Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Derailed by Weather, Clinton Improvises in Wisconsin


Hillary Clinton stocks up on peppers at the El Ray grocery store in Milwaukee Sunday, February 17, 2008. (AP).

Updated 4:51 p.m.
By Jose Antonio Vargas
MILWAUKEE -- In campaignspeak, a day like this is called an "OTR." Not off the record, but off the rail, off the schedule, off the plan.

So OTR, in fact, that Sen. Hillary Clinton's plane took off from Milwaukee heading northwest for a short flight to Wassau -- only to circle back to Milwaukee because the plane couldn't land, due to severe weather. Nearly an hour -- and an unspecified amount of money -- later, Clinton was back in Milwaukee.

On a day when freezing rain, slippery roads and unfriendly skies have derailed a packed itinerary, the campaign is winging it, improvising.

Sen. Hillary Clinton was scheduled to speak at three rallies today in the Badger State, first at St. Norbert College in De Pere, then at University of Wisconsin at Wassau, followed by an event in Madison. But bad weather across the state -- heavy snow has fallen in the northern part -- has forced the campaign to cancel all the events, at least for now. She's not the only one. Sen. Barack Obama canceled a town hall meeting in Kaukauna.

To replace the De Pere stop, Clinton dropped by Miss Katie's Diner, just a short drive away from her hotel, for a late breakfast, ordering eggs and hash browns. Flanked by Lt. Gov. Barbara Lawton and Rep. Tammy Baldwin, and trailed by traveling press corps of about 20, she shook hands, posed for photos and rattled the crowd.

A waitress in a black and white uniform was visibly nervous. "You see me shaking?" the waitress, a Clinton supporter, told a patron as she poured a cup of coffee. Another patron, Jon Arkin, had just gotten out of church services and headed to Miss Katie's for the $7 Miss Katie Skillet. "Here I thought I'd have a nice quiet morning and no one would be out," said Arkin, as he cleaned off his plate. He's leaning towards Obama. "I'm an independent," Arkin said. "I could for Obama but I could go for McCain, too."

A short drive from Miss Katie's, Clinton stepped out of her black SUV and greeted shoppers and workers at El Rey, a Mexican grocery store in this city's south side. The store owner immediately announced in the store speaker: "Bienvenida, Hillary!" With Lawton by her side, Clinton toured the aisles, passing the cans of green pickled jalapeno peppers on sale for $2.09 a pop and snacking on chips and mole with roasted chicken that were being offered as samples near the produce section.

Though Clinton sent her daughter Chelsea and former president Bill Clinton to campaign for her across the state last week, Clinton just arrived here in Wisconsin yesterday. Her first event was at the Brat Stop, a landmark watering hole in Kenosha, about 30 miles south of Milwaukee and 50 miles north of Chicago. She received a warm, boisterous reception from the packed, shoulder-to-shoulder crowd, some of whom carried signs such as "Wisconsin HEARTS Hillary," "HRC # 1," "Hillary's the One!" and "Welcome, Hillary!" One her supporters yelled out loud: "I just want to say to the naysayers, 'Give 'em hell, Hillary!'"

"I was born in Chicago and raised in the suburbs there," Clinton said. "Wisconsin is a place where I have lot of happy memories of. I used to go church retreats here. I went all over the state. Who would have thought when I was in the Girl Scouts that I would be running for president of the United States."

In a direct poke at Obama, she said: "I'm not here to just give you a speech. I'm here to give you solutions about how we're going to solve problems."

By Web Politics Editor  |  February 17, 2008; 3:32 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Clinton Team's Long View
Next: McCain Vows to Hold the Line on Taxes

Comments

Posted by: by canada in mail zyban | August 21, 2008 5:38 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: remeron consistency problems | August 21, 2008 2:54 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: drug elavil | August 18, 2008 6:13 AM | Report abuse

mbcg aiyrpqf
http://thebunio1.exactpages.com/cost-of-lexapro-versus-celexa.html cost of lexapro versus celexa

Posted by: cost of lexapro versus celexa | August 18, 2008 4:45 AM | Report abuse

mbcg aiyrpqf
http://thebunio1.exactpages.com/cost-of-lexapro-versus-celexa.html cost of lexapro versus celexa

Posted by: cost of lexapro versus celexa | August 18, 2008 4:45 AM | Report abuse

ynch dtgxlph aicopn asrtey
http://loangov.envy.nu/celexa-treats.html celexa treats

Posted by: celexa treats | August 17, 2008 8:43 PM | Report abuse

hmrcvt ndcyz hjol
http://loangov.envy.nu/does-lexapro-make-you-feel-good.html does lexapro make you feel good

Posted by: does lexapro make you feel good | August 17, 2008 8:19 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: tamoxafin and prozac interactions | August 17, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

plybse ljfz beyl
http://knotlyri.lookseekpages.com/is-prozac-descibed-for-sleeplessness.html is prozac descibed for sleeplessness

