the system and makes health care affordable to all is the only plan that makes sense.

Posted by: alee21 | February 23, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

If we can't have universal health care, we'd rather have lower taxes.

If Obama gets the nomination, say hello to President McCain.

Posted by: svreader | February 23, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

I'm not familiar enough with the NAFTA quote to comment, but regarding the Health Plan, the mandate to purchase and fines if you don't were something that was covered in the last debate and Hillary didn't say anything to indicate that that wasn't the case.

Regarding the Rove tactics -- I suppose she has forgotten that she herself played the "Electing Obama is what Al Qaeda wants you to do" card. I'm guessing she had to pay Rove a royalty for using that one.

This is Hillary finally realizing after the debate that going negative isn't going to work and trying to gin up outrage at something that's been out there for weeks to get voters mad at Obama.

Posted by: gmtiffany | February 23, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Is it just me, or does Hillary look like Rebecca DeMornay in The Nanny, about to blow her stack? First it's the mud-slinging Hillary. Then, it's the soft-spoken, experienced Hillary. Now, it's the mad, outraged Hillary. Geeze- What's next? Sister, holier-than-thou, Hillary? No- I forgot. Huckabee has that role. Yuh-

Posted by: Sapa | February 23, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse

It is obvious that Hillary's performance today is part of a strategy. On Thursday, her plan was to make the voters feel that she is a sincere, caring person. Then today she projected her own campaign's dirty tactics on Obama. She claimed he distorted her mailers. She acted the victim to gain the voter's sympathy and today's news cycle. She had to get into the news someway. Her old strategies didn't work, now she has a new one. We will see her true colors at Tuesday's debate.

Posted by: jomcmanus1 | February 23, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse

If I can't have universal health care, I'd rather have lower taxes.

If Obama gets the nomination, say hello to President McCain.

Posted by: svreader | February 23, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse

On May 3, 2005, the AP said that Former President Clinton announced the launch of a ten year initiative to combat childhood obesity, saying "We've got to change the eating habits of America's young people."
On February 21, 2008, Politico.com reported that $1300.00 was spent on Dunkin Donuts by Hillary Clinton's campaign in her battle to win the Democratic nomination. "I'm Hillary Clinton and I approve this Boston creme-filled donut."

Posted by: RichardMiller333 | February 23, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

I'm not familiar enough with the NAFTA quote to comment, but regarding the Health Plan, the mandate to purchase and fines if you don't were something that was covered in the last debate and Hillary didn't say anything to indicate that that wasn't the case.

Regarding the Rove tactics -- I suppose she has forgotten that she herself played the "Electing Obama is what Al Qaeda wants you to do" card. I'm guessing she had to pay Rove a royalty for using that one.

This is Hillary finally realizing after the debate that going negative isn't going to work and trying to gin up outrage at something that's been out there for weeks to get voters mad at Obama.

Posted by: gmtiffany | February 23, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Obama's health plan is not universal at all and he hides the deficiencies of his plan by attacking Hillary's. See a recent article in the NYT "2 plans and many questions on the uninsured" (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/23/us/politics/23health.html?pagewanted=2&ref=politics). This article states that Obama "all but denies the existence of free riders - I don't see those folks". Free riders are individuals who receive uncompensated medical care and 16% of these individuals had family incomes of at least 4 x the federal poverty level. Of the $41.1 billion of uncompensated care they account for $5.8 billion. The uncompensated cost is passed on to you and I who have health insurance. For all of Obama's claims of community work, he obviously has little experience with health care. As a physician, I can attest to the many cases of the uninsured coming through the ER. They may get turned away from private hospitals but not from University or Teaching hospitals. They are cared for until medically stable.

While there are people who truly cannot afford health care as it is currently provided, there are others such as the example given in the article who prefers to use her income on gym membership and amateur photography. A universal plan that has a mandate and intends to make health care affordable to all is the only plan that makes sense.

Posted by: alee21 | February 23, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

It is obvious that Hillary's performance today is part of a strategy. On Thursday, her plan was to make the voters feel that she is a sincere, caring person. Then today she projected her own campaign's dirty tactics on Obama. She claimed he distorted her mailers. She acted the victim to gain the voter's sympathy and today's news cycle. She had to get into the news someway. Her old strategies didn't work, now she has a new one. We will see her true colors at Tuesday's debate.

Posted by: jomcmanus1 | February 23, 2008 5:19 PM | Report abuse

It is obvious that Hillary's performance today is part of a strategy. On Thursday, her plan was to make the voters feel that she is a sincere, caring person. Then today she projected her own campaign's dirty tactics on Obama. She claimed he distorted her mailers. She acted the victim to gain the voter's sympathy and today's news cycle. She had to get into the news someway. Her old strategies didn't work, now she has a new one. We will see her true colors at Tuesday's debate.

Posted by: jomcmanus1 | February 23, 2008 5:19 PM | Report abuse

I'm not familiar enough with the NAFTA quote to comment, but regarding the Health Plan, the mandate to purchase and fines if you don't were something that was covered in the last debate and Hillary didn't say anything to indicate that that wasn't the case.

Regarding the Rove tactics -- I suppose she has forgotten that she herself played the "Electing Obama is what Al Qaeda wants you to do" card. I guessing she had to pay Rove a royalty for using that one.

This is Hillary finally realizing after the debate that going negative isn't going to work and trying to gin up outrage at something that's been out there for weeks to get voters mad at Obama.

Posted by: gmtiffany | February 23, 2008 5:19 PM | Report abuse

By turning down an offer from Carl Rove to manage his campaign, Obama have since proved himself to be much better then Rove in mongering hatred to benefit himself.

Posted by: sgr_astar | February 23, 2008 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Putdown..I've always loved Germany. Never lived there but had some temporary assignments there. The Germans certainly knew how to work hard and play hard -- (translation..it was nice not to be only loudly laughing table in the restaurant for a change) Enjoy!

Posted by: DancinTea | February 23, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

Obama's health plan is not universal at all and he hides the deficiencies of his plan by attacking Hillary's. See a recent article in the NYT "2 plans and many questions on the uninsured" (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/23/us/politics/23health.html?pagewanted=2&ref=politics). This article states that Obama "all but denies the existence of free riders - I don't see those folks". Free riders are individuals who receive uncompensated medical care and 16% of these individuals had family incomes of at least 4 x the federal poverty level. Of the $41.1 billion of uncompensated care they account for $5.8 billion. The uncompensated cost is passed on to you and I who have health insurance. For all of Obama's claims of community work, he obviously has little experience with health care. As a physician, I can attest to the many cases of the uninsured coming through the ER. They may get turned away from private hospitals but not from University or Teaching hospitals. They are cared for until medically stable.

While there are people who truly cannot afford health care as it is currently provided, there are others such as the example given in the article who prefers to use her income on gym membership and amateur photography. A universal plan that has a mandate and intends to make health care affordable to all is the only plan that makes sense.

Posted by: alee21 | February 23, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

Obama's plan relies competition and freedom of choice, supported a Health Care Insurance Exchange, a government plan, and a research and review structure to explore options and lower costs. Hillary's plan is mandated so that people have to pay what it costs and accept what it gives, even if the costs are high and the options are not what's desired. It is supported by the government being willing to garnish wages of those who do not come on board.

Obama's plan is open. Though clearly delineated, it will be the product of negotiations that are open to the public and can be viewed on CSPAN. Hillary's plan is closed. Like her holiday ad when she offered a grateful nation gifts from under her tree, this one is already wrapped and ready to go--on Day One. That's what she means when she says she is about solutions: It's a done deal. We don't need to be patronized, especially by someone whose patrons include the drug and insurance companies that are already overcharging us.

As we can already see with other mandated insurance plans like no-fault insurance, prices go up, not down. Drug companies and insurance companies that have funded Hillary's campaign could be the real winners if her plan were to go through.

Obama's plan involves a process that makes it transitional, giving incentives that benefit health care providers, lowering their own insurance costs along with the cost of providing care. It benefits everyone.

Posted by: logicconex | February 23, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

I'm not familiar enough with the NAFTA quote to comment, but regarding the Health Plan, the mandate to purchase and fines if you don't were something that was covered in the last debate and Hillary didn't say anything to indicate that that wasn't the case.

Regarding the Rove tactics -- I suppose she has forgotten that she herself played the "Electing Obama is what Al Qaeda wants you to do" card. I guessing she had to pay Rove a royalty for using that one.

This is Hillary finally realizing after the debate that going negative isn't going to work and trying to gin up outrage at something that's been out there for weeks to get voters mad at Obama.

Posted by: gmtiffany | February 23, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

She's destroying her own campaign doing things like this. I respect her personality and political past, but it's getting hard to accept such behaviour.

Ms. Clinton, I don't know if you heard this before but think "it's time for change" in your speach...

Posted by: jmhaile | February 23, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

By turning down an offer from Carl Rove to manage his campaign, Obama have since proved himself to be much better then Rove in mongering hatred to benefit himself.

Posted by: sgr_astar | February 23, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Obama's health plan is not universal at all and he hides the deficiencies of his plan by attacking Hillary's. See a recent article in the NYT "2 plans and many questions on the uninsured" (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/23/us/politics/23health.html?pagewanted=2&ref=politics). This article states that Obama "all but denies the existence of free riders - I don't see those folks". Free riders are individuals who receive uncompensated medical care and 16% of these individuals had family incomes of at least 4 x the federal poverty level. Of the $41.1 billion of uncompensated care they account for $5.8 billion. The uncompensated cost is passed on to you and I who have health insurance. For all of Obama's claims of community work, he obviously has little experience with health care. As a physician, I can attest to the many cases of the uninsured coming through the ER. They may get turned away from private hospitals but not from University or Teaching hospitals. They are cared for until medically stable.

While there are people who truly cannot afford health care as it is currently provided, there are others such as the example given in the article who prefers to use her income on gym membership and amateur photography. A universal plan that has a mandate and intends to make health care affordable to all is the only plan that makes sense.

Posted by: alee21 | February 23, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Purely and Simply, Hillary has put out a negative ad here that is driven by a provocative headline. We've all been drawn to a "news item" that has precious little substance; most people will only glance at the headline and see an agitated Hillary. Very effective tactic, but I see only a slight slip-up by Barack's people regarding the news article on NAFTA. But it hurts him if Hillary can hold up a piece of paper before the camera and chastise him.

Up to this moment, as far as I know, Hillary has never challenged Obama's charge in the debates that she would require everyone to be insured. So obviously, this point must be hurting her in Ohio and Texas. NAFTA is one piece of Clinton legislation that lingers over our economy. I noticed in this article that the Clinton campaign is trying to pass it off on Bush 41, but NAFTA fits into the DLC playbook. Hillary is a leader of the DLC and the DLC has been too cozy with corporate interests, to the detriment of American workers.
This is much ado about nothing.

Posted by: Anadromous2 | February 23, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

DancinTea, it is nice to hear from someone who is knowledgeable about Europe. I am living in Bavaria now, and I love it here. Let's agree to vote for whichever Democrat gets the nomination, because McCain is a crazy unilateralist Republican war monger, and that is the last thing this country needs right now. Settling the health care issue will just have to wait.

Posted by: PutDownTheKoolaid | February 23, 2008 5:16 PM | Report abuse

Obama's plan relies competition and freedom of choice, supported a Health Care Insurance Exchange, a government plan, and a research and review structure to explore options and lower costs. Hillary's plan is mandated so that people have to pay what it costs and accept what it gives, even if the costs are high and the options are not what's desired. It is supported by the government being willing to garnish wages of those who do not come on board.

Obama's plan is open. Though clearly delineated, it will be the product of negotiations that are open to the public and can be viewed on CSPAN. Hillary's plan is closed. Like her holiday ad when she offered a grateful nation gifts from under her tree, this one is already wrapped and ready to go--on Day One. That's what she means when she says she is about solutions: It's a done deal. We don't need to be patronized, especially by someone whose patrons include the drug and insurance companies that are already overcharging us.

As we can already see with other mandated insurance plans like no-fault insurance, prices go up, not down. Drug companies and insurance companies that have funded Hillary's campaign could be the real winners if her plan were to go through.

Obama's plan involves a process that makes it transitional, giving incentives that benefit health care providers, lowering their own insurance costs along with the cost of providing care. It benefits everyone.

Posted by: logicconex | February 23, 2008 5:16 PM | Report abuse

brigittepj: YOU ARE THE BIGGEST IDIOT ON THIS PLANET!!!! OBAMA IS THE BEST PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE WE HAVE HAD IN A LONG TIME

Posted by: paster | February 23, 2008 5:16 PM | Report abuse

From the Senator Herself:

1. On the question of mandates:

One of the big questions surrounding Hillary Clinton's universal health care plan has been the question of enforcement. That is: How will she mandate that all Americans pay for their health care?

On ABC's "This Week" on Sunday, Clinton provided some clues to how she might do so. "We will have an enforcement mechanism, whether it's [garnishing people's wages] or it's some other mechanism through the tax system or automatic enrollments," she said.

Clinton further noted that "there are a number of mechanisms" that could be used, including "going after people's wages, automatic enrollment."


2. On the question of NAFTA:

On November 1, 1996, United Press International reported that on a trip to Brownsville, Texas, Clinton "touted the president's support for the North American Free Trade Agreement, saying it would reap widespread benefits in the region."

I think that Sen. Clinton needs to "get real". Her deceptive brand of politics comes from a sincere desire to remember her positions on issues from Iraq, to free trade, to healthcare in terms that match the polling data from today. That's not how it works. Sen. Obama may have misquoted her with respect to describing NAFTA as a "boon", but it is clear that she did support NAFTA and she does support a mandate for her healthcare plan that will require enforcement.

If she is concerned that Sen. Obama is being too harsh, just precisely what does she think Sen. McCain is going to do. Sen. Clinton just does not get it. A bunch of MIT gurus and other policy wonks have constructed a system that looks great on paper but is unworkable in terms of getting through Congress. If you give people coverage (passive enrollment at zero or little cost) then there is no problem but if you require enrollment and impose penalties on those who do not enroll . . . well, that's just un-American. Sen. Obama's plan is not perfect but it is less likely to meet stiff opposition in Congress. That is his appeal as a candidate on this issue and others. Sen. Clinton knows that she can not deliver on her promise (much like her pulling out U.S. troops from Iraq within 60 days of taking office promise) but has no problem making promises that she can't possibly keep.


Posted by: swalker1 | February 23, 2008 5:15 PM | Report abuse

Obama's health plan is not universal at all and he hides the deficiencies of his plan by attacking Hillary's. See a recent article in the NYT "2 plans and many questions on the uninsured" (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/23/us/politics/23health.html?pagewanted=2&ref=politics). This article states that Obama "all but denies the existence of free riders - I don't see those folks". Free riders are individuals who receive uncompensated medical care and 16% of these individuals had family incomes of at least 4 x the federal poverty level. Of the $41.1 billion of uncompensated care they account for $5.8 billion. The uncompensated cost is passed on to you and I who have health insurance. For all of Obama's claims of community work, he obviously has little experience with health care. As a physician, I can attest to the many cases of the uninsured coming through the ER. They may get turned away from private hospitals but not from University or Teaching hospitals. They are cared for until medically stable.

While there are people who truly cannot afford health care as it is currently provided, there are others such as the example given in the article who prefers to use her income on gym membership and amateur photography. A universal plan that has a mandate and intends to make health care affordable to all is the only plan that makes sense.

Posted by: alee21 | February 23, 2008 5:15 PM | Report abuse

DancinTea, it is nice to hear from someone who is knowledgeable about Europe. I am living in Bavaria now, and I love it here. Let's agree to vote for whichever Democrat gets the nomination, because McCain is a crazy unilateralist Republican war monger, and that is the last thing this country needs right now. Settling the health care issue will just have to wait.

Posted by: PutDownTheKoolaid | February 23, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

Purely and Simply, Hillary has put out a negative ad here that is driven by a provocative headline. We've all been drawn to a "news item" that has precious little substance; most people will only glance at the headline and see an agitated Hillary. Very effective tactic, but I see only a slight slip-up by Barack's people regarding the news article on NAFTA. But it hurts him if Hillary can hold up a piece of paper before the camera and chastise him.

Up to this moment, as far as I know, Hillary has never challenged Obama's charge in the debates that she would require everyone to be insured. So obviously, this point must be hurting her in Ohio and Texas. NAFTA is one piece of Clinton legislation that lingers over our economy. I noticed in this article that the Clinton campaign is trying to pass it off on Bush 41, but NAFTA fits into the DLC playbook. Hillary is a leader of the DLC and the DLC has been too cozy with corporate interests, to the detriment of American workers.

Posted by: Anadromous2 | February 23, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

APPEAL TO EMOTION IS WHAT IS LEFT TO SEN. CLINTON. THIS HAS WORKED SO FAR.

THE CRITICISM SHE SEEMS SO ANGRY ABOUT ARE NOT NEW.SO WHY IS THE REACTION SO DIFFERENT?

BECAUSE SHE IS LOSING...

HER CONCLUSION IN THE LAST DEBATE WERE ONLY THE BEGINNING OF THIS STRATEGY:

1. FIRST TO MAKE AS IF CONCEDING DEFEAT; SO THAT MC CAIN COULD UPSTAGE ATTACKS ON OBAMA. ALSO DOING SO WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER EXPECTATIONS AND GIVE ANY VICTORY WITH THE SMALLEST MARGIN ANOTHER READING, OVERSHADOWING THAT ONLY IMPROBABLE HUGE MARGIN IN BOTH OHIO AND TEXAS WOULD GIVE MORE HOPE TO HER CAMPAIGN.

2. IMPLEMENT THE PLAN OF GETTING REALLY NASTY DURING OHIO DEBATE WHILE FAKING LEGITIMATE OUTRAGE. BY BEING NASTY, SHE WILL TRANSFORM OBVIOUS DESPERATION INTO LEGITIMATE DISMAY.

THAT IS A NICE TRY

BUT THE QUESTION IS: WHAT IS THE NEW ON OBAMA CRITICISM THAT WAS NOT EXPRESSED IN TEXAS DEBATE? WHY DIDN'T SHE THEN GET UPSET?

IT TOOK HILLARY 2 MONTHS TO MOVE FROM SURPLUS TO DEFICIT IN HER CAMPAIGN. THE BAD NEW WAS WELL MANAGED WITH THE ART OF SECRECY SHE EXCELS IN.

