Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Closing Arguments for Super Tuesday

By Zachary A. Goldfarb
Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) said Sunday that he could unite the Republican Party, but Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, said McCain was only wearing "conservative garb."

On the Democratic side, Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) said that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) had a "history" of galvanizing Republicans, while Clinton said she is experienced both in policy and in taking fire from the opposition.

The leading candidates for each party's presidential nomination used appearances on the Sunday talk shows both to underscore why they should be elected and to portray their rival in starkly different terms. The stakes were high for the candidates just ahead of Super Tuesday, when nearly half of the United States will cast votes.

Continue reading at The Talk >>

By Post Editor  |  February 3, 2008; 2:09 PM ET
Categories:  A_Blog , Sunday Talkies  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: At Missouri Church, Clinton Talks of History
Next: Super Bowl Super Tuesday Spots

Comments

"Hillary Clinton is not perfect...."

NOW THAT IS AN UNDERSTATEMENT, svreader!

Hillary is deeply if not fatally flawed. Need proof? She can't raise the support she needs from within the Democrat coalition let alone from independents to win the nomination outright. Probably noone is more surprised than Bill and Hillary that she hasn't closed the sale yet. Her approval rating does not near 50%; she is stuck with a low ceiling. like John Cusack's character in "Being John Malkovich." If a 3rd Party candidate enters the race, Hillary could possible win the general with a plurality of te votes, but then she won't have a convincing mandate.

Further, those flacking here for Hillary can not think of anyone else but Obama to propose as her VP. That means that Hillary needs Barack Obama's growing coalition. She needs Barack Obama badly, but Barack Obama does not need Hillary. He take's her constituents with him by virtue that the candidates' respective platform have scant differences.

Now that Obama is in it to win it, he will cartch her sometime between now and the convention. Bill's misdealings in Kazakhstan and his sagging populariy, due to his dirty politicking, will help drag her approval ratings down even further.

Hillary is going down, and that is what frightens the Hillary people. And just as Hillary does, they try to project their fear onto the electorate, or else they make shallow and preposterous offers of unity and a unity ticket. Obama would be stained like Al Gore with the Clinton bathtub ring and fundraising scandals; and having less power in a Hillary administration than Bill Clinton, Obama would be committing political suicide.

SUGGESTING OBAMA FOR VP IS A HILLARY RUSE TO MARGINALIZE OBAMA AGAIN. BESIDES THAT, SHE WON'T EVEN SAY THAT OBAMA IS QUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT.

Obama is in it to win it; and be certain of this: he will not pick Hillary to be his VP. That means that Hillary's covetous ambition to be president will be over after the Democratic convention.

NEED MORE PROOF? "I am sure that the American people are ready to elect a woman president; I'm not sure that this is right woman." Susan Sarandon - a REAL activist

Posted by: Anadromous2 | February 4, 2008 1:06 AM | Report abuse

svreader, you blew your cover on another thread when you said you're looking forward to President Chelsea.

You're a Clinton family retainer. Do you wear their livery? Carry their coat of arms? Stand behind the Clinton throne and gently fan them with giant palm leaves?

But those of us who aren't devoted old servants and courtiers of an aristocratic dynasty have powerful reasons for preferring Obama.

Hillary Clinton is a war-hawk, and the only thing that would stop her attacking Iran is the fact that she'd go down to McCain in the general election first ... and he would then start a war with Iran.

How can the Clinton supporters willfully ignore all these polls showing that Obama is much stronger against McCain? Are they really willing to let the GOP keep the White House, just so that Lady Hillary may accede to her inheritance?

Posted by: kenonwenu | February 4, 2008 12:50 AM | Report abuse

Hillary is the real candidate for "Change"
and she knows how to make it happen!!!

Posted by: svreader | February 4, 2008 12:31 AM | Report abuse

Vote for the most competent candidate.

Vote for Hillary Clinton!!!