Posted by: is prozac descibed for sleeplessness | August 17, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

plybse ljfz beyl
http://knotlyri.lookseekpages.com/is-prozac-descibed-for-sleeplessness.html is prozac descibed for sleeplessness

Posted by: is prozac descibed for sleeplessness | August 17, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

shtoeb vpxb rboxl qwjmz
http://internal.digitalzones.com/zyban-directions.html zyban directions

Posted by: zyban directions | August 17, 2008 1:13 AM | Report abuse

xtyigcv
http://sandiego1.jvl.com/remeron-mirtazapine-side-effects.html remeron mirtazapine side effects

Posted by: remeron mirtazapine side effects | August 16, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: dyspepsia induced by effexor | August 16, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: dyspepsia induced by effexor | August 16, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

krnpsw jpefzu clbhjyw
http://youngercam.00freehost.com/depression-with-prozac.html depression with prozac

Posted by: depression with prozac | August 16, 2008 3:21 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: elavil side effets | August 16, 2008 1:27 AM | Report abuse

cndfqul vdzioj pxjf oszfpme
http://moistnicky.1freewebspace.com/effexor-xr-and-wellburin-together.html effexor xr and wellburin together

Posted by: effexor xr and wellburin together | August 15, 2008 8:07 PM | Report abuse

yzhsu cybol vsaix dtvhp
http://imnipiteh.150m.com/adverse-side-effects-of-lexapro.html adverse side effects of lexapro

Posted by: adverse side effects of lexapro | August 15, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

sqma jrcvqut xuyjdw
http://armsasdrcd.1freewebspace.com/is-prozac-associated-with-weight-gain.html is prozac associated with weight gain

Posted by: is prozac associated with weight gain | August 15, 2008 6:44 AM | Report abuse

sqma jrcvqut xuyjdw
http://armsasdrcd.1freewebspace.com/is-prozac-associated-with-weight-gain.html is prozac associated with weight gain

Posted by: is prozac associated with weight gain | August 15, 2008 6:44 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: low price propecia | May 12, 2008 3:33 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: 50 mg ultram | May 11, 2008 5:53 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: purchase ultram online | May 10, 2008 8:39 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: buy dir ultram | May 10, 2008 6:33 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: buy dir ultram | May 10, 2008 6:33 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: ultram abuse | May 10, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: overdose ultram | May 10, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: drug effects more side ultram | May 10, 2008 3:07 PM | Report abuse

kxucmo hjfrpl nmihte easpdqv sgolz yqxckfje luenvax http://www.obpej.kfvrlcy.com

Posted by: cjnfptsq tkrqlamfg | April 16, 2008 11:29 AM | Report abuse

peahyltc kjmfnavib tdsbmxz wyequ bdfrzs ksamehyj phiuax

Posted by: gdnchpl famvl | April 16, 2008 11:29 AM | Report abuse

It's called Wausau, Wisconsin. Fact check much?

Posted by: mr.snavely | February 18, 2008 12:32 PM | Report abuse

I have read far too many articles mentioning this hot peppers anecdote for it to be coincidence. Eating hot peppers to ward off illness is a popular superstition among Hispanics, particularly Mexicans. Hillary is using this as a subtle attempt to pander to the Hispanic vote just in time for Texas. This kind of politics makes me sick.

Posted by: ianallover | February 18, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Hillary needs to remind also that:

OBAMA cannot catch OSAMA if he sits face to face with dictators on Day One.....

Posted by: vs_sv | February 18, 2008 9:44 AM | Report abuse

Hillary needs to remind the people:

It is the economy, Stupid

It is the economy, Idiots

It is the economy, Dummies

Or in a politically correct way:

It is the economy, my fellow Americans.

Keep hammering the fact were you better of in the 90's compared to the last 7 years...

Posted by: vs_sv | February 18, 2008 9:35 AM | Report abuse

LISTEN CHAVO, don't be fooled by Obama,

I, like many of my Latino brothers and sisters, live in the trenches of life and not in the clouds. Meaningful change is concrete. Hilary Clinton, like Cesar Chavez, understands this to her very core. Obama will tell you one thing to get your vote, then he will through you under the bus and do another; he failed to speak up for Maytag workers during plant closures while taking tens of thousands of dollars in contributions from the owner of Maytag. When asked to help in his home state to prevent nuclear waste emissions from nuclear power plants he responded with weakness and sold out to his nuclear power plant donors; nothing changed except the amount he got in contributions from his nuclear buddies.

Hilary Clinton delivers the tools we need to build our own lives and our families. We who support her ( Latinos, women, and working class people) share in a common value; when we need help, we ask, and when we see someone who has stood with us who needs help, we come to their aid. We are better then Obama, we do not betray those that have stood with us, fought for us, and delivered. If you let Obama peel off the Latino vote, you only weaken our collective power. He was an organizer, he knows how to divide and conquer. Don't be fooled. If you want to know what Obama means when he promises "change" Google this - Obama Liberation Theology - the same theology that has caused the oppression and death of so many thousands of our Latino brothers and sisters in El Sur the America. Stick with the values of Cesar Chavez and you will not be exploited and we will emerge a free and prosperous people.