BUT HOW DO WE TRUST A SO-CALLED EXPERIENCED LEADER WITH OUR TRILLION DOLLARS BUDGET OVER 4 YEARS AS WE KNOW SHE CANNOT BE TRUSTED WITH JUST FEW MILLION OF HER CAMPAIGN?

I MEAN, COME ON...

Posted by: amich | February 23, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

I Am A Lifelong (65 years) Democrat 3rd generation Floridian.... I Will Not Vote For OBAMA in November.

Posted by: rmcnicoll | February 23, 2008 02:58 PM
-------------------
We know it no candidate get 100 per cent.
I do not think yours is different.

Posted by: kizm12 | February 23, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

From the Senator Herself:

1. On the question of mandates:

One of the big questions surrounding Hillary Clinton's universal health care plan has been the question of enforcement. That is: How will she mandate that all Americans pay for their health care?

On ABC's "This Week" on Sunday, Clinton provided some clues to how she might do so. "We will have an enforcement mechanism, whether it's [garnishing people's wages] or it's some other mechanism through the tax system or automatic enrollments," she said.

Clinton further noted that "there are a number of mechanisms" that could be used, including "going after people's wages, automatic enrollment."


2. On the question of NAFTA:

On November 1, 1996, United Press International reported that on a trip to Brownsville, Texas, Clinton "touted the president's support for the North American Free Trade Agreement, saying it would reap widespread benefits in the region."

I think that Sen. Clinton needs to "get real". Her deceptive brand of politics comes from a sincere desire to remember her positions on issues from Iraq, to free trade, to healthcare in terms that match the polling data from today. That's not how it works. Sen. Obama may have misquoted her with respect to describing NAFTA as a "boon", but it is clear that she did support NAFTA and she does support a mandate for her healthcare plan that will require enforcement.

If she is concerned that Sen. Obama is being too harsh, just precisely what does she think Sen. McCain is going to do. Sen. Clinton just does not get it. A bunch of MIT gurus and other policy wonks have constructed a system that looks great on paper but is unworkable in terms of getting through Congress. If you give people coverage (passive enrollment at zero or little cost) then there is no problem but if you require enrollment and impose penalties on those who do not enroll . . . well, that's just un-American. Sen. Obama's plan is not perfect but it is less likely to meet stiff opposition in Congress. That is his appeal as a candidate on this issue and others. Sen. Clinton knows that she can not deliver on her promise (much like her pulling out U.S. troops from Iraq within 60 days of taking office promise) but has no problem making promises that she can't possibly keep.


Posted by: swalker1 | February 23, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's main objective today was to seem uneasy so she can be her normal manipulating self at the last debate on Feb, 26th. These issues had surfaced way before now and she is so focused on winning at all costs that she doesn't realize that she just gave Obama the upper hand by holding a press conference to demean her own campaign.

She should just bow out now before she makes herself look more ridiculous.

She can't accept what she has been trying to dish out all along. She should be focusing on her court case regarding her last campaign running for Senate with Peter Paul.

She should also focus on how she will explain the $5M that she loaned herself. Where are her tax returns???? Did she get the money from the $30M her husband received from the Ukraine connections?

She need to walk away before all of her dirt hits the media!

She cannot run her household nor her own campaign. She overspent supporters money or her own benefit...whose money do you think she will spend if she is in the White House?

Will she give pardons to her brothers like her husband did when he was in office?

This campaign has made her show her true self FINALLY!!!!

Posted by: spoon1003 | February 23, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

This is excellent news for Obama. It's free publicity for Obama because by using her dirty tactics, the negative facts about Hillary are even more transparent and people will talk about NAFTA and her health care mandates more. She should fire her chief campaign strategist, Mark Penn immediately for coming up with this strategy of attacking flyers. I just cannot believe that she paid Mark Penn more than $3.8 million dollars in fees for January alone. Is this the kind of advice he is giving her? I feel sorry for her. I think she should find a replacement for Mark Penn immediately. Her campaign strategist is not up to the mark. I also feel sorry for those thousands of poor people, who borrowed to contribute $10 to her campaign while she is spending the money like it there's no tomorrow. $5000 bill for her in The Four Seasons in Las Vegas? Howard Wolfson, the communications director and a senior member of the advertising team, earned nearly $267,000 in January alone. His total, including the campaign's debt to him, tops $730,000. Is this the type of President who sucks up poor people's money to indulge in lavishness we want to represent for us? She cannot even manage her campaign finances, how can she manage the economy?

Posted by: sbgamatt | February 23, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

I loved how she slipped in "aid and comfort" to the lobbyists. Could this have been an attempt to throw into the back of the ignorant voter's mind, a doubt about Sen. Obama's ability to protect our country? Associating some possible deficiency he might possess as President, which would indirectly aid and lend comfort to an enemy of the US.

And she is one to call, into a negative light, the aiding and comforting of the enemy lobbyist, when we all can see the wonderful levels of wealth both her and her husband have created through their loyalty to the lobbyists teat.

She is a shameless and crass individual, filled with feelings of self-entitlement, which now due to her miserably run campaign (read: top-down control), makes her all the more ugly, and the true Party destroying person we have come to see and despise.

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 23, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

DancinTea, it is nice to hear from someone who is knowledgeable about Europe. I am living in Bavaria now, and I love it here. Let's agree to vote for whichever Democrat gets the nomination, because McCain is a crazy unilateralist Republican war monger, and that is the last thing this country needs right now. Settling the health care issue will just have to wait.

Posted by: PutDownTheKoolaid | February 23, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

APPEAL TO EMOTION IS WHAT IS LEFT TO SEN. CLINTON. THIS HAS WORKED SO FAR.

THE CRITICISM SHE SEEMS SO ANGRY ABOUT ARE NOT NEW.SO WHY IS THE REACTION SO DIFFERENT?

BECAUSE SHE IS LOSING...

HER CONCLUSION IN THE LAST DEBATE WERE ONLY THE BEGINNING OF THIS STRATEGY:

1. FIRST TO MAKE AS IF CONCEDING DEFEAT; SO THAT MC CAIN COULD UPSTAGE ATTACKS ON OBAMA. ALSO DOING SO WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER EXPECTATIONS AND GIVE ANY VICTORY WITH THE SMALLEST MARGIN ANOTHER READING, OVERSHADOWING THAT ONLY IMPROBABLE HUGE MARGIN IN BOTH OHIO AND TEXAS WOULD GIVE MORE HOPE TO HER CAMPAIGN.

2. IMPLEMENT THE PLAN OF GETTING REALLY NASTY DURING OHIO DEBATE WHILE FAKING LEGITIMATE OUTRAGE. BY BEING NASTY, SHE WILL TRANSFORM OBVIOUS DESPERATION INTO LEGITIMATE DISMAY.

THAT IS A NICE TRY

BUT THE QUESTION IS: WHAT IS THE NEW ON OBAMA CRITICISM THAT WAS NOT EXPRESSED IN TEXAS DEBATE? WHY DIDN'T SHE THEN GET UPSET?

IT TOOK HILLARY 2 MONTHS TO MOVE FROM SURPLUS TO DEFICIT IN HER CAMPAIGN. THE BAD NEW WAS WELL MANAGED WITH THE ART OF SECRECY SHE EXCELS IN.

BUT HOW DO WE TRUST A SO-CALLED EXPERIENCED LEADER WITH OUR TRILLION DOLLARS BUDGET OVER 4 YEARS AS WE KNOW SHE CANNOT BE TRUSTED WITH JUST FEW MILLION OF HER CAMPAIGN?

I MEAN, COME ON...

Posted by: amich | February 23, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Obama is a hypocrite. Same as Chicago, say one thing, and then let your politically corrupt cronies do another. Look into people, the rhetoric doesn't match his reality.

Posted by: jaywpat | February 23, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Who is running Hillary's campaign anyway? We have that terrific debate footage of Hillary reaching out to Obama and telling him and the public that it's a honor to be sitting next to him, and two days later she's being photographed all mad-as-hatter about mailings.

Can someone just give her a message and tell her to stick with it?

This is the woman who told us over and over that she'd be "ready on day one". Judging by her blundering campaign you gotta wonder where she gets that idea from.

Posted by: max | February 23, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

WHAT???!!!!? SHE CANNOT BE SERIOUS!!!!
SHE'S ONLY DOING THIS BECAUSE SHE KNOWS SHE'S GOING TO LOOSE!!! SHE ONLY CARES ABOUT WINNING AND HERSELF!!!!!!!
WORST PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: paster | February 23, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

"""That, and the fact we wouldn't trust Obama to run a "radio shack" store, is why millions of Americans will vote for McCain if Obama is the Democratic Candidate."""

As far as not trusting Obama to run a Radio Shack store: He has done a much better job running his campaign than Hillary has. His campaign was innovative, revolutionary and imaginative. His campaign message has remained the same from day one. He has also revolutionized campaign funding by relying almost entirely on supporter contributions through the internet.

Hillary considered the front-runner, had loads of cash (initially) through traditional methods and publicly proclaimed that the campaign would be over by Feb.5th 2008. Now, she's way way down, lost 11 in a row, considered a long-shot, grossly under-estimated her opposition, has mismanaged her campaign finances to the extent of borrowing personal funds to her own campaign and still cannot figure out what her message is. I think the latest was something about being in the "solutions business".

Judging these two side-by-side, who would you rather have running this country???

Posted by: chris30338 | February 23, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Obama has run a very professional and smart campaign. I do believe that he exemplifies CHANGE that we can all look forward to and believe in. I don't particularly care for remarks that OBAMA gets his ideas and views from Hillary or John Edwards. From what I have observed from the debate in Texas, each time he gave his views it was original and very different from what Hillary presented. She actually was the one in my opinion that stated what he had already presented she just didn't plagirize---she used different words. I'm appalled at her tactics in this campaign, and at one time had the thought that if either OBAMA or Hillary were to win the Presidential Seat, I would be equally as happy, but not anymore. I don't think I would waste my vote at this point, because she and her husbands' horns has certainly showed through this campaign, and I never thought I would feel disgust the way I feel about them. God Bless OBAMA and may he sweep the rest of the states.

Posted by: cbarnes | February 23, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Look, everyone. This is just the latest campaign tactic du jour for Ms. Clinton. She might be legitimately angry because NAFTA is a big issue in Ohio, but this is all calculation.

There are now plenty of unions backing Obama and I'm certain they are aware of Hillary's historical backing of NAFTA. And her outrage does indeed make her look like a shrew rather than "commanding."

I actually preferred the Bob Herbert piece in the NYT today that actually points out how bad the first Clinton administrations were for the Democratic Party. Should Hillary win the nomination by some fluke and then the presidency, she will get nothing done, too many people in this country hate her, and their reps know it.

Posted by: metintucson | February 23, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

screader..a braniac would not build her campaign on experience knowing that the end game will be with McCain and he HAS experience in spades. How does the brainiac with all the connections and campaign experience loose to a start-from-scratch Obama?


Uh..could be because he's the biracial cadidate with a cadence to his speeches which many people, including large swaths of the media, apparently find irresistably attractive enough to do ANYTHING for. Add to that the opportune fortune of a deeply hated alternative.... just maybe ??

Any of these are missing and BO is swimming upstream to get media coverage -- just another Mike Gravel or Dennis Kucinich. To say Obama has gotten this far because he was the editor of the Harvard Law Review or has the capacity to see the "end game" and flexible thus "willing to change" (as usual completely without attributing evidence....) is an understable effort at rationalization. As an attempt to justify the popularity of a man based almost entirely on image and personal magnetism. And once these questions take root in the public consciousness denying the obviousness of an "affirmative action President" will become increasingly hard to pull off.

Posted by: elayman | February 23, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Obama is a hypocrite. Same as Chicago, say one thing, and then let your politically corrupt cronies do another. Look into people, the rhetoric doesn't match his reality.

Posted by: jaywpat | February 23, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

sd71 --

Is it any wonder that Hillary has so much stronger support among Ph.D's than Obama does?

Obama only does well with BS graduates.

People like you and I look at the actual issues. We're trained to look past personalities.

I'm not Asian, but I've got enormous respect for Asian values of education, hard work, and self-reliance.

The fact that Senator Clinton has such high levels of support in the Asian community just goes to show that people who follow the issues and make rational decisions support Senator Clinton.

"Gung-shi-fat-tai!" "Shing-yen-qui-la!"

Posted by: svreader | February 23, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

As my grandma taught me, in any argument, the one who screams is wrong. Obama is speaking quietly, and look who is screaming!

Posted by: dunnhaupt | February 23, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Can we expect Hillary supporters to do the same if Obama is the nominee?

Posted by: jj2000 |
Can we expect Hillary supporters to do the same if Obama is the nominee?

Posted by: jj2000 |
------------------------------------------

Where have you been. Obama has already stated that he did not think his supporters would support Hillary in Nov. but he thought hers would support him. So dems need to vote for him. His own words. Arrogance? Michelle Obama- I would have to think long and hard before I could vote for Hillary in Nov. Her words. Arrogance. Just answer. Why should we vote for him in November. I'm a Dem. but I have always liked McCain. I would like to vote Dem. but I would have to think long and hard to vote for Obama. I hate his arrogance. Reminds me of George.

Posted by: bnw173 | February 23, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

"Why would any real social or conservative republican vote for someone who has the most liberal voting record in the Senate?

Posted by: badger3 | February 23, 2008 04:59 PM"

Obama doesn't need to attract social or conservative Republicans to win. Are you seriously suggesting Clinton will?!?!? Obama beats Hillary by a wide margin among independents. This defies your reasoning about electability.

The Clinton supporters posting here are, for the most part, simply embarrassing themselves. No wonder she is losing so badly.

Posted by: PutDownTheKoolaid | February 23, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

sd,

This decision by Hillary Clinton today, to go nuclear, is perhaps the MOST narcissistic move I've seen yet. She and her campaign have decided that it is better to tear the party apart rather than accept reality and maintain a shred of dignity in the process.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 23, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

It must be "that time" of the month for Hillary *wink*

Posted by: vmunikoti | February 23, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Obama has run a very professional and smart campaign. I do believe that he exemplifies CHANGE that we can all look forward to and believe in. I don't particularly care for remarks that OBAMA gets his ideas and views from Hillary or John Edwards. From what I have observed from the debate in Texas, each time he gave his views it was original and very different from what Hillary spoke about. She actually was the one in my viewpoint that stated what he had already presented she just didn't plagirize---she used different words. I'm appalled at her tactics in this campaign, and at one time had the thought that if either OBAMA or Hillary were to get win the Presidential seat, that I would be equally as happy, but not anymore. I don't think I would waste my vote at this point, because she and her husbands' horns has certainly showed through this campaign, and I never thought I would feel the way I feel about them at this point. God Bless OBAMA and may he sweep the rest of the states.

Posted by: cbarnes | February 23, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Is that guy in the back nodding his head the fellow who skimmed 10 million from her campaign? I'd be nodding my head to for that kind of cash.

Posted by: storyofthefifthpeach | February 23, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

"Yes, Sister Hillary, I'm sorry Sister Hillary. Please don't hit me across the knuckles with your ruler Sister Hillary. I won't say anything bad about you again, Sister Hillary."
The woman brings back bad memories of Catholic grade school.

Posted by: atp2007 | February 23, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Gee sv, you might want to clarify your previous statement to all us Obama supporting, unwashed cattle.

"If Obama's the candidate, McCain's the President. You can take that promise to the bank."

Golly, since I'm considerably uneducated I only have EVERY poll regarding head to head match-ups on which to rely. I know we Obama supporters like pretty speeches and have trouble reading, bit it seems to me that Sen. Obama beats Sen. McCain by 5 points while Sen. Clinton loses by four.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_clinton-224.html

Not sure what "bank you wish to take that to. Perhaps you are taking it to Charles Keating's Lincoln S & L

Posted by: jeff.cronin | February 23, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Mrs. Clinton doesn't seem to get the distinction that aggressive campaigning is only "Rove-like" when it's false and misleading. OK -- 2 mailers. One used the word "boon" when describing NAFTA, and frankly the problem with the mailer is that ... although the word was accurate it was a newspaper's paraphrase of Mrs. Clinton's published beliefs (check out her book and statements during the first two Clinton terms and see whether "boon" isn't an accurate description of her earlier views). By the way, of course this is a bit of a problem when you run on 35 years' experience but you want to excise certain parts of major legislation accomplished during those 35 years ... oh, right, it was your husband's administration when it's something you don't like to be tagged with now, but yours when you DO like it. So the second mailer's problem? It had a picture of a couple on the front and Mrs. Clinton said it was reminiscent of "Harry & Louise" -- the couple that was used to torpedo Mrs. Clinton's botched foray into health care reform during the 90s. And that her plan would force people who can't afford it to buy health care insurance -- but she herself said recently that she would use wage garnishments to enforce her mandates. HELLO!!?! This is what SHE said. So how is this "Rove-like?" On the other hand, does anybody remember the disgustingly distorted fliers that got sent out to women in Iowa and New Hampshire attacking Sen. Obama's pro-choice stance -- ads that were viciously false? Take a look at this rebuttal video by someone who knows the truth there and then sit back and realize who it is who has been using "Rove-like" tactics all year. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVuMYKs8iJs
Shame on who? Shame on you, Mrs. Clinton for creating a faux outrage moment over fliers you've had in hand for weeks or months to try to gin up some excitement in your failing campaign. Please, don't dishonor yourself further; go with grace and dignity to keep the party together for the fall. We will all need to be united and now is the time to start. You are a bright and capable Senator who can be a leader for years to come if you stop burning bridges right and left. Yes We Can!

Posted by: Omyobama | February 23, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

rmcnicoll---

I am a 37 year old American whose family has been in this country since the late 1600's and whose great great great grandfather was a famous marshal in Florida and I will vote for Obama. Gladly.

Stop pulling the patriotic bs about "lifelong" and how many generations you have been here. It makes no difference.

Posted by: storyofthefifthpeach | February 23, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

This is absolutely disgusting. These mailers are both old and accurate; she knew about them when she stood on the stage and said she was proud to there with Barack Obama. The next day, she says "shame on you" and acts like she's outraged. This is the kind of disgusting, manipulative, hypocritical behavior that repels so many voters from her.

Furthermore, the mailers are accurate. Clinton's health plan MANDATES that everyone buy insurance. Everyone. People who can't afford health insurance are still people so, presumably, they are part of "everyone" and will be required to buy insurance.

Clinton was a supporter of NAFTA. Since she supported it, I assume that means she thought it was a good thing. A "boon" is a good thing. Newsday's characterization was logical. The word "boon" was Newsdays, not Obama's, and so it was appropriate to put it in quotations marks.