Posted by: svreader | February 4, 2008 12:27 AM | Report abuse

Let me see as far as i see it
people voting for hillary say so because of Experience lets see:
failed bar exam passed on 3rd attempt, worked at Walmart(anti union) married Bill, went to white house as first lady tried health reform and failed miserably, couple began scheming for white house after nearly being impeached, senate( Has less legislative experience than Obama)
But i guess what she means is name recognition, my wife is an opthalmologist just because im a spouse that doesn't mean i know how to remove a cataract.
Woman President:
I agree America is ready for a woman president, but won't it be nice if we had one who got there on her own two feet.
Frankly not this woman
Healthcare:
Plan is impractical and it has no choice you cant fine or garnish wages, people are having a tough time as it is in debt,loosing homes, its failed in MA
Character:
Cold nothing like her husband,
unlikeable and would awake the big sleeping Republican hit squad.
Nostalgia:
The good old Clinton days, this is the biggie, this is all what her candidacy is about in a nutshell.
A) Were not voting for Bill Clinton, and you had your chance so don't be greedy for a presidency, America in not bankrupt of leadership and will survive without you
Just run your foundation from the millions you got from Boratgate and other unscrupulous deals

Posted by: Phoenix4 | February 4, 2008 12:23 AM | Report abuse


I am having a difficult time separating the Media fascination with Obama which I believe is fueling his rise in the polls. Where is the critical analysis of his record. What for example happens if he wins the nomination. His resume and experience is a thin as Frederick's of Hollywodd night garment. Did the Dems not learn anything about Kerry and Gore. They fell short under the microscope on substantive issues and history. I think Obama is a chrismatic individual and can inspire. This however does not lead to governing ability which I think he has zero experience. I would feel much more confortable if he had been a governor, a longer serving senator, and done more with his life. Sorry, but he reminds me of the movie The Great White Hope, with race reversed.
Don't get me wrong, I would love to see him in 2012 tearing the GOP a new behind. Sorry, I can't vote for him, the phrase Not ready for Prime Time comes to mind.

I do however give him credit for galvanizing an enthusiastic following. I would put him on HRC as VP and give him a substantial role in government to prove himself. He brings something to the table, but not enough.

Last but no least, lets talk about a possible HRC cabinet:

Vice President: Obama
Secretary of Defense: Joe Biden or Wes Clark
Health and Human Services: Mario Cumo,JR
Secretary of State: Bill Richardson
Treasury: Robert Rubin, from Bill's days
Veterans Affairs: Max Cleland
Education Secretary: Donna Shala from Bill's Days

Dept of Interior: Brian Swietzer Gov. of Montana

Attorney General: John Edwards

Homeland Security: Wes Clark

Dept Of Transporation: Mark Warner of VA

Energy Secetary: Al Gore

UN Ambassador: Bill Clinton, if this is legal

CIA Director: Ken Starr, just joking

Posted by: butcher_dn | February 4, 2008 12:20 AM | Report abuse

Blueboat - you might want to rethink your thesis. Obama's strongest support is amongst those with graduate degrees.

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | February 4, 2008 12:05 AM | Report abuse

We need to elect most competent leader we can get.

Vote for Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: svreader | February 3, 2008 11:45 PM | Report abuse

Blueboat - one can't use 'simple' arithmetic on statistics like that. One ends up making so many hidden assumptions that the final figures are meaningless.

svreader, are you suggesting that women are not a reliable voting block but men are? Interesting.

I find it sad that the first viable female candidate is only viable because of the man she is married to.

Posted by: barry.s.newman | February 3, 2008 11:36 PM | Report abuse

MARIA SHRIVER endorsed BARACK OBAMA at a dramatic rally today at the campus of UCLA. This will win California for Barack.

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

Posted by: GoHuskies2004 | February 3, 2008 11:28 PM | Report abuse

The President proposes legislation. Congress writes it, debate it, improve it, and approve it for the President to sign or veto. The differences in policy between Clinton and Obama are minimal.

The President will have a better staff and cabinet to help him/her improve on and polish their platform.

What really matters is:

1) Does the person show an INCREDIBLE INTELLIGENCE and APTITUDE?

Clinton - B+
Obama - A+

I think Obama is just smarter. But Clinton is darn smart as well.

2) Does the person show SOUND JUDGEMENT?

Clinton - C+
Obama - B+

Clinton voted with Bush on too many key items over the past seven years. Causing $1T in costs, 4000+ deaths, and the invasion of a country that was neutralized. Obama was dead on in 2002. Look up his speech. He predicted most of what's happened in Pakistan, Iraq, and Iran. Not many did.

3) Does the person have enough EXPERIENCE to be an executive?