In the memory of my mother and my grandmother whose burdens were heavy and for the future of my sons and daughters whose world is in peril, I support and join Hilary in her lifelong struggle to make solutions real and meaningful change possible. To my brothers and sisters in the Latino community, thank you for standing with Hilary against the winds of Obama's high rhetoric. Together with Hilary we can continue to build a new coalition for meaningful change.

Viva La Raza

Posted by: truthteller52 | February 18, 2008 3:28 AM | Report abuse

Aren't you Obamaites supporting the guy who is supposed to be "transcendent", and above all the dirty partisanship and bad feelings.

Why are so many of the Obamaites so bitter and angry? Read your own comments. Even though he is now ahead, you Obama supporters are pissed. Just as the Repubs have been all these years...sore winners! We don't need more of that.

You need to think about your behavior.

Posted by: celested9 | February 18, 2008 12:32 AM | Report abuse

having intelligent discourse on this blog is next to impossible. the hatred, fear, bigotry and downright ignorance coming from too many who post here is shameful. a casual observer would think that americans are certifiable. grow up.

OBAMA '08!

Posted by: caligirl1 | February 18, 2008 12:09 AM | Report abuse

I don't understand. How can Clinton say she doesn't give "speeches" when she is asserting it in a speech? How can she say "talk is cheap" when her husband can pull in $450,000 just for giving one? She makes my head hurt.

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

In the "Charisma Mandate," Kate Zernike, New York Times talks about Obama:

"Philosophers call it "civil religion," using the language of religion and elevation to talk about your country. A classic example is Ronald Reagan's summoning of the "city on a hill." That, Professor Wolfe said, was the parallel Mr. Obama was hinting at when he talked about Reagan as a transformative leader.

"A soft civil religion is something our country desperately needs at a time of deep partisanship," Mr. Wolfe said. "He wants to go back to the Reagan years as a Democrat, with Democratic policies."

But others see in this same language a more cynical cult of personality.

"What is troubling about the campaign is that it's gone beyond hope and change to redemption," said Sean Wilentz, a historian at Princeton (and a longtime friend of the Clintons). "It's posing as a figure who is the one person who will redeem our politics. And what I fear is, that ends up promising more from politics than politics can deliver."

The caveat: "That doesn't always translate into a great presidency."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/weekinreview/17zernike.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp

Posted by: vammap | February 17, 2008 11:09 PM | Report abuse

So I read the letter posted by the University professor. I was really looking forward to getting the specifics on what Hilary has actually accomplished given her self-proclaimed talent for offering solutions. What specifics does the letter actually offer after the usual bromides about working for children for 35 years (she worked for children's rights for a couple of years, then went to the Rose Law firm, an asclerotic club of old farty white men, and sat on the board of Wal-Mart): Ready for this? It sounds the trumpets for "Her powerful, inspiring advocacy of the human rights of women at the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995".! That's it? Her big accomplishment is a...god forbid...a...a speech? I thought to this woman, talk was cheap, walking the walk was where the meat hit the grill, so I continued reading and stumbled upon this shining achievement: Health care reform in the 90's. How shameless is she that after blowing the first real chance at healthcare reform in a generation and botching it so bad it was off the table for a decade and then claiming somehow it shows she's qualified to improve health care. How? are we left to hope she won't mess it up as bad? Finally, the letter addresses her acheivements in the Senate. Finally, substance! It says she blew it by voting to authorize the Iraq war. that's what it says. Wow. that was the lamest letter of endorsement not because the writer wasn't smart, it's just that was the best material she had to work with. Hilary hasn't a single acheivement to illustrate how good her solutions really are.

Posted by: ithorp | February 17, 2008 11:06 PM | Report abuse

I live in the reddest corner of a red state, in the same city that hosts the large state university that U.S. News & World Report said had "the most nostalgia for Ronald Reagan."

Yet, today at an Obama organizing meeting, at which half of the attendees were Texas A&M students, some 20 identified themselves as "crossover Republicans."

Obama is the not only the Democrats' only hope for recapturing the White House, but Clinton will spell disaster for Democrats such as Rep. Nick Lampson, who won Tom DeLay's old seat. With Hillary at the top of the ticket, we will lose the Democrats that serve in normally Republican areas, many of whom we picked up in 2006.

Those 20 young Republican Texas Aggies who were at the Obama meeting today would probably vote for McCain if Hillary were to win the nomination.

Yes, Obama not only offers hope, but he is the only hope for winning the White House.

Posted by: DualAg | February 17, 2008 10:59 PM | Report abuse

sarasotan: Do you think the voters are dumb enough to buy your sleazy argument that debates are only watched by voters in the state of the debate? We have had 18 NATIONAL debates that were watched by ALL the voters of the United States of America. It is typical for Her Majesty's minions to divide the country but all voters in the United States, including the citizens of Wisconsin have heard them debate 18 times.