After the debate, I thought it was ironic that if Clinton had based her campaign around the sentiments she expressed at the debate's conclusion, she would have 2,025 delegates by now. How sad that she's addicted to these repugnant, illogical, hypocritical attacks.

Posted by: unitedstatesofamerica1 | February 23, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

whites,blacks,asians,latinos all voted for kerry in 2004. ten year old asian indian kids ran around excitedly yelling 'kerry ! kerry!' in 2004.there was complete silence the day after kerry lost.asians were so excited when bill won in 92.

obama has changed it all. obama is a narcissist who wrote two books about himself when no one knew who he was. he says he is trying to unite us. there was nothing wrong other than the extremism from republicans and perhaps from extremist liberals in the democratic party-there is no choice other than to fight and resist it. but obama had to be the hero. he has spent five years in illinois and two in the senate and could do nothing.nobody cared when he opposed iraq and he could do nothing.

but he has alienated many people including me. asians have been the targets of media and republican racism for decades. now, because of him, time and newsweek are writing articles calling asians racist. all because asians think hillary will be a better president and voted for her.i was maligned by people for supporting hillary.they said 'bill made racist comments','which clinton are you voting for','why don't you commit voter fraud',since i cant vote till later in the year.that is the consequence of obama's politics.

i will not vote in november for snybody other than hillary because i know she has a proven record of confronting and solving difficult problems when the camera lights are off.

there is only smoke and mirrors, hype,spin mud slinging from all other sides,republican,mccain and obama.

Posted by: sd71 | February 23, 2008 5:03 PM | Report abuse

svreader, your comments are getting more churlish and petty by the minute. Threaten, threaten, threaten.

And whoever it was who made the McGovern comparison, it is just plain stupid. He was on the left of the party running against a popular incumbent. The situation is completely different now. Either Clinton or Obama is very likely to beat McCrazy, and Obama polls better than Clinton in a head to head contest against McCrazy. Obama polls particularly well among independents. What this has to do with McGovern is a mystery to me.

The tactics employed by the Clintonistas here are comical.

Posted by: PutDownTheKoolaid | February 23, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

The disingenuous, selfish, and self-serving of Clintonian politics are exactly what the majority of people are tired of.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 23, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

whites,blacks,asians,latinos all voted for kerry in 2004. ten year old asian indian kids ran around excitedly yelling 'kerry ! kerry!' in 2004.there was complete silence the day after kerry lost.asians were so excited when bill won in 92.

obama has changed it all. obama is a narcissist who wrote two books about himself when no one knew who he was. he says he is trying to unite us. there was nothing wrong other than the extremism from republicans and perhaps from extremist liberals in the democratic party-there is no choice other than to fight and resist it. but obama had to be the hero. he has spent five years in illinois and two in the senate and could do nothing.nobody cared when he opposed iraq and he could do nothing.

but he has alienated many people including me. asians have been the targets of media and republican racism for decades. now, because of him, time and newsweek are writing articles calling asians racist. all because asians think hillary will be a better president and voted for her.i was maligned by people for supporting hillary.they said 'bill made racist comments','which clinton are you voting for','why don't you commit voter fraud',since i cant vote till later in the year.that is the consequence of obama's politics.

i will not vote in november for snybody other than hillary because i know she has a proven record of confronting and solving difficult problems when the camera lights are off.

there is only smoke and mirrors, hype,spin mud slinging from all other sides,republican,mccain and obama.

Posted by: sd71 | February 23, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Charcaterizing Hillary's Health Care Plan as "forc(ing) people to purchase insurance, even if they can't afford it" is no worse than her characterizing Barack's plan as "leaving out 15 million".

And if she doesn't think NAFTA was a "boon to the economy" what does she actually think of NAFTA? --or is that clarification too much to ask?

Much crying and gnashing of teeth.

Posted by: max | February 23, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

"If Obama's the candidate, McCain's the President. You can take that promise to the bank."

Do you seriously mean to tell us you were paid money to make that promise?

Posted by: fzdybel | February 23, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

It's about time people see Obama for what he really is, a mimic. He repeats everything he hears and then says it to a crowd like these are his original ideas and words. Another point is mentioned by another blogger, Hillary Clinton knew how important it was to attend the New Orleans rally today to help the needy people that America has shamelessly forgotten. Obama thought it was more important to go attend rallies to secure more votes in TX and OH. If Obama wins the election in Nov., the new help wanted ad for the presidency should read, Wanted, Flashy orator, good with crowds, experience not necessary, but delivery of others good ideas as your own a plus!

Posted by: jeiken | February 23, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Well where is Obama when he says he is for the Afraca Americans yet you think he really care then Why is Hillary clinton at the black forum, and not Obama ?

Youtube generation is getting there news from youtube not from the candidates. These children that I will call them are college grades that don't know there history, can't read a map or tell you where panama is, and we are counting on them to vote in this election. My God hell is coming to American by the Name of Obama in my opinion. The pastor for desastor beleive in me and you will receive what you deserve... Got Bush here we go again....

Posted by: rn_ragan | February 23, 2008 03:11 PM
==================================

If this is the depth of reasoning of the sHillary campaign , let alone the justification for not voting for Sen. Obama, well at least the person who wrote this probably feels better for getting it out of their system.

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 23, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

It wasn't clear for a day or two whether Senator Clinton would continue to fight for the nomination. And how far would she go? This isn't quite the scorched earth strategy that I'm sure some of her staff and big-money supporters have been calling for. The idea is basically to take the shine off Senator Obama's reputation for idealism. It may have some small effect, but most people who choose Obama have much more complex reasons for supporting him. The only way to knock him off course at this stage is to discover an ugly scandal. There just doesn't seem to be much dirt to dig up on him. So, expect Texas to be close, but with Obama winning more delegates. And Obama will win Ohio, I think, based on his performance in Wisconsin. Until then, you have to assume that Clinton is going to be under extreme pressure to go negative, because powerful people have waged very, very large bets on her, and these people aren't accustomed to losing.

Posted by: jchaney | February 23, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Nice work, Clinton supporters.

You seem to have boiled your arguments down to: "I will take my ball and go home" if my candidate doesn't win.

Exhibits both a tremendous amount of class and maturity. I thought Sen. Clinton's supporters were supposed to be the educated grown-ups?

EVEN IF your "cult of personality" arguments contained a scintilla of merit; if you all are the alternative, I think I'd rather cast my lot with the seep.

BAAAAHHHHHHH!!

Posted by: jeff.cronin | February 23, 2008 04:25 PM

====
Well if you want to say that is how we say it...so what...the bottom line..if all the Hillary supporters vote for McCain versus Obama in November...Obama looses. Remember we're still making up about half of the votes. As for him attracking Republicans...Why would any real social or conservative republican vote for someone who has the most liberal voting record in the Senate?

Posted by: badger3 | February 23, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Do the Clinton's, and those elected officials who have supported Clintonian campaign tactics, think they won't be held responsible when they manage to tear the Democratic party apart?

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 23, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

I just emailed another campaign contribution to Hillary Clinton. Clinton is an authentic candidate who tells it like it is. Barack Obama pretends to be a saint while authorizing his minions to pull every underhanded campaign tactic in the Karl Rove playbook. It's also frightening to read the comments of Obama supporters on every message board on the internet 24/7. Who in their right mind would want to elect as president a man who attracts so many followers apparently incapable of civil discourse?

Posted by: ichief | February 23, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Put Down...

I agree that Sweeden and Switzerland are also better

What has to be factored in though in the costs is well-care and life-styles. Europeans eat healthier and exercise more. They work a lot fewer hours for fewer years. They have 6 weeks of vacation and sick leave on top of that. They trade earnings and material possessions for this privilige. Americans will not do make that trade. So we spend 50 to 60 hours a week commuting and working and allow our health to be sacrificed. We eat fast food. We don't exercise. American companies could not survive our stock market pressures to produce top profits if folks worked fewer hours. Overhead costs would be too high. Quality of life is something we need to have a national debate over. Our approach to medical care is abuse your body and pay a lot of money to put a pill in it that may or may not reverse the abuse. It's crazy.

Most of their cities have very low crime rates. Children can safely play outside and folks can walk even at night without fear of bodily harm. Here in the US, most parents would be accused of child abuse to send their children out to play anymore. The only way our children get exercise is if they are lucky enough to live in some of low crime areas or their parents pay for privately sponsored sports lessons or leagues or they live in a town with some publically sponsored leagues.

I never feared for my safety in Europe. I would walk miles in cities at night after dark and only fear for my purse being snatched.

Posted by: DancinTea | February 23, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

"What I *do* take issue with is this idea that we Obama supporters don't "think for ourselves." Please. Just for your information, not that it should matter one bit, I have two graduate degrees and like to believe I am not delusional.
Posted by: lquint | February 23, 2008 04:45 PM"

Isn't it amazing? This whole campaign strategy is bizarre. Court educated voters by insulting their intelligence, by calling the cultists, and "impressionable elites" and so on. Who on earth would believe that this could work? It shows that Clinton has appalling judgment, and it is why I have turned so strongly against her.

The other thing that angers me is all the childish, petty threats to vote Republican, and "get even", or whatever Clinton campaign worker "svreader" is trying to say. As much as Clinton disgusts me now, I will STILL hold my nose and vote for her in the general election, if that is what it takes to keep McCrazy out of the White House. Happily, though, it is very likely that Obama, who has shown a lot more class and political judgment, will get the nomination. I think this is what makes Clinton and her supporters so angry: Obama has beat the pants of them at political campaigning. The Clintons feel that campaigning should be their great strength, and it burns them up to lose. It is shame they have chosen to lose ugly.

Posted by: PutDownTheKoolaid | February 23, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

If we can't have universal health care, We'd rather have lower taxes.

That, and the fact we wouldn't trust Obama to run a "radio shack" store, is why millions of Americans will vote for McCain if Obama is the Democratic Candidate.

Posted by: svreader | February 23, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Obama just had a press conference where he "calmly" dismissed Ms Clinton's remarks. He said everything in the mailers was true. He concluded by saying "Hillary is still the champion and needs to be knocked out". Wow.

Posted by: zb95 | February 23, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton CAN NOT even control her spending for her campaign so do you really want her to try to control the budget for America?! And Bill Clinton helped get NAFTA passed and anyone who is BLIND to that needs to reconsider voting for Hillary Clinton because she's a LOSER AND Obama is going to WIN even if your vote goes to THE Venomous Hillary. She can sure dish it out BUT she can't take it!!

Posted by: frankbarrett2000 | February 23, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Someone made a great point: These fliers have been going out for weeks and only now she's outraged!

Can we call this "Xeroxed Outrage"???

Posted by: chris30338 | February 23, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

It is curious why the Obama supporters are so upset by this? He says and does no wrong I suppose. I haved listened to him many times and I just don't get it. It seemed at the debate he agreed with almost everything she said. If she says anything the least bit negative about him, she gets booed but he can say and do whatever he wants.

About the Black State of the Union that he is too busy to attend?? I would suspect that Senator Clinton was a bit busy today too. Also wanted to mention that since Travis Smiley criticized Barack for not coming, Mr. Smiley has received angry emails and death threats. People have even harassed his mother and other family members. Is this acceptable behavior from Obama supporters? That's a bright future we are all looking at if that man ever wins the election.

Posted by: xfiler | February 23, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

I love how critics of Obama claim he's either a Republican in sheep's clothing or he's the second coming of George McGovern.

They can't keep their story straight.

Why?

Because they don't dislike him so much as they dislike some of the more vocal folks who support him.

Very sad.

Posted by: thrackazoggg | February 23, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Clinton is accusing Obama of Rovian tactics?

Something about the pot calling the kettle black.

It's unfortunate to see the Clintons have chosen to go via the gutter.

Posted by: binkynh | February 23, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

LOL......looks like Hillary's getting her panties in a bind. Obviously she doesn't like it to face facts.

She DID say during her television interview with George Stephanopouloscthat she would consider going after wages (garnish)of American workers for all to contribute to her Universal Health Care Plan. Don't fall over back-peddling on this one, Hillary!

On NAFTA, Hillary initially supported it. Back in 1998, in a keynote speech given at the Davos Economic Summit in Switzerland, Hillary Clinton praised business leaders for mounting "a very effective business effort in the U.S. on behalf of NAFTA,". She wasn't a senator then but since this falls under her "35 years" of public service experience, she should now answer for it instead of ducking the issue.

Is Hillary now the flip-flopper? I can't wait for the Cleveland debate for Barack Obama to nail her on this.

Posted by: chris30338 | February 23, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

jeff --

Sorry for you. If Obama's the candidate, McCain's the President and mainstream Democrats will never forgive Obama-nuts for joining with right-wing Republicans to destroy the positive legacy of Bill Clinton and to lose the best chance we've had in a generation of getting Universal Health Care.

You have no idea how angry Clinton supporters are with the "dirty tricks" campaign Obama has run.

If Obama's the candidate, McCain's the President.

You can take that promise to the bank.

Mainstream Democrats will not reward you for mindlessly mimicing Republican talking points.

We will never forget or forgive "Harry and Louise!!!"

Posted by: svreader | February 23, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

I voted for Obama, because of Clinton's smear tactics in South Carolina, but in the end I am a democrat and whom ever the nominee is for the Democrats is in November I will vote for. I don't see attacking anyone personally in these posts is beneficial and is one reason why so many americans are turned off by politics. Both Obama and Hilary are 1000x better than the policies that John McCain would pursue.

Posted by: RangerTodd | February 23, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Obama looks like he's on his way to get the nomination. Just like George McGovern.

Well, at least President McCain shouldn't be too bad.

Posted by: WillNewYork | February 23, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

These mailers she was waving around have been out there for some time now. I guess Hillary's funds are running so low (not enough money for ads) that she and her handlers figured out a way to get free air time with this invented indignation. They just had a debate - why didn't she bring up the flyers then? Hmmmmmm

Methinks the Lady dost protest too shrilly.

- DOlivervelez

Absolutely. She really is a snake in the grass.

Posted by: thrackazoggg | February 23, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

For Clintoon to falsely accuse Obama of behavior that Clinton is guilty of, IS "using tactics that are straight out of Karl Rove's playbook."

Obama was simply telling the truth. While Clintoon embraces "Karl Rove's playbook" whole heartedly, again.

This is exactly why HillBilly will lose big on Tuesday, again.

Posted by: kevinschmidt | February 23, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

chasmack99 said, "Thanks Clinton Harpies...I have just gone to obamaforamerica.com and donated an additional $50 via my Amex card...someone will match my contribution.
STOP! JUST FRIGGING STOP!! IT'S OVER!"

Thanks for reminding chasmack99--I'm going to ObamaforAmerica to make my contribution right now.

Posted by: nicekid | February 23, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

"If Obama gets the nomination, its going to be President McCain."

Check the polls. Obama does better than Clinton against McCain. You should check the "sell by" dates on your talking points more carefully. That one was stale two weeks ago. Or maybe you're a McCain supporter, so this stuff is regarded as being up to the minute?

Posted by: fzdybel | February 23, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Hillary claiming political dirty tricks..that is amusing.

Posted by: wege1 | February 23, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

I don't like Hillary but come November, if she is the party nominee, I will grudgingly support her without any doubt. Being a loyal democrat, that is a line I wouldn't cross. I don't want a 80 yr. old guy with lobbyists surrounding him entering the white house and start some adventure in the middle east.

Can we expect Hillary supporters to do the same if Obama is the nominee?

Posted by: jj2000 | February 23, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

EXTRA! EXTRA!: HILLARY SUFFERS A NERVOUS BREAKDOWN! HILLARY SUFFERS A NERVOUS BREAKDOWN! HILLARY SUFFERS A NERVOUS BREAKDOWN ON CAMPAIGN TRAIL! IT'S OVER FOR HILLARY CLINTON!

Posted by: lumi21us | February 23, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

These mailers she was waving around have been out there for some time now. I guess Hillary's funds are running so low (not enough money for ads) that she and her handlers figured out a way to get free air time with this invented indignation. They just had a debate - why didn't she bring up the flyers then? Hmmmmmm

Methinks the Lady dost protest too shrilly.

Posted by: DOlivervelez | February 23, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Hillary "hopes to attract Union voters" with her strident attack on Obama about health care. Since Union voters already enjoy health care, this is probably not getting her many extra votes. She should have thought of that one earlier in South Carolina. I am not sure which of her multiple personalities I like less, the Ohio attack dog, the Texas story teller, or the New Hampshire crocodile tear supposed to represent her "softer side".

Posted by: dunnhaupt | February 23, 2008 04:26 PM

===
The union workers that will be retiring will have to pay for their health care and it will be an issue to them when they retire. For any union member over 50, health care is an issue.

Posted by: badger3 | February 23, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Obama condones sleazy tactics. Why am I not surprised?

Will he do anything to win? Seems like he will.

Is he just another typical politic'ner? Seems as if he is.

Will his acolytes proselytize themselves for him cranking up the Hillary loathing hate machine?

Do bears go poo in the woods?


Posted by: PhilTR | February 23, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

To hhkeller:

Hillary voted for No Child Left Behind, just so you know.

Posted by: lquint | February 23, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

I just donated another $50 to Barack. One million contributors! Amazing. The country is SICK of Bush/Clinton and McBushCain will get destroyed.

Posted by: bushisacrook | February 23, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

readmonster wrote: "It never ceases to amaze me how blindly Obama's followers defend his every move and assume he's above dirty politics. They are so uncritical they didn't bother to LOOK at the brochure that Clinton's holding. The photo is a REVIVAL of the "Harry and Louise" pair of the 1990s, a couple of actors in a television commercial who helped sink Clinton's health care plan in the 90s."

This is a perfect encapsulation of a typical Clintonian distortion.

First, blame someone else for helping to "sink Clinton's health care plan in the 90s."

Second, deny any responsibility for the failure. Don't mention the heavy-handed, closed door tactics that attempted to ram the program down Congress' throats. Don't mention the demonization of others' positions if they differed from yours. Don't mention your own culpability for the ads due to the lack of transparency.

Third, attack anyone that raises substantive differences over policy issues. Oh, and make sure you do it in the most personal terms while simultaneously deriding the "politics of personal destruction."

Sorry svreader and readmonster, we Obama supporters have seen this movie before and we don't like the ending. Your attempts to characterize us with blanket accusations, such as "uncritical" are not going to get off the ground. We understand how the Clintonian game is played and we don't want to play it any longer.

The train's leaving the station. You can either hop on board or get left behind.