Clinton - C+
Obama - C

I think Bill Richardson is probably the only person that would get an A in this area. Typically, Senators are not seen as the best candidates for President. I am giving Clinton credit for her time in the White House but that is what gives her a "+" over Obama who has more elected experience. Remember that he is 47. Clinton is 61. Her resume might be a little longer than his.

4) Does the person show a history of GETTING THINGS DONE across party lines?

Clinton - C-
Obama - B+

Clinton has done great things but failed to reform Health Care while in the White House. Republicans did not find her easy to work with and she was seen as a high and mighty intellectual telling Congress how to do things. Remember she had a Democratic Congress and failed. Both in Illinois and in the Senate, Obama has received praise for this work across party lines.

5) Has the person shown a history of standing by their PRINCIPLES when it was unpopular to do so?

Clinton - C-
Obama - B+

Obama was dead on in 2002. Look up his speech. He predicted most of what's happened in Pakistan, Iraq, and Iran. Not many did. He made a real estate deal that was plain stupid but it was for his own house and not some huge multi-million dollar deal to scam investors. I am sure we've all made mistakes. I am willing to give him a pass on this for now. Clinton agreed with Bush, a Republican dictator too many times. She says all the right things now but didn't when it counted and when Democrats were looking for leadership. In my opinion, she is partly responsible for this administrations actions and the failure of the democrats since 2006.

6) Can the person MOTIVATE and INSPIRE the foot soldiers into action?

Clinton - B
Obama - A+

Just from my experience, Obama wins this hands down. The organization he's developed is simply amazing for someone who just came into the public scene in late 2004. Clinton is working on the base she and Bill developed. She gets credit but it has to be shared with Bill. Even now.

7) Can the person build a STRONG COALITION?

Clinton - B+
Obama - A

Clinton has inherited Bill's coalition but Obama has chipped away at it in a relative short period of time. What does this tell me? It says that Obama is a very skilled politician. Kennedy(s), Kerry, Tim Kaine, Kathleen Selibius to name a few. One organization is 1-2 years old, the other is 18-20 years old.

Overall.

Clinton - B
Obama - A-

My point is that we need a super-smart, energetic, coalition builder in the White House who can inspire the base into action. Congress also needs a refresh. If we don't send a message to them, they will keep any President from succeeding. They are owned by the special interest such as - big oil, pharma, military-complex, and health insurance.

This election is about change across the board. President and congress!

comingawakening@gmail.com

Posted by: comingawakening | February 3, 2008 11:05 PM | Report abuse

If it's Juan McCain vs. Obama then it's lib against lib and it invites a 3rd party. Just the opening for Ron Paul who has moved up to 9% nationally (CBS) by comparison Huck has moved down to 12%.

Posted by: washpost3 | February 3, 2008 10:56 PM | Report abuse

Oh, and BTW, FYI-Romney won the Maine Caucases, so you won't hear about it!

Posted by: rat-the | February 3, 2008 10:47 PM | Report abuse

Why should either party take a chance on a Woman candidate for President when women don't support other women when they run for office?

Its been 25 years since there's been a woman on the ticket.

If Hillary loses the primary it will be another 25 years before it happens again.

Woman are not a reliable voting block.

So they don't get any political power.

Women, How's that working out for you?

Posted by: svreader | February 3, 2008 9:52 PM | Report abuse

The primary in South Carolina provides insight into the under-30 White voter.

"Half of white voters [in South Carolina] younger than 30 voted for Obama, as did about one-third of those with at least a college degree." (Read "Black Vote Was Vital, But Not the Whole Story" at www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/26/AR2008012602741_pf.html .)

Also, note that about 60% of Americans under the age of 30 have a college degree. (Read "Reality weighs down dreams of college" at www.usatoday.com/news/education/2005-02-02-college-cover_x.htm .)

Taking these two facts and using some simple arithmetic yields the following observation about White voters under the age of 30 (in South Carolina). In this group, 33% of those with a college degree supports Obama. A startling 75% of those without a college degree supports Obama. In other words, as the educational level of under-30 White voters decreases, support for Obama actually increases.

Although a few national surveys indicate the opposite, they were conducted long before the primary in South Carolina. Within the last few weeks, a significant change has occurred in the voting patterns.

Posted by: blueboat | February 3, 2008 9:26 PM | Report abuse

"Not surprisingly, the strongest support for Obama comes from the under-30-years-old voter who has no college education."

That's the exact opposite of the truth. Obama is strongest amongst college-educated, Clinton amongst high school-only.