This is not about debates. This is about Queen Hillary mismanaging her campaign and having run out of funds after spending all her money. She's now pandering for free publicity vis-a-vis debates. It is pathetic.

If Her Majesty is so concerned about Wisconsin, why was she not there for the last 4 days? That's where Obama has been for the last 6 days. I guess Her Majesty thinks people in Texas are more important because they have more delegates to offer.

And now Hillary Clinton has the audacity to talk about respecting Wisconsin citizens when she has ignored them for nearly a week? How pathetic!

Posted by: BethesdaMD | February 17, 2008 10:56 PM | Report abuse

I find it amazing that anyone who dares question the Clintons is considered a hate-mongering rabid Obama supporter. That kind of rhetoric is a perfect example of the Karl Rove school of politics which the Clintons (and I admit to having been a long time Clinton supporter until South Carolina when I saw the light) have embraced -- which is repeat a lie enough times and people will believe it. And NOT supporting the Clintons is pro-feminist is noted by petition signed over 1,000 feminists like Susan Sarandon. We need a president we can trust and one to whom whose aides are not afraid to bring bad news (like we're running out of money)

Posted by: andrewlny | February 17, 2008 10:52 PM | Report abuse

By the way, the candidates were "invited" to a debate by people in Wisconsin. Why, because they feel it is the best way to find out where the candidates stand on issues important to them.

Posted by: sarasotan | February 17, 2008 10:50 PM | Report abuse

Those of us with teenagers got a hilarious reminder of the Clinton scandals of the 1990s this weekend while watching the new movie, "Definitely, Maybe."

It takes Bill Clinton apart in a way that John McCain and the Republicans could only wish they could.

It is a must see for all those who want to innoculate their teenagers from the impact of future "Bimbo" irruptions, fits of lying and other attractions sure to come our way with another Clinton presidency.

MARTIN EDWIN 'MICK' ANDERSEN

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | February 17, 2008 10:50 PM | Report abuse

Sangliu,
In a democracy, is it not better for the voters to learn about the candidates? And what better way for that than a debate. Yes, there have been 18 debates, but not one in Wisconsin, where the questions would focus on issues inportant to that state (as opposed to, say, nuclear waste in Nevada). Speeches are a way to control the message; debates reveal the real person behind the campaign (which is why G.W.Bush shied away from debates as well).

Posted by: sarasotan | February 17, 2008 10:47 PM | Report abuse

mmargaret: Motivational speakers don't run the Harvard Law Review and devote their life to public service. Of course I can understand it being a challenge for Hillary Clinton supporters to recognize intelligence.

Posted by: BethesdaMD | February 17, 2008 10:45 PM | Report abuse

sangliu: After 18 debates the only reason Hillary Clinton wants more debates is because she had spent all her money by mismanaging her campaign. She now wants to get free publicity with the debates and avoid giving Obama the chance to introduce himself to the voters. I nan understand the Clinton Minions wanting this to be a coronation for their queen but Obama actually would rather reach out to the voters because we live in a democracy and it is the voters who matter.

No one is buying the cry baby garbage from the Hillary Clinton Campaign. We know perfectly well what all her debate howling is about. What a pathetic candidate; makes me embarrassed to be a democrat.

Posted by: BethesdaMD | February 17, 2008 10:40 PM | Report abuse

Obama, is little more than a motivational speaker.I have been to many of them. People are like children with a new toy - they want something new, different whether it has substance or what the end results are. I do not think Obama is electable when it comes to the gen election, therefore, McGain, will get the job.The next president will nominate @ least one supreme justice - that will make a 6 - 9 ratio in favor of the conservites.Think,think, think peoplewhen you vote.Look out for yourselves,think.

Posted by: mmargaret | February 17, 2008 10:38 PM | Report abuse

I'm starting to believe all you Obamatologists; I mean, geez, anyone talking about solutions must by definition be pure evil. On the other hand, anyone talking about hope must be divinely inspired. I guess the best thing to do is just hope for things to get better.

Posted by: sarasotan | February 17, 2008 10:34 PM | Report abuse

"Shee-OOT, babe, don't sweat it! Ah got more'n enough cheese between mah toes than these here cheeseheads got in their ree-friggerators! Say ... inny action here?"

Posted by: sawargos | February 17, 2008 10:33 PM | Report abuse

ichief: Why are you posting the same retarded letter over and over again? I heard Her Majesty Hillary Clinton and her minions are now down to what they know best, attack ads and distorting facts because they can't win an election fairly on issues that matter. I am not surprised. It's just pathetic.

Posted by: BethesdaMD | February 17, 2008 10:31 PM | Report abuse

Those of us with teenagers got a hilarious reminder of the Clinton scandals of the 1990s this weekend while watching the new movie, "Definitely, Maybe."

It takes Bill Clinton apart in a way that John McCain and the Republicans could only wish they could.