Posted by: jeff.cronin | February 23, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

To poh123:

As an Obama supporter, I have no problem with your supporting Hillary. That is your right and, as a Democrat, I will vote for her should she be the nominee. What I *do* take issue with is this idea that we Obama supporters don't "think for ourselves." Please. Just for your information, not that it should matter one bit, I have two graduate degrees and like to believe I am not delusional. I have read both Obama's books and researched where he stands on the issues. I happen to believe he is the candidate with the most integrity and know for a fact he has plenty of substance despite the boooring attempts to claim he has none. Nobody is forcing me to support him, believe it or not. I decided to on my own, thinking with my own head.

Posted by: lquint | February 23, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

watching hillary combat obama is like watching mickleson battle tiger woods.you know what the outcome will be,don't you.

Posted by: ronaldtennillegeorgia1 | February 23, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

"Reply:
The arrogance, the absolute arrogance of those who believe that Obama followers are better educated!

Posted by: poh123 | February 23, 2008 04:37 PM"

It isn't a belief, and it has nothing to do with arrogance. It is simply a fact that has been well documented by pollsters. And although the comments posted here in favor of Clinton are only anecdotal, they do seem to support the more general observation.

Posted by: PutDownTheKoolaid | February 23, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Did Hillary get the idea of college students receiving tuition help first or was it Obama?

This contest is over! Howard Dean needs to have the DNC circle the wagons, as this contest is over, we have our candidate. Obama for President 2008.

Posted by: andre.muhammad | February 23, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Yesterday, as sung by Bill Clinton

Yesterday, Barak Obama seemed to far away
Now it seems like he's here to stay
Oh I believe in yesterday

Suddenly, I'm not half the President I used to be
Hid away by Hillary
Yesterday was good to me.

I said something wrong
Hillary's votes are going away
I came on too strong
Clintons belong to yesterday.

Posted by: bobbi15 | February 23, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

If Obama is elected, Darwin will do the rest.

The people stupid enough to vote for him will most likely die off because they won't have access to decent medical care when they get sick.

I've yet to meet a single Obama supporter that could argue the issues.

All they can do is crap on the Clintons.

Crapping on the Clintons is not a strategy for winning a national election against John McCain.

If Obama supporters cause Democrats to lose this election, mainstream Democrats will never forget and never forgive you.

That's a promise.

Posted by: svreader | February 23, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

NAFTA is a red herring anyway on the job front: China is the real cause for the loss of jobs.

When it comes to cars, there is only about 10 to 15 hours of final assembly done in the US or North American plants and robots do a lot of the work. The big labor hours are in the piece parts and most of these are manufactured overseas.

When was the last time you saw a part stamped "Made in Mexico" or "Made in Canada."

India will be the next challenge as white collar jobs migrate to well educated English speaking Indians.

Watch out for the immigration reform bills too. The guest workers they were going to allow in included white collar jobs not just the jobs we refuse to do for low wages.

Posted by: DancinTea | February 23, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

poh123 - The assertion that Obama's supporters are more educated isn't arrogance, it's supported by the polls and exit polls that ask supporters of both candidates what their education level is. The conclusion is confirmed in the supporters' own words.

Posted by: treetopflyer | February 23, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Maybe Obama should be out there holding up Clinton's "Only 7 out of 10 people will get healthcare under Obama's plan...choose which 3 won't receive it." advertisment.

Oh wait.

He's got some class.

Posted by: thrackazoggg | February 23, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

From a desperate (cheat) wife to a desperate candidate. Hillary the Hysteric!

Posted by: bluelagoon21 | February 23, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Well, here you go again Cruella. What's the matter with you? I can't tell what's more phony and deceitful, your face or your words. You're looking for to get destroyed in next debate. Luckily, American People have started to know you.

Posted by: springlilacpetal | February 23, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Pay your bills Team Clinton. You've stiffed smaller vendors in pretty much every state that you've been in.

Rather than getting outraged over accurate mailers, you should be getting ticked off at yourself for having hired staff that is so disorganized and inept that it is running out of town without paying small vendors in towns from Iowa to your own "home state" of New York.

Honor your commitments Hillary!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/23/nyregion/23owe.html

I am outraged that a politician running for national office would stiff the little guy time after time on the campaign trail.

Actions do indeed speak much louder than words.

Posted by: JPRS | February 23, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Shame on the press for hyping such a transparent, desperate gamble by Hillary to get attention. The event was carefully scripted down to the color of her outfit, red, in order to symbolize her feigned anger, and with a nodding supporter in the background as if to say, "Yeah, that's right." Give us all a break Hillary: Loooooser. And so is the press for being her lackey.

Posted by: williampatry | February 23, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Everyone, please, realize just what's at stake here. It really is a matter of "life and death" to thousands if not millions of Americans.

The ONLY way we're going to get universal health care in this country is if Hillary is elected.

If Obama gets the nomination, its going to be President McCain.

The Republicans have an add campaign based on his cocaine use that is heart breaking.

McCain will eat him alive on national security.

Remember, Bush can manufacture a "terror alert" any time he wants.

For your own sake, and for the sake of all the people in America who are in pain or dying because the don't have access to proper medical care because of our crazy system of denying health insurance to those that need it most --

Vote for Hillary Clinton.

The life you save may be your own!!!

Posted by: svreader | February 23, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Been following Obama for years.
He's more Republican in his views than Democrat. I don't like his support for the No Child Left Behind Act which suck resources from our public schools just so his charter school constituents get free private school education. Any candidate who supports the NCLB act is suspect.

Posted by: hhkeller | February 23, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is angry about negative tactics? Isn't that what she's been using in EVERY advertisement on TV?

I mean, the one which says, "Barack Obama, how are you going to tell 15 million people they don't deserve healthcare?" is beyond negative and completely untrue.

His plan would provide healthcare to ALL Americans who want it. With lowered premiums and co-pays, people would be able to choose a healthcare plan if they so desired.

The fact that 15 million people would not buy it doesn't mean his plan leaves them out. Geez.

I find it hilarious that she's get so angry about this when she used a mailer in NH which stated that Obama was against a woman's right to choose!


Posted by: yolandarperez | February 23, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

"Well I lived in Europe and except for France and Germany, you can keep the European medical systems.

Posted by: DancinTea | February 23, 2008 04:30 PM"

Part right, part wrong. You are right that Britain has terrible health care. No wonder, though, they only spend 40% of what we spend, and they have a true socialized health care system in which the doctors and everyone else is a government employee. It is a disaster. I don't know about Italy, but Scandinavian countries and Switzerland have fine systems. Sweden, for example, spends only 40% what we spend here, yet consistently delivers better care. What you need to understand is that the U.S. spends 15% of GDP on health care, and none of these other countries spends more than 10%. At what we spend here, we should have FAR better health care, but the numbers say we have worse health care.

Posted by: PutDownTheKoolaid | February 23, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

The lady has gone crazy!! Is this a stunt and if so she is failing horribly.

Now if you really want to know the truth about who has used Rove kind of tactics, check this you tube video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVuMYKs8iJs

Posted by: dyohannes | February 23, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

OldUncleTom, hear, hear!

Clinton just seems to keep playing into Obama's hands. He lets her vent a charge at full vitriol, then delivers a cool and calm rebuttal. More than the actual substance of the charges or rebuttals, people notice the style - one is angry, red-faced, the other is quiet, a little disappointed. The subtext is really powerful; Obama's obviously got the grasp of it and Clinton doesn't.

Posted by: treetopflyer | February 23, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Thanks Clinton Harpies...I have just gone to obamaforamerica.com and donated an additional $50 via my Amex card...someone will match my contribution.
STOP! JUST FRIGGING STOP!! IT'S OVER!

Posted by: chasmack99 | February 23, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

"Obama's supporters have a higher education level than Clinton supporters, and if these comments show anything, it is that the Clinton supporters are the blind followers. This characterization is straight out of Mark Penn's playbook. Offending the very people Clinton should be courting will go down as the stupidest campaign blunder in modern history."


Reply:
The arrogance, the absolute arrogance of those who believe that Obama followers are better educated! Please, in these blogs you hear people calling Barack Obama a prophet a messiah.
You hear some even admit that in order for the Messiah to accomplish his mission some must be sacrificed (meaning Clinton)! People faint and cry in his rallies. Ask an Obama follower why they follow Obama and to give specific points and they cannot answer except for "change" and "hope". What you do not understand is that the planet is ever changing that every breath we take is filled with hope, with the hope that we can take another breath. Hope and change are embedded in our DNA and in our psyche from the moment we are born or even earlier. But like zombies people just feel that these words, "change" and "hope", cleverly and deceitfully crafted into manipulative speeches are new concepts to the human race. It is so absurdly superficial, hollow and yes, dangerours. So please...It is also fair to mention that this mass hysteria that occurs in those 20 thousand people rallies are something to be observed and studied. History has a tendency to repeat itself.

Please spare us this arrogant little discourse...

Posted by: poh123 | February 23, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Obama friend/Pastor qote

"One white girl from Alabama gets drunk at a graduation trip to Aruba, goes off and gives it up while in a foreign country and that stays in the news for months."

Posted by: ebubuk2004 | February 23, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

I could never undertand why Hillary voted for Kyl-Lieberman. What on earth was in the woman's head? The answer is, political calculation was in her head. A Clinton is a focus group-driven animal, the way Bush is an ideology-driven animal. Political calculation always will job one in her pretty little head, and it will lead her into error over and over again, just as it has in the past, until the voters in N.Y. finally pull the plug.

Hillary cannot lead this nation. She can only manage and profit from the waffling in front of hard choices that passes for political process these days.

Posted by: fzdybel | February 23, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

"Hillary controls the cards here. Given the way the delgate counts are, even if wins by fairly large margins in every state, Obama will not have enough delegates to win the nomination. Hillary is entitled to stay in the race until all the states have voted. Why would she drop out of the race and support Obama before the convention, if he chooses to pull these tactics on her? The longer these two fight it out until the convention, the better chance McCain has to win in November."
- badger3

I'm sure Hillary would love that: To see John McCain win the election rather than a fellow Democrat. What filth.

Posted by: thrackazoggg | February 23, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

svreader:
See, there you go again. Just accusation without specifics. What experience she got other than senate career? Didn't she support NAFTA right until the minute she declared her candidacy? BTW, why does she keep changing her personality every week? Who is she exactly? One week she cries, one week she gets outraged, one week she claims she is opening up and found her voice. What is all that crap? People already woke up and they see a winner in him. I would rather support a leader who uses a teleprompter than someone who changes her character every week. BTW, don't make a fool out of yourself by accusing him of using writers. Every campaign does and so is Hillary, who is in fact paying high amount for her writers and strategists.

Posted by: jj2000 | February 23, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

If the issue here is NAFTA, then I could NOT hold my nose and vote for CLINTON. NAFTA does not help american workers, it helps corporations by moving jobs to other countries, presumably with lower wages. Ohio in particular has lost thousands of jobs. For instance, when Eaton corporation (industrial manufacturers, founded in 1911) moved from Cleveland, Ohio down to Mexico. Bill Clinton sold NAFTA to the auto industry. These days you can buy a car or truck made in Canada, or Mexico. You can thank your lucky stars if you happen to work in Canada or Mexico. You can kiss your ass goodbye if you live in Ohio, lost your job, lost your home, lost your community. Meanwhile with the tax breaks for the wealthy class, and corporate welfare, companies like Exxon report historically high profits. Senator Clinton is supported by these greedy, wealthy class masters. If you want more of the shaft stuck up your ass, vote for Clinton.

Posted by: rmorris391 | February 23, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Got a lot of Rovians posing as Democrats here, I think. Such venom!! Shame on all of you.
These are 2 good candidates, and either would be superior to OLD John in the White House.
I happen to prefer Obama, because I think he can engage both sides of the aisle in Congress. His proposals may not pass, but something better than we currently have almost certainly will. This is the essence of political activity, compromise, give-and-take. Leaders in this country inspire, they do not direct. We might have a better health-care system in this country already, if Hillary hadn't thought she was writing the Bible.

Posted by: OldUncleTom | February 23, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

"Nice work, Clinton supporters.

You seem to have boiled your arguments down to: "I will take my ball and go home" if my candidate doesn't win.

Exhibits both a tremendous amount of class and maturity. I thought Sen. Clinton's supporters were supposed to be the educated grown-ups?"
=================

Yes, childish, isn't it? And most of them seem to do it. Like it is orchestrated. Probably just another brilliant idea from Mark Penn.

Believe it or not, six weeks ago I was on the fence between Clinton and Obama. Not now, though. My opinion of Clinton has plummeted since then. Now she is behaving downright ugly as her campaign goes down in flames. And it really is going down in flames. 11 straight primary losses, and the poll numbers coming out of Texas and Ohio are looking grim indeed. No wonder the futures market has it 6 to 1 in favor of Obama.

Posted by: PutDownTheKoolaid | February 23, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Jeff said:

Nice work, Clinton supporters.

You seem to have boiled your arguments down to: "I will take my ball and go home" if my candidate doesn't win.

Exhibits both a tremendous amount of class and maturity. I thought Sen. Clinton's supporters were supposed to be the educated grown-ups?

=================

Jeff, you're correct but Clinton's supporters are not the educated and successful Dems. They are all supporting Obama. Billary's supporters are all old people who are intimidated by the greatness of Obama and support the status quo.

Posted by: bushisacrook | February 23, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Willfully misquoting Clinton's position, when the newspaper has clarified that it was their words not hers, is just shameful.

If Clinton had done this, dirtbags like COlby and most of Obama's cult worshippers would be assailing HRC once more as being a cheap lying politician. When it is their own hero who does it, then the fault is Clinton's for pointing it out.

I truly think Obama supporters have lost any sense of fairness and shame as well.

If that Illinois empty suit becomes the nominee, at least this lifelong democrat is gone, perhaps to the Rethug side, which at least will treat their own in a better manner.

Posted by: intcamd1 | February 23, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Sorry rinny, but look at your whole post. It is nothing more than the usual obama can do no wrong and hillary can do no right. You are not trying to unite the democratic party at all. You are trying to ensure your candidate is the chosen one no matter what it does to the democratic party.

Posted by: justmyvoice | February 23, 2008 04:27 PM
---------------------------------------------

I have been trying to say what you said, but never found the "just words" to say it. Thanks for your inciteful message. gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 23, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

This is why Hillary pretended to be so human at the end of the last debate, so she could be a shrew in Ohio and blame him for her behavior. Blaming and excuses is the refuge of the incompetents. George W taught us that.

Incompetency is not something that I associated with Hillary but she certainly misjudged the mood of the country and she did not know how to spend her resources in this campaign. Sen. Clinton is pathetic and I never thought I would say that.

Posted by: Gator-ron | February 23, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

PutDownthekoolaid...

Well I lived in Europe and except for France and Germany, you can keep the European medical systems. My Scottish friend's father date for kidney surgery was 6 months after the onset of symptoms. If you are a guy, think about!

Britain imports doctors from its former colonies. The government bean counters (accountants) won't pay British folks enough to justify giving up so many years of their lives to study medicine. So they have to get doctors from outside the country.

I was in an Italian hospital that had no running hot water for 2 days, an ancient X-ray machine, and was told that if I was operated on for a broken foot it would be 10 day's recuperation if there was not an infection (the place was not clean). In France and the US, the operation would have used minimal invasion techniques and mean one day stay in France (out of compassion more than necessity) and the US. As it turned out, I didn't even need surgery.

The French system is a hybrid system -- part national part private. It is much better.

Posted by: DancinTea | February 23, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

desperate times bring about desperate measures.this time next week on the eve of the ohio and texas primary election dates she'll refer to obama as being HITLERS' GRANDSON. to refer to obama as having the tactics of karl rove,please give the electorates a break and not have your memory left as being shattered.lose with grace and dignity.one can have little money but can have class and dignity.one can have millions but he/she cannot buy class.look at roger clemens,an athlete that has earned millions but he couldn't master the english language with the world watching on television.he showed himself as being a millionaire but an inept dummy when speaking.hillary is placing herself in that category by fighting a race that's over.obama is showing class by ignoring this bait to get in the bed with a snake or two-headed snake if you want to include bill.

Posted by: ronaldtennillegeorgia1 | February 23, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Hillary controls the cards here. Given the way the delgate counts are, even if wins by fairly large margins in every state, Obama will not have enough delegates to win the nomination. Hillary is entitled to stay in the race until all the states have voted.
Why would she drop out of the race and support Obama before the convention, if he chooses to pull these tactics on her?
The longer these two fight it out until the convention, the better chance McCain has to win in November.

Posted by: badger3 | February 23, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

nicekid wrote:
"I'll vote for her approximately when hell freezes over and flocks of flying piggies darken the sky."

And that is exactly when I will vote for Obama after seeing all those who support him and what they are willing to say and do to defend him from anything and everything.

Posted by: justmyvoice | February 23, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

As with many statements in this campaign, these remarks seek to inflate oneself with suspect attempts to deflate an opponent. A play book of Rove? In Austin ZEROX?
Such attempts encompass the thrust of Obama's message; yes, she is making Obama's case for him. In sum much of Clinton's efforts have been self destructive. Negative? NO! Ill advised? (Some might say dumb) Yes! HRC's primary antagonist is herself.

Posted by: ADLEED | February 23, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

A reader wrote:
We are trying to unite this democratic party not tear it apart and that is the road Mrs. Clinton is taking us down! It is sad that what is in that newletter is the true! Does this woman have multiple personalites??? Which one is it hillary i guess you havent found your voice yet after 35 years of experience!

Posted by: rinny_1983 | February 23, 2008 04:17 PM

Sorry rinny, but look at your whole post. It is nothing more than the usual obama can do no wrong and hillary can do no right. You are not trying to unite the democratic party at all. You are trying to ensure your candidate is the chosen one no matter what it does to the democratic party.

Posted by: justmyvoice | February 23, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Even I'd vote for McCain over Obama, and knowing how "hard core" a Democrat I am, that's saying something!!!

Posted by: svreader | February 23, 2008 04:11 PM
--------------------------------------------

Keep the faith, SVReader - While Obama is in Texas, I think a lot of Latinos are going to mistake Obama for a pinata and we'll find out what's inside.

Obama is not for the Latinos, Obama is not for the Asians, Obama is not for the white people, Obama is not for universal health care, Obama does all the things he blames on "fat cats" in Washington, and he accepts donations from corporations like those who do the nuclear waste deals.