All the polls show it, all the newspapers mention it. Google it.

Posted by: kenonwenu | February 3, 2008 9:13 PM | Report abuse

The press is treating the American public like a giant political Foie Gras Goose.

We tired of having Obams shoved down our throats and our stomachs and livers are sore.

Woudl you folks in press mind pulling back a bit and letting people see the issues.

Oh, I see, you can't do that because then Obama would lose the nomination and the Republicans might have to face Hillary and lose the national election.

Don't fall for Republican "dirty tricks"

Obama is kenyan for "Sacrificial lamb"

Republicans don't want to vote for Obama they want to defeat whoever the Democrats nominate and Bambi O' Bama is the Republicans dream candidate.

Obama '08 = McCain '09

Don't fall for it.

Posted by: svreader | February 3, 2008 9:12 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama has long opposed educational standards. He wants to rescind the use of exit exams, which high-school students in many states must pass before receiving a diploma.

A large percentage of African-Americans reguarly fails exit exams. They have hired high-powered lawyers to sue the state governments to force them to cancel the exit exams.

Obama wants to cancel the exit exams in order to ensure that anyone can receive a diploma, regardless of whether the student actually knows anything. Not surprisingly, the strongest support for Obama comes from the under-30-years-old voter who has no college education -- or, more correctly, lacks the intellect to actually be accepted into college.

Obama appeals to the least-common denominator in intelligence -- total morons.

Posted by: blueboat | February 3, 2008 8:29 PM | Report abuse

I want an intelligent president, not a charismatic one. All the hype worries me. Obama has a record of not voting correctly in congress. He has taken money from major polluters. What will happen if he is president? No more Bushes please.

Posted by: infinitemkys | February 3, 2008 8:00 PM | Report abuse

I've noticed on a lot of sites people like Martinedwinandersen are posting stories that put Obama in a favorable lite...many of these stories are dubious at best....are these people working for the Oabama campaign and just spamming blogs? is this some kind of technique?

Posted by: lounatick8 | February 3, 2008 7:04 PM | Report abuse

The only way McCain will unite the Party, will be by realizing he is a Qualified VICE PRESIDENT, and taking his back seat to Romney.
Huckster and Dr. NO, are simply out to be Spoilers to detract from Romney in favor of McPain.

McClown has BLOWN it on the Amnesty Issue and many others. He is just another version of what the Dims are selling, just as "Socialism Light".

Mitt Romney is the only chance this Country has of effecting real Change, and that is why the entire Status Quo has rallied against him!

However, reality is, Mitt will need an insider. McPain as the VP could be that Bridge. He is, as I said, a very Formidible VICE PRESIDENT Choice!

Posted by: rat-the | February 3, 2008 6:46 PM | Report abuse

Author Garrison Keillor, former NARAL pro-choice America president Michelman endorse Obama

AP
Updated: 5:25 PM ET Feb 3, 2008

Garrison Keillor, host of public radio's "A Prairie Home Companion," has endorsed Democratic Sen. Barack Obama for president, Obama's campaign announced Sunday.

Obama also won backing from a key backer of former candidate John Edwards.

"I'm happy to support your candidacy, which is so full of promise for our country," Keillor, the best-selling author and humorist wrote in a letter declaring his support. "Seven years of a failed presidency is a depressing thing, and the country is pressing for a change and looking for someone with clear vision who is determined to break through the rhetorical logjam and find sensible ways to move our country forward. That's you, friend."

Obama's campaign provided excerpts of the letter; Minnesota holds its caucuses on Super Tuesday.

In the letter, Keillor, whose books are set in the fictional town of Lake Wobegon, said seeing Obama and his family in front of the U.S. Capitol next January is a happy prospect that would "bring an end to a long sour chapter in our history."

"And of course it will be exciting to have a president who can speak with grace and power to the American people," Keillor wrote.

Obama addressed a crowd of nearly 20,000 at the Target Center in downtown Minneapolis on Saturday. A poll by Minnesota Public Radio and the Humphrey Institute released last week showed slightly behind rival Hillary Rodham Clinton, 40 percent to 33 percent.

Separately, Kate Michelman, former president of NARAL Pro-Choice America who was a top supporter of Democrat John Edwards, endorsed Obama.