It is a must see for all those who want to innoculate their teenagers from the impact of future "Bimbo" irruptions, fits of lying and other attractions sure to come our way with another Clinton presidency.

MARTIN EDWIN 'MICK' ANDERSEN

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | February 17, 2008 10:15 PM | Report abuse

BaROCK in the White House.

Billary in the Senate.

We can accomplish a lot of good if the Clintons will be team-players.

Let's have Hillary as Senate Majority Leader, replacing Reid!

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

Its ok that Obama has no experience. He'll surround himself with Advisors. If you havent thought deeply about problems how can you make decisive decisions. Obama has only thought about urban illinois problems. That still leave the rest of the country and pretty much the rest of the world outside of his experience.

Posted by: hhkeller | February 17, 2008 9:57 PM | Report abuse

Clinton & ideas: There's nothing she can point to in her public life that she has personally authored and pushed through that has left an indelible impression on the American public. Even McCain can (very ironically) point to his co-sponsored campaign finance law as something that brings fair change to the US election process. She points to many failures but spins them as "successes", stating she was standing up for the little people and failed due to circumstances beyond her control. Then she asks for another chance because she has "learned from my mistakes". Um, PLENTY of people have independently come up with many the same ideas, including her opponents. They have comparable or greater elected/political experience. Yet they haven't failed so catastrophically in the eyes of the public. We're supposed to reward the loser/comeback queen merely because she's a woman? (BTW, I'm a woman)

To pander to Latinos and Beck fans, this should be her campaign song (LOSER):

"Soy un perdedor! I'm a Loser baby..."

Posted by: listudios | February 17, 2008 9:56 PM | Report abuse

"I went all over the state."

Sounds messy. :)

Seriously, though, why is this a news story?

Posted by: ceton | February 17, 2008 9:52 PM | Report abuse

sorry gmtiffany, i see you were quoting someone else, but I haven't located them yet.

Posted by: majorteddy | February 17, 2008 9:49 PM | Report abuse

geez, gmtiffany, you're the one who is being rude , mean and namecalling. get agrip. you are frothing with hate.

Posted by: majorteddy | February 17, 2008 9:44 PM | Report abuse

nice racist comment cliokitty.

Posted by: majorteddy | February 17, 2008 9:39 PM | Report abuse

sangliu- Hillary's campaign manager is a lobbyist for Exelon. Haven't you Clinton people learned to be careful yet where you plant the dog poop so that you don't step in it, too. Remember how Hillary got burned bad on Rezko.Ouch!

Posted by: majorteddy | February 17, 2008 9:33 PM | Report abuse

answer to the free living- I'l bet there are at least two votes that Hillary now wishes she had voted present, absent, abstain, gotta go pee right now or anything but yes. The first is the Iraq War Resolution and the other one is the one that gave Bush the green light on Iran. Hillary's gotta learn that it's not enough to do the homework every night, you gotta do it right or it don't count.

Posted by: majorteddy | February 17, 2008 9:29 PM | Report abuse

There are four facts to demonstrate Obama is not practicing what he is preaching.

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.

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. Senator Clinton would agree to debates at all primary states, but Obama would only agree to the states that he falls behind on the polls. He refuse to debate in states he is ahead afraid to loose the edge he has. This kind of act shows the differences between him and Senator Clinton.

Voters owe to this country closer examinations on Obama's rhetoric, "hope" sounds great, but what is behind the veil?

Posted by: sangliu | February 17, 2008 9:27 PM | Report abuse

"Solutions, not speeches". I wonder: have people forgotten about the Hillary "solution" to health care? By all accounts it her rigidity and shear arrogance which doomed this effort. I also wonder: why has no one commented that Reagan's power (for good or bad) was as a *communicator*--surely not as an executive or as a policy wonk. The latter are a dime a dozen. True leaders--those who can use words to inspire--come once in a generation.

Posted by: drjbgmail | February 17, 2008 9:25 PM | Report abuse

McCain will win in November and Clinton has handed it to him on a silver platter. The divisiveness, especially by old-school feminists, is breathtaking. Many people on both side of the Obama/Clinton divide swear they will vote, if given the choice, for McCain if their candidate doesn't get the nomination. I've witnessed this throughout posts and the blogosphere for several weeks, even while Romney and even Guiliani were still in the running. Is it any wonder that somehow the "maverick" candidate made a stunning comeback? It was all engineered by the GOP to capitalize on the increasing animosity within the Dem's electorate, by offering their version of a different candidate against two demographically non-traditional candidates. Rush Limbaugh and buddies gratuitous bad-mouthing, Guiliani and Romney endorsements - classic campaign tactics to attract both moderate and/o embittered Dem voters with a viable "option". He practically doesn't have to lift a finger in November, there's been enough internal mud-slinging to hang either Dem candidate in effigy.

And it is all Clinton's fault.