Obama gets by with saying he doesn't get campaign contributions from drug companies, and nuclear waste companies, he says he gets them from their employees. We all know how that works. It is 10 below out today - good day for a nap. zzzzzz. gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 23, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Hillary "hopes to attract Union voters" with her strident attack on Obama about health care. Since Union voters already enjoy health care, this is probably not getting her many extra votes. She should have thought of that one earlier in South Carolina. I am not sure which of her multiple personalities I like less, the Ohio attack dog, the Texas story teller, or the New Hampshire crocodile tear supposed to represent her "softer side".

Posted by: dunnhaupt | February 23, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Obama told the truth about Hillary's position. Why is she so mad? Even her anger also is a fake? Choking up looks much better, somewhat natural.

Posted by: sukkee | February 23, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

"svreader,
How much is Clinton campaign paying you?"

I agree with this commenter that svreader is almost certainly a Clinton campaign operative, whether paid or not. This person is a prolific commenter here, and simply chants the same simplistic talking points over and over and over....

Posted by: PutDownTheKoolaid | February 23, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

When Billary screams at Obama, it's like she's screaming at me. I've reviewed his policies, and I decided to back Obama for sound reasons. I've also studied Billary's policies and inconsistencies. She ought not to berate the electorate, when she is falling flat.

Posted by: StaggoLee | February 23, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Nice work, Clinton supporters.

You seem to have boiled your arguments down to: "I will take my ball and go home" if my candidate doesn't win.

Exhibits both a tremendous amount of class and maturity. I thought Sen. Clinton's supporters were supposed to be the educated grown-ups?

EVEN IF your "cult of personality" arguments contained a scintilla of merit; if you all are the alternative, I think I'd rather cast my lot with the seep.

BAAAAHHHHHHH!!

Posted by: jeff.cronin | February 23, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Ohmigawd, talk about the pot calling the kettle black...(sorry, I couldn't help it).

That really is the most classic example of projection I have ever encountered. Madam Clinton has been running her campaign from the Karl Rove playbook since day one--from framing her appearances so nobody who disagrees with her can get near her (or the cameras) to deploying her slimebot minions on whispering campaigns--and everything in between--she has run a textbook Rove operation. She is absolutely ruthless, arrogant, and she tries to destroy anybody who gets in her way. I'll vote for her approximately when hell freezes over and flocks of flying piggies darken the sky.

I'm not that crazy about Obama either--his lack of experience does concern me, and I do find him disconcertingly smooth, but here's what I think: He's run a damned effective campaign, got an excellent organization, and he's outflanked La Clinton at almost every turn, so he's definitely got executive and tactical ability. And however inexperienced, he's GOT to be better than either Hillary the incompetent Hun or John McCain living out Bush's third term. So Obama definitely has my vote, oh, yes, you'd better believe it.

Posted by: nicekid | February 23, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Obama has a position on every issue just like Hillary and McCain. I find it strange that some guys are opposing him without a proper reason. They accuse him of lacking specifics but they do the same in opposing him. They don't say on which issues they oppose him. It's always those silly words like, he is fake, pompous or lacking substance etc.. Well, these silly things aren't good enough to oppose a candidate. It should be more specific. Otherwise, it is nothing but rantings of rascists.

Posted by: jj2000 | February 23, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

The last, desperate flailings of a failed candidate and a failed campaign.
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, HILLARY, PLEASE STOP!

Posted by: chasmack99 | February 23, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

" Medicare is NOT great. The lucky old folks have private insurance or are self insured (read rich enough to pay anyway.)"

This is false. Private insurance programs have failed in competition against Medicare. The federal government has had to subsidize these plans to make them competitive. What this country needs to do is extend Medicare to all citizens. This is how other developed countries provide medical insurance, and it has proven to be vastly superior. The U.S. spends nearly double what European single-payer systems spend, but achieves worse health care outcomes by nearly every quantitative performance measure used in health science.

Posted by: PutDownTheKoolaid | February 23, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

jj --

Nobody pays me anything to post these comments.

How much does Obama pay you to crap on the Clintons?

Grow up. People like Senator Clinton and are getting to really hate Obama supporters because she's got great policy ideas, he's an empty suit, and his supporters are a bunch of glorified moonies.

Obama's an empty suit.
He hasn't had an original idea in his life.
Without his writers and his teleprompter he's mute.

Wake up, grow up, and smell the coffee!!!

Posted by: svreader | February 23, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse


It never ceases to amaze me how blindly Obama's followers defend his every move and assume he's above dirty politics. They are so uncritical they didn't bother to LOOK at the brochure that Clinton's holding. The photo is a REVIVAL of the "Harry and Louise" pair of the 1990s, a couple of actors in a television commercial who helped sink Clinton's health care plan in the 90s. Seems Barack is up to the dirty tricks mounted by the health-insurance and pharmaceutical industries, which paid for the Harry and Louise spots 15 years ago.
Rather than addressing this matter critically, the unquestioning Obama followers are assuming he's playing fair and she's desperate, stooping to score a few points. The Harry and Louise commercials were an outrage and an example of how big business can marshal its billions to maintain the status quo. And by status quo, I mean the real status quo, not the little Clinton presidential campaign, with its homespun messages trooping from one city to the next.
I am talking Big Pharma, Big Insurance -- Big Money. Republicans. They're still out there -- waiting to pounce. The evil you're imputing to Clinton is misplaced, and an ever-so-sad misunderstanding of how politics really works. Barack has reached back into the past to revive symbols used by conservative operatives. Don't think for a minute that those same forces won't come back to do a number on him should he ultimately win the election.
Is Barack Obama so precious that you don't see his faults? Shouldn't he be admonished for resorting to known right-wing propaganda tactics?/
Haviland Smith

Posted by: readmonster | February 23, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Clinton supported NAFTA. Plain and simple. What a Biatch.

Sick of Bushes, Clintons, and McCain.

GO BARACK!

Posted by: bushisacrook | February 23, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

NAFTA stands for North American Free Trade Agreement. The piece calls it the "North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement." I just thought you should know.

Posted by: stephencochran1 | February 23, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

"Hillary Clinton accuses Obama of 'using tactics that are straight out of Karl Rove's playbook.'"

Izzatafack? You mean Obama has been colluding in electoral fraud and voter repression with Secretaries of State in statehouses across the nation? Has he been using the U.S. Department of Justice to harrass and sabotage his political opponents?

People forget just how dirty you have to play to get a Republican elected in this country.

Posted by: fzdybel | February 23, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse


It never ceases to amaze me how blindly Obama's followers defend his every move and assume he's above dirty politics. They are so uncritical they didn't bother to LOOK at the brochure that Clinton's holding. The photo is a REVIVAL of the "Harry and Louise" pair of the 1990s, a couple of actors in a television commercial who helped sink Clinton's health care plan in the 90s. Seems Barack is up to the dirty tricks mounted by the health-insurance and pharmaceutical industries, which paid for the Harry and Louise spots 15 years ago.
Rather than addressing this matter critically, the unquestioning Obama followers are assuming he's playing fair and she's desperate, stooping to score a few points. The Harry and Louise commercials were an outrage and an example of how big business can marshal its billions to maintain the status quo. And by status quo, I mean the real status quo, not the little Clinton presidential campaign, with its homespun messages trooping from one city to the next.
I am talking Big Pharma, Big Insurance -- Big Money. Republicans. They're still out there -- waiting to pounce. The evil you're imputing to Clinton is misplaced, and an ever-so-sad misunderstanding of how politics really works. Barack has reached back into the past to revive symbols used by conservative operatives. Don't think for a minute that those same forces won't come back to do a number on him should he ultimately win the election.
Is Barack Obama so precious that you don't see his faults? Shouldn't he be admonished for resorting to known right-wing propaganda tactics?

Posted by: readmonster | February 23, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

I'm a sailor peg
and I've lost my leg
I've climbed up the top sails
I've lost my leg!

I'm shipping up to Boston whoa
I'm shipping up to Boston whoa
I'm shipping up to Boston whoa
I'm shipping off...to find my wooden leg

Posted by: blasmaic | February 23, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

"Clinton's health care plan is estimated to cover more people than Obama's [would initially] in part because it requires people to purchase insurance, although it stipulates Americans would only have to pay a certain percentage of their income."

Think of it as a new tax, a graduated tax sensitive to income that would be thought not really a tax but known by the far more acceptable term "mandate."

It seems we're now beyond words about "experience" and "real change" and into that discussion of substantive issues which so many observers have been clamoring for. But is the anger that Hillary now exhibits like the anger she showed during her prior tenancy of the White House when opposition to parts of her health care plan arose even from fellow Democrats?

Posted by: FirstMouse | February 23, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

ceojuliej, your statement is incredibly revealing. You are both ignorant and a racist. Barack Obama's father is from Kenya, I believe, who happened to be a Muslim. Kenya is still part of the African continent. Given those two facts, I'm not sure how that makes him an Arab-American. And even if he were an Arab American, why would that disqualify him as a candidate in your mind? Oh, because you are a racist. You should, therefore, vote for McCain, where you will be among your fellow xenophobes.

Posted by: marcogori001 | February 23, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

"Help me out.

Posted by: bnw173 | February 23, 2008 03:56 PM"

Well, if you "heard" that it was on the "front pages" of Chicago newspapers, don't you think you could GOOGLE up some Chicago newspaper web sites and see for yourself? How long do you think that would take? Five seconds?

Or are you just hear shoveling sleazy garbage at Obama?

Posted by: PutDownTheKool
-----------------------------------------
I'm computer illiterate. Not smart like you. My son sets the bookmarks for me and I can use it, CNN,NYT, USA, WashPo and local paper. I apologize for my ignorance but I'm to old for change. Pardon the pun.
To be honest I'm probably shoveling some sleazy garbage. I have heard so much of it from the Obamanites even old dumb me has learned to shovel it. Hillary the liar,thief, crook, etc. You are so damn smart. So tell me if you might not need the Hillary vote in November or can the great Obamanites do it by themselves. I may not be smart, but I can recogmnizse a smart a** quite easily.

Posted by: bnw173 | February 23, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

CORRECTION CORRECTION CORRECTION

PutDownTheKoolaid writes:

Well, if you "heard" that it was on the "front pages" of Chicago newspapers, don't you think you could GOOGLE up some Chicago newspaper web sites and see for yourself? How long do you think that would take? Five seconds?
---------------------------------------------
I wrote: The Chicago Tribune Newspaper you are wanting to revisit for the facts of Obama/Rezko 17 year shady back room dealing information is on the Jan. 27th issue of that newspaper with John Kass, investigative reporter saying:

"Rezko is Obama's guy."
"Rezko belongs to Obama."
"The photo of clinton/Rezko is "inconsequential."
"The Obama/Rezko relationship "is significant."

The person you are talking to could also Google up Trinity Church/Obama; and "divestment." and "divide and conquer." etc. Lots to read up on. gw. |

Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 23, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

"Every time I see Obama supporters fall for his "cult of personality" I wonder how much chance humanity has of surviving its own stupidity."

svreader, you are grasping at straws. I know you are just trying to follow the Clinton campaign playbook, but it isn't working. I know many highly educated people who support Obama based on reasonable arguments. Why can't you grasp that you aren't going to win over anyone by hurling this Mark Penn inspired insult? Why do you think Clinton's campaign is collapsing? It is precisely because of this failed strategy.

Posted by: PutDownTheKoolaid | February 23, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

I wasnt even going to make a comment but someone rasied the question why isnt obama at the state of the black union!!! First of all OBAMA is on the campaing trial trying to unite this counrty and serve this country!!! He is a man of everybodys community in america not just african american community!!!!! Believe me when i say that majority of the people in the african american community understands and realizes why he is not going to attending. And myself as an african american supports OBAMA. Secondly that is Travis Smiley trying to bash Obama which of whom is a clinton supporter. Thirdly Mrs. Clinton is really disappointing me now with her outrage. I guess the truth hurts!! did obama respond like that when she made that negative tv advertisment in WISC. H*&* no he didnt. did he respond that way when she tried to attack him on Pro-Choice which she was was way off base check this sight out you will be surprised!become knowledgable!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVuMYKs8iJs

We are trying to unite this democratic party not tear it apart and that is the road Mrs. Clinton is taking us down! It is sad that what is in that newletter is the true! Does this woman have multiple personalites??? Which one is it hillary i guess you havent found your voice yet after 35 years of experience!

Posted by: rinny_1983 | February 23, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

svreader,
How much is Clinton campaign paying you? You seem to be at all forums aggressively defending her rather than debate issues. Instead of writing stupid things about Obama repeatedly, why don't you cross check Obama's senate record and voting pattern with Clinton's? Clinton voted 80% time with Republicans while Obama opposed them on almost all issues. Question is, why is she in the democratic party instead of GOP?


Hillary's campaign mismanaged the money, recent reports say. Did she spend money on people like you to propogate this BS in all forums?

Posted by: jj2000 | February 23, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Hillary!! Fire Mark Penn and Howard Wolfson. Both campaign strategists are useless. You paid them millions of dollars from our hard eraned small contributions. As stakeholders on your campaign , we demand that you fire your management. They are lousy and idiotic.

Posted by: sbgamatt | February 23, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

I will applaud the day that the names Clinton and Bush drop out of the national political lexicon. What a sad state our government has been reduced to.

Posted by: thrackazoggg | February 23, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

So, if I understand this correctly, Obama supporters want Hillary to say nothing about their candidate. However, as far as Obama supporters go, Obama can send out misleading or false info about Hillary and that is fine. So is this the change Obama supporters want? Is it -We can do what we want but you can't because we are Obama people and you are lowly Hillary supporters? This is why I am beginning to dislike this man every time I see him on TV, not because of him but what his supporters demand from others but not from themselves. If this is the change we can expect - forget it!!!!

Posted by: justmyvoice | February 23, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

I would NEVER vote for Obama in November. I am a Democrat, and have voted as a Democrat for 30 years. In my opinion, Obama is a pompous, megalomaniac, who is desperate to be the first black president in United States history. He is completely transparent to the objective and informed citizen, and those are the people who are NOT voting for him. He knows nothing in comparison to Hillary Clinton. Obama is all hype, and no substance. If he is elected, it will be a huge setback for our country, and one we cannot afford. HILLARY CLINTON we are voting for you because you are the candidate qualified to be Commander in Chief.

Posted by: teacup653 | February 23, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Hillary,
Learn to lose with grace lady!

Posted by: omar_anguiano2003 | February 23, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Mandatory anything to do with the government is a bad idea. Medicare is NOT great. The lucky old folks have private insurance or are self insured (read rich enough to pay anyway.)

My great aunt was in Medicare hospice in Florida-- what an ordeal. Her 89 year old sister had to perform procedures that the registered nurse refused to perform because she was not licensed to do them. Imagine wondering if you will kill your own sister? When my aunt needed a minor procedure so she could breathe she was told no, you are in hospice we cannot do anything to allow you to live longer. (Translation, die quicker to reduce costs.)

Another friend works in oversight of state medicare programs. Guess what? They'll pay for the drugs to kill you in Oregon but not the drugs to keep you out of pain.

Having government care as an option is ok. As a mandate is stupid. We are giving a broken system (our government) control over one of the most vital parts of our lives. No American should be forced to buy into anything. The educational system is broke lets not totally break the medical care system. Allow people the choice.

Posted by: DancinTea | February 23, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

I see that many of the pro-Clinton comments here make the threat to vote Republican. How childish.

Posted by: PutDownTheKoolaid | February 23, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Just a thought: Why didn't he bring this up at the debate? Because he knows he can't debate her head on, that is why he resorts to these disgusting misleading tactics.
Do you people even understand NAFTA and the reasons why it even existed? By the way, many other countries have felt shafted by NAFTA or similar policies as well. It was an attempt to bring all countries up and it hasn't worked well but not only for Americans!
Do a little research and take your heads out of the bubble that you live in America. This is why everyone is ga ga with Obama because Americans live in never land especially those who have their backs covered. The ones who really struggle understand what Senator Clinton is saying.

And stop bullying those who don't support Obama. That is not democracy!

This is why I respect Hillary Clinton and I do hope she becomes president.

Posted by: poh123 | February 23, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

PutDownTheKoolaid writes:

The Chicago Tribune Newspaper you are wanting to revisit for the facts of Obama/Rezko 17 year shady back room dealing information is on the Jan. 27th issue of that newspaper with John Kass, investigative reporter saying:

"Rezko is Obama's guy."
"Rezko belongs to Obama."
"The photo of clinton/Rezko is "inconsequential."
"The Obama/Rezko relationship "is significant."

The person you are talking to could also Google up Trinity Church/Obama; and "divestment." and "divide and conquer." etc. Lots to read up on. gw. |

Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 23, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

who needs the truth, a record or accomplishments from a president ? why not just pick the first person we can find off the street and install him in the president's office because he gives 'inspirational' speeches ? it should be a contest about who gives the most 'inspiring' speeches in the future.

reagan was an opponent who had ideas and so did adolf hitler. if we ignore the horrible things he said and did, he was 'inspirational' opponent in some ways. he said to germans, britain is 85 miles from the sea shore at any point.germany is much bigger.so germany should rule the world instead.maybe the next president should borrow from hitler's,stalins and maos ideas too ?

Posted by: sd71 | February 23, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Every time I see Obama supporters fall for his "cult of personality" I wonder how much chance humanity has of surviving its own stupidity.

Obama is using the exact same sales pitch Bush did and people are falling for it the third time in a row.

If Obama's the candidate, McCain will be President.

Even I'd vote for McCain over Obama, and knowing how "hard core" a Democrat I am, that's saying something!!!

Posted by: svreader | February 23, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Clinton's desperation is increasingly evident. She's trying to cling to any thread that she can find now; these mailings have been circulated for weeks, with nary a "Shame on you" comment in sight until now.

Where was the "Shame on you, Barack Obama" during Thursday's debate?

Where were the outcries of Rovian politics then?

I suppose Hillary had to wait to see how her "Change you can Xerox" comment went over and her obvious and hamhanded attempt to recreate her New Hampshire moment went over.

Well, I guess we have our answer.

They didn't.

And so now she's going to continue trying to drag down the front runner to play handball in the gutter with her.

She can't win on her own strengths.

She can't win in a straight up comparison.

All that's left are dirty politics.

Shame on YOU, Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: thrackazoggg | February 23, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

i think hillary certainly knew that the mailers were just true. what she is doing now is just pretending to be "victimized" by obama campaign so that she would expect the voters in ohio and texas would pity her and then vote for her in the end. that means hillary would think that voters in ohio and texas use more emotions (something irrational) than their minds (rational) in giving their votes. that itself is an insult to the voters.