In a blog entry on huffingtonpost.com, Michelman said she decided to back Obama because he is prepared "to lead in a different way than we have seen for decades. Not out in front with us behind him, but rather with us beside him."

That difference, she said, "separates just any president from a great president; and right now, we need a great president."

Edwards suspended his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination last week.

Obama said he was proud to have Keillor's and Michelman's support.

URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/107788

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | February 3, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse

BREAKING NEWS: Maria Shriver just walked on stage and endorsed Barack Obama. A surprise visit. Of course the networks will be way behind, but this will swing the state over to Barack by a few points. The networks will be talking about this later.

Posted by: GoHuskies2004 | February 3, 2008 6:40 PM | Report abuse

Breaking News: Pro-Clinton push poll erupts in California


That malicious political virus that is designed not to elicit answers but to spread positive information about one candidate and negative information about all others under the guise of an honest poll had arrived in Southern California within days of the important election.

It could become an issue in the closing hours of the campaign.

Someone who obviously favors Hillary Clinton is paying an unidentified company to spread this material phone call by phone call among independent voters, who can, according to California party rules, opt to vote in the Democratic but not the Republican primary on Feb. 5, when nearly two dozen states will choose a large chunk of the delegates to the parties' national conventions next summer.

Phil Singer, the spokesman for the Clinton campaign. was contacted by e-mail last night. He answered that he was there. He was asked if the Clinton campaign was behind the push-poll, knew who was behind it or had any other information on it. That was at 5:27 p.m. Pacific time Saturday. As of this item's posting time, exactly eight hours later, no reply had been received.

Posted by: gandalfthegrey | February 3, 2008 6:23 PM | Report abuse

I am afraid that Democrats will shoot themselves in the foot by nominating Obama. Obama will be an easy person to make a mincemeat of by John McCain. Take experience, he does not have much. Take knowledge of practical politics, I am not sure there is much there. Take his record, it would be very easy for Republicans to portray him as ultra-liberal.

So, if you want 8 more years of Republicans in the White House, and possibly a loss of Senate majority, go ahead nominate Obama and blow the chance of the generation.

Posted by: lskjf | February 3, 2008 6:14 PM | Report abuse

Ahh, svreader, still waiting on your explanation of HRC forcing people to join her plan.

And Obamas "Right on Day One" is egotistical?

Posted by: steveboyington | February 3, 2008 6:10 PM | Report abuse

Four More Wars! 100 More Years! John McCain for President!

My friends, there's a new energy in the country. A yearning for a new direction. Like Iran!
With John McCain protecting Americans, every day of the week will be threat level Red!
Our nuclear arsenal will be FIRED UP and READY TO GO!
John McCain. Ready on Day One to fight World War Three!


McCain '08! Don't worry about the deficit, your kids will pick up the tab for all this stuff!!

Posted by: bourassa1 | February 3, 2008 6:08 PM | Report abuse

Obama's "Right on day 1" has got to be the single most egotistical thing I've heard in my life, and that's saying a lot.

Posted by: svreader | February 3, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Hey HotNuke, you all excited about having your wages garnesheed by HRC and her universal healthcare plan?

HRC talks about how much she learned during her failed attempt to get universal healthcare in the 1990s. For her to have that as part of her current plan shows she learned little if nothing. The GOP will point it out and many of American people will revolt against the bill on the basis of the forced enrollment alone.

I'll stick with Obamas claim: I'd rather have my President be right on day one, not just ready on day one.

Posted by: steveboyington | February 3, 2008 5:16 PM | Report abuse

Some of the commentary here, as well as on plenty of other blogs, give me a real dread that 2008 is going to resemble 1968 by having one or two assassinations by the time we get to the November voting. There sure are a bunch of dangerous nutcases out there--new James Earl Rays and Sirhan Sirhans, all waiting to exercise their sacred Second Amendment rights.

God help this country! I'm an old geezer who remembers 1968 and all the evils it brought us, and I have a queasy feeling that the old tapes are running again.

I hope Obama wins it: the best chance we have for national reconciliation and rededication since Bobby. And I pray that he doesn't suffer Bobby's fate, and Dr. King's...