Her shrill pandering to the white female voter gives Affirmative Action a bad name. Despite the demonization of the program by whites, white females have benefited from the program more so than any other demographic group. Yet it is supposed to open doors to people based on MERIT who are otherwise shut out due to prejudice. She is doing the exact opposite, basically stating she should be POTUS merely because she's the first woman with a political machine powerful enough to put her in contention, not because she has the best ideas. And many feminists blatantly state this as legitimate! "It's our time." Gag. She arrogantly assumed that since slightly over half of the eligible electorate is female, due to factors such as higher incarceration rates and lower life expectancy among men, they would all fall in behind her. When African American women, who *definitely* make up more their electorate, abandoned her in droves due to her jaded campaign tactics, instead of wooing them back she dismissed them as an irrelevant demographic. Some leader. Now her new-found interest in Hispanics/Latinos have many questioning her blatant old "Southern Strategy" style politics, divide-and-conquer. This will make the '68 Convention fallout look like a cakewalk (pun intended). Exactly 40 years after that debacle and her campaign is breaking all the bridges built since then, by a woman no less. How ironic. Unless Obama and others can heal the rift, the Democratic party may never recover. *sigh* McCain 4 President.

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

Didja notice that Hillary went right past the hot peppers in Wisconsin. Geez, in Texas she was eating "HOT PEPPERS! I love hot peppers!I eat lots of hot peppers. They keep me healthy when I'm campaigning so hard." Methinks the Lady Clinton may have gotten a touchy digestive exit ramp from all those Texas hot peppers she was eating when she was down there so she could kiss up to the Latinos. Don't you think that's pretty patronizing that she would think Latinos would vote for her just because she says she eats hot peppers. If she ate as many hot peppers as she says she does, she would be flying around the room like a balloon that just came untied.

Posted by: majorteddy | February 17, 2008 9:22 PM | Report abuse

badger3,

I think the point is that it lends a lot toward the idea of transparency in government. Something which honestly has never been a strong suit for the Clinton's

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 17, 2008 9:15 PM | Report abuse

After having read and taken in so many of the pro-Hillary and pro-Obama comments, one consistent thing seems to jump out at me.

One side of the debate seems to have the ability to have faith in a future far better then we have, either now, or in the past. There is a great desire to take a chance on the possibility of a truly great and far reaching future for America.

The other side of the debate seems to be more then willing to forgo a chance at something great, and settle for a somewhat known quantity. Settling for something safe and sure, and forgoing the possibility of something remarkable.

I personally am willing to take such a chance for the possibility of re-creating an even greater America. One side will call me a robot, and idiot, a blind lamb, and dismiss my faith completely. The other side will welcome me as a brother.

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 17, 2008 9:06 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton has refused to release her tax returns until after the Democratic Convention.

Question is: Why doesn't she trust her fellow Democrats by giving them a chance to make an informed decision.

Obama has.

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | February 17, 2008 08:26 PM

===
That was nice of Obama to do so. But the candidate isn't required to submit them until they are the nominee.

It sounds like Obama is doing the same old divisive politics by accusing Hillary of not doing something she doesn't have to do.

Posted by: badger3 | February 17, 2008 9:06 PM | Report abuse

All that experience and she still got it wrong on the most consequential vote of her career, the authorization to use military force in Iraq.

Posted by: twcollier | February 17, 2008 9:01 PM | Report abuse

Rules are rules. If Sen. Obama was behind, and Clinton was ahead, do you still think she would want them to count? The DNC punished FL & MI for breaking party rules. The punishment was known before this election cycle began. Why didn't she "feel" for those states voters before she was behind?

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 17, 2008 07:44 PM

===
Another good point...rules are rules. Do you think Senator Obama would want the Super Delgates to vote in accordance with the majority if he were behind in delegates, or would he be happy to have them vote to who they pledged?

Posted by: badger3 | February 17, 2008 9:01 PM | Report abuse

Second, how would this group of women's endorsement of Hillary be given any more weight than any other endorsement? In fact, why does anyone care about endorsements, period? Study the candidates, learn what they say about what's important to you. Then work for that person as much as you can.

Posted by: kbrabant | February 17, 2008 07:03 PM

===
Good point...You should tell that to the press. They cover Obama's endorsements ad-nausium. The "Second Coming of Christ" could not have been covered in more depth then when Ted (leave her to drown) Kennedy endorsed Obama. Does anyone even know that Hillary was endorsed by the very powerful Nurses Union? That was never once mentioned in the press.
I'm not quite sure of the "Love thing...," like the Obama supporters have, but we supporters of Hillary do have a lot of respect for a woman that we find inspiring.

Posted by: badger3 | February 17, 2008 8:56 PM | Report abuse

Apparently God is trying to stop Hillary too.

Posted by: zb95 | February 17, 2008 8:54 PM | Report abuse

The weather in Wisconsin wasn't the only snow job residents were getting today. Hillary's "35 years of experience" ? In what capacity? Really.
The biggest thing she has ever run is her fumbling, bumbling, poorly organized, arrogant and now losing campaign. Nice qualification for being president. Enough of the Clintons and their posturing and baloney.
As Ray Charles once said, "Tell your Ma, tell your Pa. Gonna send you back to Arkansas"

Posted by: jmsbh | February 17, 2008 8:49 PM | Report abuse

Is it just me, or does Barack Obama look a LOT like Count Chocula?