Posted by: createscarcity | February 23, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Senator Clinton, please wake up and smell the coffee. You honored Senator Obama at the end of the debate in Texas. Now you say"Shame on you". I do not get this. Both issues, healthcare and NAFTA and trade were discussed during the Texas debate and in previous debates. Obama has not changed his position.He has been consistent in differentiating himself with you on healthcare and trade issues. Your anger at the eleventh hour indicates failure and disaster.Your campaign is at disarray, no money. Your staff have started giving interviews to the media why you are failing. Suggest honorable exit for my Senator from New York. I live in Scarsdale.
my name is ven parameswaran.

Posted by: vpwaren | February 23, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton is the most divisive, polarizing, mean spirited, nasty person to ever run for the Presidency. She will be worse than Richard Nixon if she ever wins the Presidency. She and her husband are experts at character assassination, and the politics of personal destruction. She knows how to tear down and to sling mud and that is what she does best. She is a vile person not fit to be in the White House.

Posted by: amitai | February 23, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

"Clinton has supporters who think with their own minds...Obama has followers who are willing to jump off an abyss blindly for him."

This characterization is absolutely ludicrous. Obama's supporters have a higher education level than Clinton supporters, and if these comments show anything, it is that the Clinton supporters are the blind followers. This characterization is straight out of Mark Penn's playbook. Offending the very people Clinton should be courting will go down as the stupidest campaign blunder in modern history.

Posted by: PutDownTheKoolaid | February 23, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Hillary: Your problem is not a couple of mailings from the Obama campaign. You gave a deeper problem in Ohio. You have to deal with my 84 year old mother and her 86 year old sister.

Since we do not usually discuss politics, I am surprised to learn that both will be voting for Senator Obama on March 4. The reason, Hillary, has nothing to do with health care, or proposals or experience or gender. It has to do with the fact that to them you traded your self respect in the Monica affair in 1998 for the promise of Bill's support and money connections when you ran for President. They believe you should have thrown the "fool out." But to them they feel you sold youself out for the promise of power.

Oh well. What's the loss of a couple of votes anyways. Just thought you would like to know, Hillary.

Posted by: NewEra | February 23, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Wow, I can't believe the vitriol from the Clinton supporters on this blog. It seems that they are so offended by Obama's candidacy that they insist on casting him as some sort of naive idiot (Bush-like) incapable of guiding a progressive, Democratic executive branch. Shame on you. What experience does Senator Clinton posses that is so superior? She has less legislative experience than Sen. Obama? Is it because she was first lady? Sen. Obama has consistently demonstrated his progressive bona fides and he possesses the intellect and judgment to make the right decisions.

The problem with Hillary is simple. She is a calculating politician who does only what she believes will secure her with enough support to win the presidency. There is no other explanation for her vote to support the invasion of Iraq. Moreover, she is so reviled by nearly half the electorate that if she were to win the presidency, she would govern absent a mandate. Secondly, she would be a drag to many democratic senatorial and congressional candidates who are attempting to unseat republicans. How then would the Democratic Party gain the necessary votes to garner a filibuster-proof super majority? Without a massive popular mandate or a super majority, Democrats can kiss meaningful healthcare reform, tax code overhaul and pro environment legislation goodbye. I believe that Barack Obama can do both of those things, and he will accomplish what Hillary only promises.

Posted by: marcogori001 | February 23, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Wait. I get it, it all makes sense what the campaign is trying to do here. I thought they were just being hypocrites, but it is much more intricate. They were trying to turn Obama into Jesse Jackson, but that didn't work. Then they tried to turn him into Jimmy Carter and that didn't work.

Now they're trying to turn Barack Obama into Hillary Clinton! When HE becomes the Washington insider candidate of corruption, partisanship and dirty campaign tactics he'll be as unelectable as she is! Then she's sure to win.

I swear, every time I think the Clinton strategy is failing the big brains on the campaign team are always looking at the big picture.

Posted by: grimmix | February 23, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Wake up Obamamaniacs! He cannot stand up to scrutiny. Let the facts come out about Obama. He's not even an African-American. He is Arab-Amercan and too ashamed to even admit it! Who's kidding who here! If Obama wins the nomination, I am voting for McCain.

Posted by: ceojuliej | February 23, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

"Clinton committed a colossal blunder when she chose to rely on Mark Penn's horrendous campaign strategy."

... My thoughts exactly. She's lost the nomination because of the awful "expert" advice she received from those at the helms of her campaign management. This is one of the major reasons for my leaning toward Obama now. I'm afraid of the types of people she would entrust in the White House based off of how she's run her campaign. If she can't effectivley run a campign, how can she possibly have an effective administration? I voted for her on Feb. 5th because I thought she was the better candidate. But since then, everything has gone down hill. It's embarassing to see her resort to acting like a spoiled brat. I so looked forward to a woman President, but she's making women look bad and ineffective as leaders.

Posted by: cree27 | February 23, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

This is excellent news for Obama. It's free publicity for Obama because by using her dirty tactics, the negative facts about Hillary are even more transparent and people will talk about NAFTA and her health care mandates more. She should fire her chief campaign strategist, Mark Penn immediately for coming up with this strategy of attacking flyers. I just cannot believe that she paid Mark Penn more than $3.8 million dollars in fees for January alone. Is this the kind of advice he is giving her? I feel sorry for her. I think she should find a replacement for Mark Penn immediately. Her campaign strategist is not up to the mark. I also feel sorry for those thousand poor people, who borrowed to contribute $10 to her campaign while she is spending the money like it there's no tomorrow. $5000 bill for her in The Four Seasons in Las Vegas? Howard Wolfson, the communications director and a senior member of the advertising team, earned nearly $267,000 in January alone. His total, including the campaign's debt to him, tops $730,000. Is this the type of President who sucks up poor people money we want us to represent?

Posted by: sbgamatt | February 23, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

For years Hillary would rarely show her emotions. And now that she finally shows her anger, self pity, and hypocrisy, we finally find out why she so carefully hid her personality all these years. Is Hillary running for President, or Princess of America?

Posted by: JamesCaroll | February 23, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

This would distinctly be in the pot calling the kettle black realm.

I think a recent New Yorker blog is the best summation of the race so: "he's rubber and you're glue; everything you say bounces off of him and sticks to you."

As an Obama supporter, I'm sure that it is utterly maddening to Sen. Clinton's supporters that nothing seems to stick to him. I get it. It's incredibly frustrating and I can't even begin to understand why. Reagan was teflon. There are just some politicians that nothing sticks to.

And it certainly seems that everything sticks to Sen. Clinton. But, it's not slanted media coverage or vast conspiracies. It just is what it is.

It's like a person that you find yourself attracted to that has the undefinable certain something; something which draws you to them. He has it. She doesn't. Bill Clinton has it. Al Gore didn't [as a politician, anyway].

It's not that she doesn't have it that pushes people away, it's just that she seems so damn angry that someone else does.

Posted by: jeff.cronin | February 23, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

All Things Considered, February 13, 2008 · Political campaigns spend thousands, even millions of dollars to acquire good mailing lists.

Last year, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton took the unusual step of renting out some of her lists. The transaction once again highlights the Clintons' connections to a businessman who now faces questions from the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Reports from Clinton's campaign show that on Dec. 3, it collected payment for renting out three mailing lists, the sale of which netted them $8,225.

It was an unusual transaction, according to Roger Craver, a liberal guru of the political direct-mail industry.

"As a general rule, a campaign will not let its donor list out into the markets until the campaign is over," he said. "This is the mother's milk of small-gift fundraising, and they use these lists frequently."

There are no records that any other presidential candidates rented out mailing lists last year.

Several sources who work in political consulting and in direct mail, who would not speak for attribution, said they were surprised by the deal, as well as its low price.

According to one direct-mail professional, $800,000 would have seemed like a more plausible price for a quality list. A political consultant suggested that the list broker's unidentified client could have rented the list as a sample one -- to do a test-run mailing.

But most intriguing of all was the renter of the Clinton list: a list brokerage company that is a subsidiary of one of the data-collection industry titans, Info U.S.A.

Info U.S.A.'s CEO is Vinod Gupta, a close ally of both Clintons. Gupta's empire also includes the Opinion Research Corporation, which conducts the political polling for the television network CNN.

Vin Gupta has a long history of giving and raising campaign money for the Clintons, and gave $1 million for the 2000 Millennium Celebration, a New Year's Party thrown by the Clintons.

When he was president, Bill Clinton named Gupta to the Kennedy Center board of directors. Gupta also got to sleep in the Lincoln bedroom. He gave another million to the Clinton Presidential Library.

The library is run by the National Archives, but Bill Clinton raised the money for its construction and always refused to identify his major donors.

Last fall, ABC News reported that the library rented out a portion of its donor list to a list broker -- the same one that rented Hillary Clinton's campaign lists.

Gupta spent $900,000 of corporate money flying the Clintons to various destinations. The Clinton campaign said in May that Info U.S.A. had been reimbursed to comply with federal campaigning and ethics rules.

After the Clintons left the White House, Gupta hired Bill Clinton as a consultant. It's one of two continuing business relationships he has had since leaving office, and it has been worth $3.3 million, in addition to the options on 100,000 shares of stock.

When challenged about that outlay of cash to the former president, Gupta has said Clinton is worth $40 million to the company.

Kevin Starke is a stock analyst in Connecticut who follows Gupta's company.

"If it were me, and I had hired Bill Clinton to the tune of $3 million, I think I would try to make a fairly distinct case for why that was money well spent, and I'm not entirely clear on why he hasn't done so," Starke said.

The corporate spending on behalf of the Clintons helped fuel a shareholder lawsuit against Gupta and 10 corporate directors.

There are plenty of other allegations in the suit about homes, cars, and a yacht for Gupta. A Delaware chancery court judge dismissed some of the allegations involving the Clintons. But the case is still proceeding. It has led to an informal inquiry by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which is also asking if Gupta misspent corporate funds.

"It's not a company that's threatened with bankruptcy or anything like that. It needs probably to be run with more of a view toward generating value for all shareholders, and not just the main shareholder," Starke said.

Info U.S.A. did not respond to interview requests this week.

The Clinton campaign said Wednesday that the lists were rented out by her 2006 Senate campaign committee -- and that the rentals took place before she began her formal campaign for president last January.

That would mean the rental fees went unpaid for at least 11 months. Starke, the analyst, cites Info U.S.A. data showing that on average, it settles accounts within 64 days.

Posted by: themist | February 23, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

If you don't say nice things about obama, you are "RACIST" now days.

The first time in my life I will VOTE Republican

Posted by: ebubuk2004 | February 23, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

If that isn't the pot calling the Kettle Black (No pun intended), I don't know what is! The Clinton's have used seek and destroy tactics for years. To now hear Hilary cry 'victim' now is just too much to bear.

NEWS FLASH: Hilary you are losing. Hilary it's not all about you. You are not owed the presidency. Americans HOPE that Obama's inclusive message will help this country heal and move forward.

Obama has brought in millions of new voters... voters that will help us increase our majorities in congress next session.

Now stand back, withdraw, stop trying to destroy Obama... and let us move on to winning the presidency!

Posted by: stswork | February 23, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

"Let's hope Hillary gets elected, if not, you can kiss universal health care goodbye.
Posted by: svreader | February 23, 2008 04:00 PM"

Anyone who thinks we are going to get universal healthcare without transforming to a single-payer system is ignorant and naive. Hillary's last healthcare plan was a flop, and this one will be too. So will Obama's. But it doesn't mean he won't make a decent president. We aren't going to get universal healthcare in this country until we crush the Republican party and all the Republican-lite Democrats, and that is going to take years. The important thing for now is to get the Republicans out of the White House, and start to strengthen progressive Democrats in Congress.

Posted by: PutDownTheKoolaid | February 23, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Ok so NOW she decides these old mailers are " destructive " and has a temper tantrum . Let me guess , on March 3rd - she will cry !


BTW- I am not a delusional , duped , uninformed, ready to have buyers remorse voter !

Posted by: soflindie | February 23, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

If you are NOT for Obama, you are "RACIST" now days.

I will never Vote for obama

Posted by: ebubuk2004 | February 23, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

SVReader asks:

Can't we choose the smart one for once?
-------------------------------------------
I agree. . . . gw.--
I have been watching the Black Democratic whatever in Louisiana today, hoping to see Hillary there - I guess she will be there later.

But I noticed a lot of pent-up frustration within the AA community that has nothing to with Hillary, but has everything to do with past history.

What bothers me about the AA people being so hateful, and thinking that the "white people" cause all their misery is that I wasn't here when they were being kidnapped and brought to America to be slaves, if I was, I would have been talking just as fervently as I do on other issues on their behalf.

Most white Americans have a sense of decency and fairness about them - and race isn't the issue. Somehow we don't get any credit for that. We are all lumped together from the time of slavery to now.

I would not have condoned slavery. I do not condone a color line of employment, or non-employment I might say. I also don't condone it for myself, but I lived under the glass ceiling - making $350 a month sitting next to a guy doing the same exact job for $700 a month - interviewing people who wanted to get a new business license.

I was raising four children by myself and I had to work an evening job and weekend jobs just to have enough bus money to get back to my day job for the State of California.

I earned enough money to go to work - child care, bus fare, rent, utilities, etc., there was no money for school clothes, outings of any kind.

I could sit here and blame somebody else for my misfortune, but I kept on keeping on and my children, who are now grown, lived by my example, and they worked their way through college. They didn't sit around complaining about "Me, Me, Me," like Michelle Obama does (I have never been proud of America my whole adult life," and the way Obama does in his books.

I know the Obama's have climbed up to the mountain top, but they have no intention of taking any of the rest of us with them. gw.

I think, when the media kept asking if Barack was black enough, and Obama and Michelle and Oprah kept bring up the race card - Michelle asking on morning talk shows: They need to know this is possible.

Hillary isn't working on a regular campaign for the presidency, Hillary is working against very stiff odds - she can't say much of anything to make Obama play fair - he is always trying to "fix" the election - you can see that by the numerous memos they send out to the media to tell them what they can say and cannot say.

It is too bad this election has turned into such a complicated, twisted, event.

It is ridiculous that Texans get to vote twice, once in the day at the primary, and again at night at the caucuses.

It is ridiculous that Florida doesn't get to count their votes, have delegates to be seated at the convention. Why is it ridiculous? Because the Florida GOP-controlled legislature is the entity that set the date for the primary vote.

The Democratic voters and the Democratic party people did not have the power or the authority to set it. Now, in my opinion, we Americans should insist that those who didn't vote in Florida, who thought their vote wouldn't count, should be able to request an absentee ballot, vote and have their votes added to the votes already cast.

No fixing of that election - no redoing the election, just extend the date and add the ones who didn't vote already.

I don't know what the problem was in Michigan, but somebody needs to start asking, rather than spending all the media time and attention on McCain and his association with somebody 8 years ago. That is all we have seen all week.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 23, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Clinton has supporters who think with their own minds...Obama has followers who are willing to jump off an abyss blindly for him. All these pro Obama posts are evidence of this.

Shame on Barack Obama to come down from his pedestal and indulge in these tactics. What this shows is that HE KNOWS there is a pretty good chance he will loose Ohio and Texas even with all the endorsements and the media fawning all over him and he is resorting to all kind dirty Karl "Rovian" tactics. This is also evident by the elevated and arrogant tone of his followers in the blogs, lately. Well, followers, wake up and smell the coffee he is just one more politician desperately seeking power which will either ruin the democratic party or the United States of America.

Way to go Senator Clinton. You give them hell! And to Clinton Supporters, don't worry, I am sure there is much more to come from the Obama followers that will begin to show the voters out there the real truth. Now, let's see how the media handles this one. They have managed to excuse EVERYTHING the Obama camp has done up to now. So let's keep our fingers crossed for some REAL journalism and analysis. Wishful thinking? Perhaps.

Posted by: poh123 | February 23, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's health care plan WILL force people to buy policies they can't afford. Mandated health care means it would become a law... buy health insurance or be subject to fines and/or garnished wages. Essentially criminalizing millions of Americans. Now you tell me? In these times of economic struggling... people being laid off right and left, losing their homes, having massive heating bills, high gasoline prices and ever-rising grocery bills... who will suddenly have the extra funds to purchase the health insurance they haven't been able to afford previously? If this insurance is going to be so affordable that even the poorest among us can buy it... just how much is it going to cost, Hillary? $10 a month for a family of four? $150 a month? $300 a month? Give me a dollar figure.

Posted by: DogBitez | February 23, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Excuse me, "here", not "hear".

Posted by: PutDownTheKoolaid | February 23, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Just as with her voting record on the Iraq war, Hillary speaks from both sides of her mouth. I just cannot understand that she doesn't see that the American people are smart enough to see through her inconsistency.