Posted by: jm917 | February 3, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

It's great to see our democracy in action this week. One thing that bothers me with both parties is the whole 'super delegate' thing. The impact is greater for the Dems than the GOP. It makes it possible for a divisive convention, and a candidate who did not win the popular vote in the primaries. Not to mention the states who were penalized for moving their primary dates up. Let's hope the combination of super delegates and Florida and Michigan do not tip the scales in favor of Hillary, if she wins the nomination. If that happens, many Obama supporters, if not most, likely will not support the nominee. Time to do away with the super delegates IMO. - from an independent voter leaning Obama.

Posted by: bfjam | February 3, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse


John McCain '08! Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what YOU can do for Lockheed Martin!

Posted by: bourassa1 | February 3, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse


John McCain '08! Because when fear brings Americans together, the whole military-industrial complex benefits!

Posted by: bourassa1 | February 3, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Hotnuke-

Put down the kool-aid.

Posted by: cjroses | February 3, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Mitt Romney would hand a victory to the terrorists with his plan to stay in Iraq for 99 years.

Only John McCain has the courage to stay the course for the full 100 years.

John is not a man who would question another's patriotism, but as he was telling me the other day, you have to wonder about the PATRIOTISM of his opponents in the GOP when they go for wave-the-white-flag Mitt and his 99-year pullout. Such a hasty retreat would leave our troops exposed.

Why do these Romney Republicans want to let down our troops? All these defeatists like Rush, Coulter, George Will ... why they move to Cuba since they hate America so much?


John McCain '08! Because you know we all secretly enjoy watching those USAF guided bomb videos!

Posted by: bourassa1 | February 3, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

I was enthusiastic about Sen. Obama's speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. One of my daughters, who is a local activist in the Democratic Party, knew that and so invited me to attend the Virginia State Democratic Convention at which Obama was the featured speaker. Although I consider myself an independent, I went to the Convention.

Frankly, I was disappointed in the speech Obama made at that Convention. I also was of the opinion that a partial term as a U.S. Senator didn't give him the experience to deal with all the high-power sharks that swim in the Washington political waters. I also began to wonder if he was just a good speaker; not someone with a record of accomplishment.

As his campaign progressed this year and I learned more about him, my view has now changed again. He has better stated his theme of uniting the country. I have also learned more about his experience as a Harvard Law School professor of constitutional law and as an advocate for the impoverished.

He has convinced me he has the best ability and desire to unite the nation and to improve our world standing, including relying more on diplomacy against Islamist terrorists. He has a better chance to bring the U.S. peace, fairness, and improved international relations than Sen. Clinton or Sen. McCain, the other two major candidates who were my other choices. (I think Gov. Romney is a demagogue, saying whatever the polls show will get him votes.)

Posted by: BTMPost | February 3, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

John McCain and the Economy:- Straight Talk, Real Solutions

Although you may have heard John insisting in the last debate that Americans have become better off under George Bush, John McCain really understands that a lot of people are worried about the economy right now.
Did you know John McCain is a war hero? John has the skills and experience to take out that recession with a precision airstrike.

And should the recession persist in its refusal to disarm, then yes, all nuclear options are on the table ... and John McCain will not flinch in his duty to protect Americans from the menace of Islamo-stagflation.
Because he is resolute, damn it. Not a white-flag waver.

My friends, I promise you this: John McCain will never surrender until Iraq is free of WMD!

Posted by: bourassa1 | February 3, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

John McCain's closing argument:

My friends, John McCain understands that the American people want change; they want a new direction.

That's why John is planning a new and completely different set of wars.

John McCain believes that with American optimism and can-do spirit, we can reach out and grab hold of a bigger dream. A bolder dream. Like, for example, the dream of fighting three wars at once.

Or perhaps you're one of those who thinks America's best days are behind her. You think three wars is too many? Unlike some, John McCain is not a man who sells America short. It's all about integrity, you know?
John has lots and lots of integrity.

My friends, I hope you'll join me and others who believe with John McCain that YES WE CAN fight three wars at once. Or four.


McCain '08! Because 189 countries still remain unconquered by our mighty legions!

Posted by: bourassa1 | February 3, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

for every illegal made citizen their children under 16 in the USA or in mexico are automatically USA citizens. if there are 20 million illegals with 2 kids each under 16, we will get 60 million new citizens. more than the number of blacks in the USA.
2/2/2008 6:53:29 AM

Posted by: dwightcollinsduarte | February 3, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

McCain is doing nothing to calm the conservatives. In fact, he seems to enjoy antagonizing them lately.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: parkerfl | February 3, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company