Posted by: cliokitty | February 17, 2008 8:48 PM | Report abuse


Clinton Soprano:

In 1995, a uniformed Secret Service officer swore under oath he saw Maggie William, HRC's current manager leave White House lawyer and Hillary confidant Vince Foster's office carrying documents after Foster committed suicide.

Posted by: sthorat | February 17, 2008 8:40 PM | Report abuse

http://katalusis.blogspot.com/2008/02/signing-on-for-hillary-clinton-these.html


Posted by: ichief | February 17, 2008 04:16 PM

===

I Chief...Thanks for posting this link. I checked it out. It is very good.

Posted by: badger3 | February 17, 2008 8:40 PM | Report abuse

Why is Hillary in full retreat?

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

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

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

Parents in particular would probably like to know what Bill and Hillary have to offer young people in terms of 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?

Not many people seem to be buying the "New Hillary."

Those with long memories will likely think that her inauthenitc 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 17, 2008 8:35 PM | Report abuse

"Solutions Business"? Right, Hillary sure had the right solution for healthcare in '93...and for Iraq before the war....can she just stop with the idiotic slogans already, stop talking about "Day One" and stop harping about "35 years of experience". In fact, can she and Bill just high tail it out of public life while there are at it?

Posted by: KAM3 | February 17, 2008 8:32 PM | Report abuse

I'm intrigued by the notion that Clinton has "solutions."

Didn't Bush have a "solution" for Iraq? Didn't "Brownie" have a solution for the Gulf Coast? Didn't Cheney have a solution for Plame? Didn't Hillary have a solution for Super Tuesday?

Doesn't every politician who ever drew breath have solutions for every problem?

We need someone to lead this nation by uniting the broad coalitions of Americans who are sick and tired of same-o same-o solutions and want the country to take a different direction in domestic policy and foreign affairs.

How much clearer can the message be?

The problem Hillary faces is not that she was "inevitable" or the "come-back kid" or was "experienced" or has "solutions."

The problem she faces is we do not need more policy wonks in the Oval Office.

We need a leader.

Barack Obama or John McCain. That's the choice America wants.

Posted by: gandalfthegrey | February 17, 2008 8:28 PM | Report abuse

Wisconsin Democrats pride themselves on being apostles of transparent, clean and accountable government.

Hillary Clinton has refused to release her tax returns until after the Democratic Convention.

Question is: Why doesn't she trust her fellow Democrats by giving them a chance to make an informed decision.

Obama has.

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | February 17, 2008 8:26 PM | Report abuse

"If you rude, illiterate Obama supporters shut your foul mouths and pinch that little nerve ending you call your brain for just a second and listen top both speeches you will see something very interesting."

Hmmm...rude and foul-mouthed. I hate to break it to you, but you have become what you despise.

And the those-who-don't-agree-with-me-are-idiots" tone does sound a bit like the Clintons -- which is part of the reason that a large percentage of the voters are looking for an alternative.

A lot of people simply look at the positions and see that Barack and Hillary are simply not all that far apart based on the plans detailed on his website. As far as why that info is only on his website and doesn't come out in his speeches...that seems to be a conscious choice -- to try to inspire and motivate rather than delve into the weeds of economic policy. And based on his results to date, it seems to be working.

Speaking only for myself, I would like to see this bitter hatred between the parties start to go away and I don't see that as a possibility with Hillary -- she's been both victim and soldier in this battle for 16 years and I'm not sure that the originator of the "vast right-wing conspiracy" quote can even start to move past this BS. I have my doubts about how much Obama can achieve towards that end, but I believe it will be more than Hillary can.

Posted by: gmtiffany | February 17, 2008 8:25 PM | Report abuse

Bienvideo? Seriously?

Posted by: gosoccer11 | February 17, 2008 8:24 PM | Report abuse

Instead of just sitting on the blogs and sniping, I spent several hours on the phone today with Wisconsin voters campaigning for Hillary. Most of the people I talked to don't even know what a blog is. Instead, they were thoughtful people with real questions about how we're going to start fixing the mess that Bush--and, yes, to some extent Bill (i.e. NAFTA)-- have gotten us into. When engaged on real issues and policy discussions, they overwhelmingly lean toward Hillary. One thing that strikes me about the Obama camp is how self-selective the group is--young, affluent hipsters who have a lot of time to sit on blogs and go to rallies and watch YouTube videos. I'm not discounting the importance of this sector of the electorate--I'm simply wary of the disproportianate influence they seem to on media and public perception.

Posted by: cliokitty | February 17, 2008 8:22 PM | Report abuse

As an Australian watching this process in America it amazes me how you keep making the same mistakes. First you anoint somebody as a messiah then you elect them and then when they can't walk on water you destroy them. And you do it again and again and again.