Her record on NAFTA:

http://thepage.time.com/saturday-obama-campaign-release/

"2000: Hillary Clinton Claimed China"s Entry Into The World Trade Organization Would Be Good For American Workers Despite The Already Massive Trade Deficit With China. "I know many people, here in Western New York in particularly and Erie Country, are concerned about this vote, and I share the concerns that many of my supporters in organized labor have expressed to me, because I do think we have to make sure that we improve labor rights, we improve environmental standards in our bilateral and our multilateral trade agreements. But on balance, I"ve looked at this, I"ve studied it, I think it is in the interests of America and American workers that we provide the option for China to go into the WTO." [CNN, 4/26/2000]

2000: Hillary Clinton Supported Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) For China, Claimed It Would Create Leverage. "Senate candidate Hillary Clinton said Thursday she supported permanent normal trade relations for China, but slammed Beijing"s restrictive birthrate policies." [AFP, 5/25/00]

SOME FACTS ON CLINTON"S SUPPORT FOR NAFTA:

2006/2008: Newsday Reviewed Clinton"s Statements, Concluded She Supported NAFTA. According to a Newsday issues rundown, "Clinton thinks NAFTA has been a boon to the economy." Newsday wrote in 2008, the word "boon" was their "characterization of how we best understood her position on NAFTA, based on a review of past stories and her public statements." [New York Newsday, 9/11/06; Newsday blog, 2/15/08]

2003: Hillary Clinton Expounded on Benefits of NAFTA, Calling it An Important Legislative Goal. "Creating a free trade zone in North America"the largest free trade zone in the world"would expand U.S. exports, create jobs and ensure that our economy was reaping the benefits, not the burdens, of globalization. Although unpopular with labor unions, expanding trade opportunities was an important administration goal. The question was whether the White House could focus its energies on two legislative campaigns at once [NAFTA and health care]. I argued that we could and that postponing health care would further weaken its chances." [Living History, 182]

2003: Clinton Called NAFTA a "Victory" For President Clinton. In her memoir, published in 2003, Clinton wrote, "Senator Dole was genuinely interested in health care reform but wanted to run for President in 1996. He couldn"t hand incumbent Bill Clinton any more legislative victories, particularly after Bill"s successes on the budget, the Brady bill and NAFTA." [Living History, p.231]

1996: Clinton Said "I Think Everybody Is In Favor Of Free And Fair Trade. I Think NAFTA Is Proving Its Worth." A questioner pointed out that UNITE opposes the North American Free Trade Agreement, backed by the Clinton administration, on grounds it sends American jobs to Mexico. In March 1996, three years after President Clinton signed NAFTA into law, Hillary Clinton said, "I think everybody is in favor of free and fair trade. I think NAFTA is proving its worth," she said, adding that if American workers can compete fairly, they can match any competition. "That"s what a free and fair trade agreement like NAFTA is all about," she said. [AP, 3/6/96]

1996: Clinton "Vowed That Her Husband Would Continue To Support Economic Growth In South Texas Through Initiatives Such As The North American Free Trade Agreement." AP wrote, "Mrs. Clinton vowed that her husband would continue to support economic growth in South Texas through initiatives such as the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Rio Grande Valley empowerment zone, which allows tax breaks to businesses that relocate to the border." [AP, 11/2/96]

1996: Hillary Clinton "Touted" President Clinton"s Support for NAFTA, Saying it Would Reap Widespread Benefit. On a trip to Brownsville, Texas, Clinton "touted the president"s support for the North American Free Trade Agreement, saying it would reap widespread benefits in the region." [United Press International, 11/1/96]"

Posted by: carmen188 | February 23, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Nope. They just make sense.

Let's hope Hillary gets elected, if not, you can kiss universal health care goodbye.

Posted by: svreader | February 23, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

"Help me out.

Posted by: bnw173 | February 23, 2008 03:56 PM"

Well, if you "heard" that it was on the "front pages" of Chicago newspapers, don't you think you could GOOGLE up some Chicago newspaper web sites and see for yourself? How long do you think that would take? Five seconds?

Or are you just hear shoveling sleazy garbage at Obama?

Posted by: PutDownTheKoolaid | February 23, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse

I hope the irony of Senator Clinton's comment that Senator Obama is "using tactics that are straight out of Karl Rove's playbook" is not lost on anybody. How fitting will it be if the Clintons and their operatives are finally upended in Texas on March 4. Thank you, Senator Obama, for freeing us at last.

Posted by: TomJPyle | February 23, 2008 3:58 PM | Report abuse

I'm not sure which of Mrs. Clinton's recent implications to believe: is Obama too positive to go toe-to-toe with with the Republican attack machine, or is he the second Karl Rove?

Posted by: Peter20 | February 23, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

"We need her.
Its that simple.
Posted by: svreader | February 23, 2008 03:51 PM"

Well, svreader, the way things are going now, you aren't going to get her as president. Try to wrap your mind around that fact. Then decide whether you want to support Obama, or endure another Republican president. The choice seems clear to me.

By the way, your comments seem scripted to me.

Posted by: PutDownTheKoolaid | February 23, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Her sinking ratings and popularity are a direct reflection of her smugness and feelings of entitlement.

In that sense, she is just like George W. Bush.

Posted by: ceton | February 23, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

http://thepage.time.com/saturday-obama-campaign-release/

"2000: Hillary Clinton Claimed China"s Entry Into The World Trade Organization Would Be Good For American Workers Despite The Already Massive Trade Deficit With China. "I know many people, here in Western New York in particularly and Erie Country, are concerned about this vote, and I share the concerns that many of my supporters in organized labor have expressed to me, because I do think we have to make sure that we improve labor rights, we improve environmental standards in our bilateral and our multilateral trade agreements. But on balance, I"ve looked at this, I"ve studied it, I think it is in the interests of America and American workers that we provide the option for China to go into the WTO." [CNN, 4/26/2000]

2000: Hillary Clinton Supported Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) For China, Claimed It Would Create Leverage. "Senate candidate Hillary Clinton said Thursday she supported permanent normal trade relations for China, but slammed Beijing"s restrictive birthrate policies." [AFP, 5/25/00]

SOME FACTS ON CLINTON"S SUPPORT FOR NAFTA:

2006/2008: Newsday Reviewed Clinton"s Statements, Concluded She Supported NAFTA. According to a Newsday issues rundown, "Clinton thinks NAFTA has been a boon to the economy." Newsday wrote in 2008, the word "boon" was their "characterization of how we best understood her position on NAFTA, based on a review of past stories and her public statements." [New York Newsday, 9/11/06; Newsday blog, 2/15/08]

2003: Hillary Clinton Expounded on Benefits of NAFTA, Calling it An Important Legislative Goal. "Creating a free trade zone in North America"the largest free trade zone in the world"would expand U.S. exports, create jobs and ensure that our economy was reaping the benefits, not the burdens, of globalization. Although unpopular with labor unions, expanding trade opportunities was an important administration goal. The question was whether the White House could focus its energies on two legislative campaigns at once [NAFTA and health care]. I argued that we could and that postponing health care would further weaken its chances." [Living History, 182]

2003: Clinton Called NAFTA a "Victory" For President Clinton. In her memoir, published in 2003, Clinton wrote, "Senator Dole was genuinely interested in health care reform but wanted to run for President in 1996. He couldn"t hand incumbent Bill Clinton any more legislative victories, particularly after Bill"s successes on the budget, the Brady bill and NAFTA." [Living History, p.231]

1996: Clinton Said "I Think Everybody Is In Favor Of Free And Fair Trade. I Think NAFTA Is Proving Its Worth." A questioner pointed out that UNITE opposes the North American Free Trade Agreement, backed by the Clinton administration, on grounds it sends American jobs to Mexico. In March 1996, three years after President Clinton signed NAFTA into law, Hillary Clinton said, "I think everybody is in favor of free and fair trade. I think NAFTA is proving its worth," she said, adding that if American workers can compete fairly, they can match any competition. "That"s what a free and fair trade agreement like NAFTA is all about," she said. [AP, 3/6/96]

1996: Clinton "Vowed That Her Husband Would Continue To Support Economic Growth In South Texas Through Initiatives Such As The North American Free Trade Agreement." AP wrote, "Mrs. Clinton vowed that her husband would continue to support economic growth in South Texas through initiatives such as the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Rio Grande Valley empowerment zone, which allows tax breaks to businesses that relocate to the border." [AP, 11/2/96]

1996: Hillary Clinton "Touted" President Clinton"s Support for NAFTA, Saying it Would Reap Widespread Benefit. On a trip to Brownsville, Texas, Clinton "touted the president"s support for the North American Free Trade Agreement, saying it would reap widespread benefits in the region." [United Press International, 11/1/96]"

Posted by: Eyzwidopn | February 23, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

"Every time they debate, you see the real Hillary and the real Obama."


Heh...last time they debated, Hillary said she was honored to be on the stage with him Now she's saying "shame on you" to him. I do agree, though, that is pretty much what 'the real Hillary' is all about.

Posted by: ojordan3 | February 23, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

The pot calls the kettle names again, huh? Hillary, I thought your closing in the last debate was classy and heartfelt. I guess you are back to your old ways. I hope the people of TX and Ohio and Vermont and Rhode Island shut the nails into your political coffin. Be off with the Clintons!

Posted by: meldupree | February 23, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Does Hillary think she can just carve out her and her husband's staunch support of NAFTA from her "35 years" of experience?

Posted by: cjroses | February 23, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's election organization has not equaled Obama's. His youthful staff is running circles around Hillary's staff. The twenty and thirtysomethings are uniting for change. Can you blame them? We are leaving our children with a huge mess.

Posted by: RMB2 | February 23, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Another point about the political futures markets: InTrade has the eventual Democratic nominee trading at 65 to 35 to win the presidency, which defies the claim by Clinton supporters that Obama is somehow unelectable. Obama is also doing better than Clinton in polls on a general election match up against McCain. So I suggest that Clinton supporters try to calm down, and think about how they will vote when Obama runs against McCain, who is a certifiable war-mongering lunatic.

Posted by: PutDownTheKoolaid | February 23, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

It appears to me that Hildog is pocketing much of her campaign money....could she be a thief....running for president just so she can steal the campaign money....imho

Posted by: silverpanda | February 23, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

I am suspect of both these candidates and McCain is simply out of the question. Hillary seems like a sleazy bad loser and Obama I am just not sure. But I figure no one can be worse the Bush so I am forced to take a chance on Obama.

Posted by: matrox | February 23, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

I urge everone who is high on Obama to put down the crack pipe and think in terms of what will be best for themselves, the people they love, and our country.

Every time they debate, you see the real Hillary and the real Obama.

The real Hillary is brilliant statesman.
She knows the problems we face and how to fix them.

The real Obama is an actor and a salesman.
He's an empty suit without his writers and his teleprompter.

If they were both Doctors and you were choosing which one to save your life the choice would be obviously her.

America is facing life and death problems.
We need the "smartest kid on the block"

That's Hillary.

We need her.

Its that simple.

Posted by: svreader | February 23, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Here we see the real Hillary, the shameless, power hungry, desperate politician we all knew for years. You are on record supporting NAFTA until last year and what Obama said about your health care is right 100%. You accuse him of lacking substance but when he does, you get outraged. Every week you seem to be a different person. Which one are you for real? Now you have become cheap too with your rantings, not befitting someone who aspire to become the President. Shame on you and Bill for running a campaign which is disgraceful. With these rantings, people see a looser in you.

Posted by: jj2000 | February 23, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

TrutBeTold - Get real. That YouTube video is just some guy who doesn't like Obama and there's absolutely no authenticity to it. No major news organization has confirmed it's validity. But go ahead and continue to unload your hate-filled B.S. As the numbers already show, nobody's buying it this year.

Posted by: dc_counsel | February 23, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Hilloonary is delusional. She's been using unfair and false tactics since January. Now she's upset. Not to the Clintons: People in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones.

Posted by: kimberlyannj | February 23, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Nothing is false about the flyers. This is Hillary's way of using spin to attack her opponents. Even recently, Hillary was a strong supporter of NAFTA, which Bill Clinton signed. Now she says she is not? What a liar she is? NAFTA caused hundreds of thousands of job losses across the US especially in Ohio, where there were massive plant shut downs. Many families lost their incomes. On the health care front, Hillary's mandate will force people to buy health insurance they cannot afford and will garnish wages from those who cannot want to buy health insurance. Those are solid facts. There's no way to argue that they aren't. Hillary!! You are a biggest liar.

Posted by: sbgamatt | February 23, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Amazing (if ironic) that she grows a pair when Obama isn't in her face. She had several opportunities to take him to task over his campaigning in Austin but chose the affected diplomatic road. Give it up Clinton, it's too late, and as always, contrived. The voters are already choosing him over you. Concede so that Obama can consolidate his coalition and direct his attention to the aged mayfly McCain, who needs to be cut down to size, what with his self-righteous, maverick-come-true-conservative postering. Clinton, you're yesterday's distraction, and are hurting the party with your stubborn sense of entitlement!

Posted by: Quino | February 23, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

screader..a braniac would not build her campaign on experience knowing that the end game will be with McCain and he HAS experience in spades. How does the brainiac with all the connections and campaign experience loose to a start-from-scratch Obama? I think it may be that the Obama is the bigger brainiac. Being the editor of the Harvard Law Review is no small accomplishment. He is very thoughtful and he has the brains and presence of mind to look at the end game. His policies on his websites are well thought out and address not only the current situation but the end-game. Hillary is part of the check the winds (polls) and react style of politics. No worry about the end-game. We need someone who is thinking of the end-game long term. We need someone who listens to others. We need someone who is willing to change because they become convinced that the end game won't turn out right and not because they want to the next move to look good.

Posted by: DancinTea | February 23, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

The fliers are old! Why are they being brought up now? Could it be that Hillary is at the end of her ropes? Is it finally sinking in that she is losing, mainly due to her sneaky tactics? Oh well, desperate people do desperate things. That's it! She is desperate!

Posted by: Debmood | February 23, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Shameless, Hillary, straight up.

Shame on you for manufacturing a whole host of unfounded accusations just because you're trailing in delegates. That's not the kind of leadership we need in November.

Posted by: jpb73 | February 23, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

I think it is too late for Hillary.

I just started an open 'group' on Facebook "Democrats for reality." Sign up bring your square friends.

So if you are young enough we can go vent there. This would be for people who really don't like the shim sham flim flam of the Obama-lamas.

Sorry I am just not as poetic as Obama.

Posted by: mul | February 23, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of Rovian tactics, how about the effort by Clinton allies in Nevada, endorsed by the Clinton campaign after the fact, to disenfranchise casino workers whose union had endorsed the wrong side? Bill Clinton got into a heated discussion with a reporter on it. Fortunately, the lawsuit lost. The Clinton campaign has gone increasingly negative over the last several weeks. They can hardly howl in protest now when inconvenient facts are brought to the attention of the voters.

Posted by: karlanne1 | February 23, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton's campaign is collapsing, and she knows it. Her attacks are growing wild and desperate, and she is looking more pathetic with each passing day. InTrade's political futures market has Obama up 83 to 17 on Clinton. Just a few days ago it was 75 to to 25. I suggest that Clinton's supporters accept the fact that Obama will be the nominee. If they don't want to vote for him, and prefer that another Republican war maniac becomes president, so be it.

Clinton committed a colossal blunder when she chose to rely on Mark Penn's horrendous campaign strategy.

Posted by: PutDownTheKoolaid | February 23, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Isn't it strange that the man who talks of hope, optimism, transparency, truth and courage is using the same pharmaceutical companies type attack on Hillary to degrade her message of universal care?

The say you can't fool all the people all the time, but Obama is quite successful because he has lulled the media to deep sleep. They are only interested in humiliating Hillary, nothing else.

This primary season will go down in history as the one when an ambitious man systematically misled and misinformed the nation to become the president and very few people noticed it.

Posted by: ithinker | February 23, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

What has Mrs. Clinton produced during the last six years that represent the interest of the lower 97% of U S Citizens? Nothing of any merit! It is time for a change. We do not need more of the same. What happened to the idea of Universal Health Care? What happened to the idea of Medicare covering every citizen? Bill Clinton gave us WTO which is costing millions of jobs. What will Mrs. Clinton give us? Will she take us out of WTO or will she be a lackey for corporate America?

Posted by: eingreifen | February 23, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

I agree that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. So why is Obama throwing them?

Vigor claims that Hillary is willing to destroy the Democratic party to support her needs; any support to objectively prove this claim or is this claim like Obama's campaign, all smack no substance.

When Hillary Clinton started getting tough in her campaign, the whole Democratic Party chastised her and claimed that she would divide the party. Obama resorts to those attacks and the Democratic Party just shrugs their shoulders.

There is no difference between Obama supporters and the religious right. They both think that they are holier than God and preach the virtues of goodness. But everytime they get caught with their pants down, they have to develop some nostalgic answer to divert people away from their actions.

I have been in Illinois my whole life and I never even heard of Obama before 2005. If he is so great and wonderful, why is Democratic Pary in Illinois so dysfunctional? What lasting change has Obama ever brought to Illinois. Instead we have increased taxes, corruption, and patronage, the antithesis of good government. Since Obama campaigned for corrupt Illinois officials that have created this mess and seeks their support for President, Obama, in my opinion brings nothing new to politics. In fact, he is the very byproduct of old-school politics that he criticizes Clinton and McCain for.


Enough Hypocrisy.....Enough Obama!!!

Posted by: PeteIlly | February 23, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

She left the White House screaming foul, and she is trying to get back in screaming foul. I'm guess I'm at a loss to explain what she did in between...spend $106-million?

Posted by: Vunderlutz | February 23, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

What does Obama know about anything? All he talks about is "change" and "hope" and nonsense with smoke and mirrors. If he is elected do you want four years of somebody learning how to do everything?

Posted by: rbgu1999 | February 23, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

clinton is not winning in fact she is falling futher back as we speak, so I would think this is going to get just plain dirty before it's over with. But if I were her I wouldn't be making any commets about the joke of a plan her last health care plan turned out to be. And so far this one dosen't look any better.

Posted by: usaII | February 23, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

I will vote for McCain before I vote for Obama..!! No way will I join this garbage he spouts. He cocks his head and waits, lifting his nose in the air before he speaks. He smells of all the Chicago Machine. I am a Hillary supporter.

Posted by: Lucille4 | February 23, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

I was P'd off when Bush 1 was pushing NAFTA and the New World Order. I was even more P'd off when Clinton signed it into law despite all the opposition. It was a total sell out on Clintons part. Where was Hillary when all this happened? She ran her mouth and was very outspoken all through the Clinton presidency but I never heard her oppose NAFTA. Just Say No to Clinton!

Posted by: matrox | February 23, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

brigittpj:

In memoriam:
"We are the ones we've been waiting for" - Lisa Sullivan, Activist 1961-2001
---------------------------------------------
Thanks for telling us who wrote that memorable line that Obama uses. gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 23, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Hogwash!

Yeah Hillary, for you the truth is destructive!

Posted by: dogsbestfriend | February 23, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

A Clinton running around screaming "shame on you"...worked wonders in South Carolina.....

Posted by: ojordan3 | February 23, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

It takes a Clinton to COMPLEATE AND SIGN INTO LAW a Bush trade agreement.

Clinton Dispenses NAFTA Pact to Skeptical AFL-CIO

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V113/N47/nafta.47w.html


President Clinton, insisting that "I would never knowingly do anything to cost an American a job," Monday defended his support for the North American Free Trade Agreement before a labor audience fearful that the controversial pact will funnel work to Mexico.

NAFTA endgame - Bill Clinton's maneuverings to achieve passage of NAFTA in the House of Representatives

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n22_v45/ai_14667450


"...Indeed, the organizing theme of his domestic program-security for Americans in exchange for their risk-taking for the future--was dreamed up largely as a way to sell NAFTA, and to link it to the health-care program."

Posted by: brodier | February 23, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is 100% correct, but if she's not careful, it could play right into his hands and backfire.

The best strategy for her is to focus on the specifics on the issues.

Its impossible to spend even five minutes with Hillary talking about policy without being realizing how incredibly deep a thinker she is.

She looks at tough policy issues like a chess grandmaster looks at a chessboard.

She's like FDR in a pant suit.

America needs her brain.

Its going to take a brainiac to get us out of the mess the idiots in the whitehouse have gotten us into.

Can't we choose the smart one for once?

Posted by: svreader | February 23, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Fellow Clintonites,

By now it should be apparent to you that you cannot reason with Obamamoonies. They attack our candidate irrationaly because ,deep down inside, they know that she is the most qualified to be president.

This pervasive thought gnawing at the backs of their minds sends them into fits of delirious frenzy, causing vicious, unprovoked attacks.

They try to reason with themselves and struggle frantically with why, but alas to no avail. They have been caught up in the movement and must dutifully float along until the truth finally hits them like the proverbial ton-of-bricks.

Posted by: brigittepj | February 23, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Hes a ruthless lawyer with a monstrous ego, No record of accomplishment, and is willing to cripple the Democratic Party to satisfy "His Needs". Hes no different than Karl Rover himself.

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Its called xeroxing. I love that word.

Posted by: bnw173 | February 23, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

"America wants to know: where's more media coverage on this????
We deserve to hear the truth!"

Try whitehouse dot com...all the gullible idiots are over there today, and I've been having a lot of fun with them!

Posted by: flarrfan | February 23, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

bnw 173

I think the point is that she's expressed support for NAFTA recently...

Posted by: ussamsarmy | February 23, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

rn-ragan said:

"Youtube generation is getting there news from youtube not from the candidates. These children that I will call them are college grades that don't know there history, can't read a map or tell you where panama is, and we are counting on them to vote in this election. My God hell is coming to American by the Name of Obama in my opinion. The pastor for desastor beleive in me and you will receive what you deserve... Got Bush here we go again...."

Well, at least the You-Tube generation can spell...

Posted by: ussamsarmy | February 23, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

She's got a lot of NERVE after her mailings in Wisconsin with the pictures of little poor children asking the reader which ones Obama thinks "don't deserve health care". Aren't destructive tactics the ONLY thing Clinton has been using on the campaign trail?

Why Why Why does she continue to shoot herself in the foot? Hasn't she learned ANYTHING?

Posted by: grimmix | February 23, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Way to go Hillary. Give them Hell. Don't let up. Wasn't the NAFTA bill signed in the 90s when she was first lady? I thought she didn't get credit in experience when she was first lady? Add 16 years experience Hillary. You balanced the budget. Left a surplus. Left great economy. Etc. That will trump Obama, big time on experience. They have to count it. They can't have it both ways. One minus, but many, many pluses.

Posted by: bnw173 | February 23, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Clinton - "unloads"?

*snicker*

Posted by: treetopflyer | February 23, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

She's a ruthless lawyer with a monstrous ego, NO record of accomplishment, and is willing to cripple the Democratic Party to satisfy "Her Needs". She's no different than Karl Rover herself.

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Be gone

Posted by: vigor | February 23, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

I believe Hillary is just upset that she does not have any money to send out any campaign literature. After all are not the 527 that was organized for her going to be running ads. My answer to her is Yes, Hillary you still have an opponent that will continue to campaign against you throughout the race. What were you thinking that you would just be able to walk right into the nominee position. Get over it. I am sure Senator Obama will be ready for your outrage at the next debate. My advice will be for you to graciously bring it up and not turn into a pit bull. Oh well, that is okay, just be yourself.

Posted by: ddraper81 | February 23, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Did I read this right? Is she asking him to debate with her over his behavior? At first she told him to meet her in Texas, "because they were ready" and he did. It was a good debate, but unfortunately it did little to bring down his momentum. So, I WAS looking forward to their second debate next week to see what she had to say since she was the one who wanted the debates.

Now she wants him to be nice again and come meet her in Ohip so that she can ridicule him over something that made her mad? All of this over some mailings? Geez, she has truly lost it. Hillary, I voted for you!! And I'm truly sorry I did.

Posted by: cree27 | February 23, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Shoeimaw..I agree..politics are changing...not sure Obama will be able to totally turn the tide..but we need to move beyond the last 20 years of the Bush-Clinton politics of vilification. I had to laugh when she invoked Karl Rove -- it takes one to know one.

We don't need another 8 years of one party vilifying the other side to the point that we cut off the proverbial nose of the country to spite its face. We have had so many missed opportunities through this inane party bickering. All that seems to matter to these dyed in the wool party ideologues is getting their guy or gal in the White House. From there all the monies flow. What is best for the country is secondary. If the other party has a good idea, an idea that can make life better for everyone, the party ideologue's response is to do everything in their power to make sure it does not come to fruition.

It's time we wake up and insist that our elected officials do what is best for the country first and foremost. We must stop re-electing party ideologues who robotically vote for the best interests of their party rather than the best interests of the country.

We have to stop rewarding ideologues with our votes and we have to stop loving the fight so much that we enable it.

It is time to turn the page. Barrack is at least trying to turn the page. Hillary is happy to stay on the page we've been on. She has her boxing gloves out and is ready to fight the Republicans and the Republican attack machine.

The voters are speaking: we are tired of the attack machines of BOTH parties. We are tired of party above country politics! We are tired of party ideologues emboldening our enemies and creating more enemies by bashing the country and its leaders to strike blows at the other party. We are tired of privileges and perks to those who enable party ideologues to destroy this country one petty, spiteful fight at a time.

Posted by: DancinTea | February 23, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

900 bits of misleading information in call for war

What happened the news of 900+ bits of (erroneous, but presented as fact) information supporting the need to strike Iraq? It is too big a story to be suppressed forever.
I mean, I was fooled too! And resent it!
Barak will have to explain opposition to striking Iraq in the face of all the "intelligence".

Barak is not inoculated against questions about inexperience and being called a naive liberal as Clinton may be.

Most of all, he spoke against giving a President the ability to strike a target we were told in a State of the Union Address was seeking nuclear ability and might already have dirty bomb material to give Osama Bin Laden.

McCain will work that question of judgment.

Will we really elect a President who would do nothing when faced with similar situations (like Iran)? Would he stutter around and sit on his hands in other times of national crisis?

Posted by: CliffinWA | February 23, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Oh man this is funny. The Clinton's need to take a close look in the mirror. If anyone is divisive and Rovian it is them. If Hillary were to squeak her way to the nomination I would vote for Nader or McCain. America has had enough of Billary for one lifetime.

Posted by: MarcMyWords | February 23, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Obama is such a over-hyped airbubble. The sooner americans realize that, the better. If he is elected and wins, we are in for a wild ride. He barely has anything better to offfer but hours after hours BS in front a crowd.

Posted by: cosymoon | February 23, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

DancinTea, well said!

These mailers have been out there for weeks!! And it's only now, the day after polls show Obama closing in on her in Texas and Ohio that she suddenly becomes "outraged"?

Her "outrage" is as contrived as her line about "Xerox".

When will she and Bill just go away??!!

Posted by: KAM3 | February 23, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Well, it's about time. Hillary must undermine Obama's anti-establishment rhetoric -- which is assailable -- if she hopes to have any prayer of winning. At the same time, she must portray herself as more personable. Shifting strategy at this point may not be enough, but it's a start.

Posted by: mikejd | February 23, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Watching Hillary Clinton's press conference accentuates everything Barack Obama has been saying about Washington and politics.

These mailers have been part of the Obama campaign for several primaries. (Whay are they suddenly shocking to her?)

The mailers make two points: (1) Clinton has supported and promoted NAFTA; and (2)Obama's health plan does not threaten penalties for those who do not purchase health care -- even if the person believes he or she can't afford it.

There is nothing new in these mailers and there is nothing even arguably misleading or false. They are accurate as to facts, and mainly expressive of Obama's opinions about these particular issues.

Clinton's tirade that Obama is engaging falsehoods and "Karl Rove" politics -- is itself right out of the phony Karl Rove playbook. For weeks on the ropes, Clinton has attempted to "make news" by pretending she has just discovered something sinister about Obama. It is the same old same old-- and confirms Obama's core theme -- Clinton is about herself -- Obama is trying to make this campaign about change.

Posted by: jadkisson1 | February 23, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's tirade would be hilarious if it wasn't such a serious issue. Her health care plan would mandate that everybody carry it, rather they can afford it or not. Mr. Obama's plan is NOT a mandate!
Hillary's screaming and hollering is not going to get her any votes. When I heard her on CNN, I thought to myself...hmmm, she's totally lost it. I don't think I want a President who yells and screams everytime something does not go her way or when her feelings are hurt. Then on the other hand I figure, if she's going to go out, she'll go out with a bang!

Obama 2008!

Posted by: Debmood | February 23, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Two faced nonsense from the Clinton camp. These mailings are simply accurate. I guess they're trying to "re-shape reality" (lie), since reality is not on their side.

-Peter Fitzgerald

Posted by: fox_qajgev | February 23, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Beren | February 23, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Just one more fake, scripted, diatribe from the Clinton campaign. I wonder how many times she rehearsed being outraged. People see right through her veneer. She worked for 35 years in the public interest. Apparently, it was not out of altruism. Her message seems to be 'You owe me the nomination.'

Posted by: n2itiveus | February 23, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Dear rn_ragan,

Kindly learn to spell and get a grip on grammar before insulting the intelligence of others. The word is "their," not "there" if you want to show possession, and I assume you meant to refer to "grads" rather than "grades." I point this out merely because I am amused by the irony of your post. Oh, and thank you; you make me feel so young!

:)

Come get a free education at:

http://scarlettswhirled.blogspot.com/

Regards
-=-
Scarlett

Posted by: ScarlettHill | February 23, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

We need to be able to make "an INFORMED decision". This is what constitutes freedom for me ~ being free to choose. But freedom comes with a price. The price is PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. That, for me, means making the time to research and read about each candidate, their policies, their platforms and gain knowledge of each of them.

We have to assess their character based upon their actions through the lens of our own experiences to ascertain who we each believe would best guide and govern this country.

The Internet is an excellent place for researching & reading about candidates' positions.....

I respect everyones' right to making their own decision, doing their own research.

What follows is some that I have come across:

Re: Healthcare:

It seems we might have had healthcare back in the 1990's EXCEPT that HRC wanted ONLY her healthcare plan:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/opinion/05brooks.html?_r=1&em&oref=slogin

On HRC approving NAFTA:

http://www.bloombergnews.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aTRoX.lYkNsU&refer=home

On Mailers:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/clintons-new-an.html

We, who are so blessed to have access to computers for blogging, can also read & research.


Posted by: DariMD | February 23, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse


Another case of her making a mountain out of mo-hill. Another proof of her inability to go beyond the last 20 years of Bush-Clinton scorched earth politics.

She is so predictable. Every speech will have a story about some American in some predicament and she wants to do something to help them. She has a bright idea about how to fix this problem. She has the Clinton-Gingrich disease: lots of bright ideas about others should live their lives. She'll smile at you but you are never sure if it is a smile or sneer. Watch her in the debates...a lot more sneering at Obama then genuine smiling.

The NAFTA thing is too sweet: Madame have your cake and eat it too is alive and well. When it suits the prevailing political winds, she claims "experience" credit for her husband's years as governor and president. When it doesn't, she claims -- oh, I wasn't really part of that decision by my husband's administration. So what is she going to tell us now, "I used to whisper in Bill's ear that NAFTA was a bad idea."

Get real. Her 35 years of experience are not 35 years of being responsible for making the decisions and the fallout of those decisions. Her 35 years of experience have not been being responsible for a budget or appointing people to run offices.

It's mostly 35 years of cheerleading, being an arm chair quarterback rating those who are making the decisions or being an activist complaining about how someone is not doing a good job. It is not experience being the one where the buck stops at your desk. The only experience she has is her years in the senate which aren't that great. Her senatorial record is mediocre. She has only had 5 sponsored bills passed and only one was even moderately substantive. This statistic tells a lot about how much she doesn't know how to get things done. If she can't get her bills through a Democratically controlled Senate, what makes her think she can get them through when she is president?

Posted by: DancinTea | February 23, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

This is classic Hillary Clinton...

Attack! Attack! Attack! Distract! Distract! Distract!

Meanwhile, Obama is 11-0! Right now, Superdelegates are flocking to Obama. The shift in support shows real character. They are truly patriotic do not want to overrule the voice of the people. Texas Rep. Aaron Pena, who recently endorsed Hillary Clinton, issued the following statement:

"I think last night's debate in Austin was a turning point in this campaign. I made a commitment to Hillary Clinton and I must maintain it. I gave my word. However, as an observer, it appears to be increasingly evident who is going to win." The next day he spoke at a Barack Obama rally.

Bottom line: Hillary did what she always does - GO NEGATIVE - and it backfired. Deal with it!

The MSNBC Hillary Clinton "documentary" features one of Hillary's closest friends saying (with pride), almost word for word: "Hillary learned (in Arkansas) how to win elections. Go negative and attack your opponent in a personal way!"

I guess in "Billaryland," you stick with what you know. Except that American politics is changing, and the Clintons are left looking like they didn't get the memo.

"Solutions not speeches"..." Good works, not good words"... "Time to get real"... Give us a break!

Hillary, please, for once, listen to THE PEOPLE and graciously step aside before you tear apart the party. Thank you!

Posted by: shoemiaw | February 23, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Billary is ridiculous. Voters are not dumb (at least the voters for Obama). She has NOTHING left to campaign on so fake anger and tears is ALL she has left. It will not work to get her votes. Everyone knows that she has the same ads against Obama. Complete waste of time to try to get voters by pretending to take some kind of hihg road.

Posted by: donald_jones | February 23, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

You Obama supporters are delusional! He is a FRAUD. He has zero substance and regurgetates everything Hillary says and Edwards said before he dropped out. Watch the debates next time and listen, really listen. She explains what she is going to do and how she is going to do it, i.e., the process (like Edwards did). Obama on the other hand speaks in fragments and buzz words. Obama is the the democratic version of George W. Seriously, in the next debate....listen!

Posted by: bettiboop70 | February 23, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Even when Obama is attacking the headline is "Hillary Attacks" if she responds to his attack. Your blatant bias at the Post and throughout the media has been noted by many. But you win...what can we do against the concerted efforts of the media to get their guys (McCain and Obama) nominated. Note to Obama supporters - once Obama is the nominee, he'll be on the receiving end of all this bias from their real hero - St. John of McCain.

Posted by: JimSheridan | February 23, 2008 3:18 PM | Report abuse

"This is hilarious!!"

Actually, I believe the term is "Hillary-ous."

Posted by: flarrfan | February 23, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Well where is Obama when he says he is for the Afraca Americans yet you think he really care then Why is Hillary clinton at the black forum, and not Obama ?

Youtube generation is getting there news from youtube not from the candidates. These children that I will call them are college grades that don't know there history, can't read a map or tell you where panama is, and we are counting on them to vote in this election. My God hell is coming to American by the Name of Obama in my opinion. The pastor for desastor beleive in me and you will receive what you deserve... Got Bush here we go again....

Posted by: rn_ragan | February 23, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

The desperation of the Clinton campaign is perfectly clear in the way it flip-flops all over the place. One moment Clinton is saying she is proud to be on stage with Obama; the next she is acting like he's someone for whom she has no respect whatsoever. By their fruits etc. etc. What do the candidates' campaign styles tell us about how they might run the country. Who's running a calm, consistent, successful campaign, being fiscally responsible with other people's money, and getting the job of campaigning done right? Who has more delegates, primary and caucus wins, and superdelegate support? Who has the crossover appeal we need to get things done? IN STARK CONTRAST, who's desperate and in debt, losing more support every day, and blaming everyone but her own bad management?

http://scarlettswhirled.blogspot.com/

Posted by: ScarlettHill | February 23, 2008 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Here is another example of her campaign misguiding her. Those mailers are nothing new. Why hasn't she addressed this issue before now? Moreover, she has said that she would consider going after people's wages if they did not enroll in her health care plan. She said that during a nationally televised debate. And to argue that she didn't expressly use the word "boon" (the quotation marks are mine not hers) is like her saying that she supported NAFTA but she used a synonym for boon not the specific word itself. Come on! So now she wants to debate his tactics. Did her campaign miss again how she connects with voters? She needs to stay away from the bitter, caustic language and attacks from him and focus on revealing who she is to the public.

Posted by: setariq | February 23, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

I Am A Lifelong (65 years) Democrat 3rd generation Floridian.... I Will Not Vote For OBAMA in November.

Posted by: rmcnicoll | February 23, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Hillary has no class and no grace. She also is apparently so delusional that she doesn't understand she is burying herself. I live in NY and will not vote for her relection if she keeps denying the obvious.

Posted by: queenskid | February 23, 2008 2:53 PM | Report abuse

How about the blatantly false mailers she sends out the day before any given primary or caucus about Obama's present votes in the Illinois senate? But she's angry because his mailers about her are true?

Posted by: kurtrk | February 23, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Those who thought she was giving up on Texas better think again. Hillary is not going to just give-up, these reports aside:

The Home Stretch- Hillary's Personal Alamo:

http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=53

Posted by: davidmwe | February 23, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

The Hillary camp can't handle the truth about her policy positions. Hillary is going to garnish wages of everyone who don't have health insurance. Moving a step beyond this philosophical argument is a bigger question. What happens when millions more people opt out of their existing plans for the government plans that may be better? Instead of 47 million, what if 60 million or more people get on the mandated healthcare plan? How will costs be covered?

Hillary has publicly spoke fondly of NAFTA in the past but change her position in the last 4 or so years, since contemplating running for the presidency in 2004 or 2008. Attached is good piece showing Hillary's past support of NAFTA.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/hillary-clinton-pretends-_b_86747.html

Posted by: ajtiger92 | February 23, 2008 2:46 PM | Report abuse

She criticizes him for lacking in substance and then when he provides it, she accuses him of "dirty politics". Although she may think she can "fool all the people, all the time", I think the American people are too savvy for her nonsense in this day and age. After this too fails, she will have succeeded in flushing her career.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 23, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

This is hilarious!! NO SHAME! The Clintons have NO SHAME whatsoever.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 23, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

Thank you, Hillary! Often times Democrats do not stand up for themselves when attacked. Good for you. People need to know how fake Obama is. He's just the same old politician in a shiny new wrapper.

In memoriam:
"We are the ones we've been waiting for" - Lisa Sullivan, Activist 1961-2001

Posted by: brigittepj | February 23, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

So, Clinton is outraged that Obama is telling the truth about her.

Posted by: dope | February 23, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company