The problems in your country are at their heart about the massive imbalances in the distribution of wealth and power.

Preaching 'hope' and 'unity' won't solve these issues or even begin to.

How is Mr Obama going to unify the country, how is he going to create and sustain hope? Has anybody asked him?

Posted by: jhall | February 17, 2008 8:19 PM | Report abuse

A new AGR Poll has Hillary up by six points in Wisconsin as of February 17, 2008!

Jimjs

Posted by: customsjs | February 17, 2008 08:10 PM
________________________


A new Human poll has Hillary down by 23 points.

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 17, 2008 8:16 PM | Report abuse

"I believe that Obama has the potential to be an inspiration for the majority of citizens in the United States"

Inspiration isn't with a thing if you don't know what to do with it. America needs solutions, not Tony Robbins positive thinking, feel good inspirational speeches. If you want inspiration go rent a Richard Simmons work out video.

I will get PLENTY of inspiration from a strong economy, Universal health care, stepped up national security, jobs for Americans, environmental protection, a renewed commitment to scientific research, world peace. Those are the things Hillary is offering to go to work on, and she is right talk IS cheap, no matter how Obama spins with his tear jerker lines from MLK and JFK he uses like pointed sticks. Obama is not MLK or JFK, those men actually accomplished something before they became known.


Hillary All the Way.

Posted by: Hillary08 | February 17, 2008 8:15 PM | Report abuse

A new AGR Poll has Hillary up by six points in Wisconsin as of February 17, 2008!

Jimjs

Posted by: customsjs | February 17, 2008 8:10 PM | Report abuse

I have to say that I smiled, when after thinking she would put off coming to Wisconsin until the last minute, she lost a day due to bad weather.

For a state that she cares so much about, she now has one full day of "meeting the people."

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 17, 2008 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Read the Stansell letter:

It is vapid and self-refuting: it says that Hillary is "better" because she offers more "details," without supplying a single "detail" on this difference in "detail."

It is insulting, suggesting that a vote for Obama is somehow sexist.

The best evidence of the relative intelligence and leadership ability of Clinton and Obama is the campaigns run by each.

By that measure, the only one we really have, he is vastly more intelligent and capable that she is. Her campaign is premised on underestimating the opponent -- not very bright. It prizes loyalty over competence -- again not very bright. It is a disorganized, mindless campaign predicated on the patently falsely claim that a legislator with seven years of experience and without a single major legislative accomplishment (HRC) is somehow vastly more experienced than one with eleven years of experience and three major bills to his credit(Obama).

HRC had and has squandered every advantage.

An HRC Presidency would look like her campaign: vacuous, arrogant, disorganized, whiny, constantly behind the curve.

No thanks.

Posted by: mnjam | February 17, 2008 8:09 PM | Report abuse

A new AGR Poll has Hillary up by six points in Wisconsin as of February 17, 2008!

Jimjs

Posted by: customsjs | February 17, 2008 8:08 PM | Report abuse

BARACK OBAMA IS AMERICAS FUTURE IN ALL REGARDS AND THANKFULLY IT IS SO BRIGHT WE GOTTA WEAR SHADES. I am going with the candidate with integrity and judgment. The one who did not authorize the Iraq war. Was she duped by W? I don't believe it possible for her to be duped she is of superior intellect right? Our children's blood is being shed and our country is becoming owned by the Chinese and the Arabs so do we really want more of this type leading our country? I am a Latina woman from Tejas who is going to vote for Barack. Remember America we did not cross the bored the border crossed us. I am a native born citizen and take great offense at the media who seems to think we are like little brown sheep that Hillary can pull by the nose to the polls. Fact is I can make up my mind and want our country to be led by someone who can inspire and who is of obvious character.

GO BARACK GO!! SI SE PUEDE

Posted by: pedraza1 | February 17, 2008 8:03 PM | Report abuse

If Obama were not in this race, I would support Hillary without any hesitation. But Obama IS in the race, quite successfully, and I think that he is a STRONGER candidate against McCain!

If Hillary were to receive the nomination, (ESPECIALLY IN THE EVENT OF THE SUPER DELEGATES OVERTURNING ELECTED DELEGATES) I fear that she would mobilize the opposition, lose a substantial number of disenfranchised Obama supporters, lose the Independant vote and, ultimately, lose the election.

It is not important how much she knows about the issues if she can't win in the general election. Stevenson knew more than Eisenhower (Twice!). Mondale knew more than Reagan. Carter knew more than the first Bush and Gore was absolutely more prepared than "W"!

I believe that Obama has the potential to be an inspiration for the majority of citizens in the United States, as well as the rest of world. He has the vision, communication skills and analytical ability to energize this country and break the divisive partisan politics of the past 30 years.

I sense that neither Hillary Clinton, nor John McCain, can do this.

Posted by: barryehrlich | February 17, 2008 8:00 PM | Report abuse

I watched both of the speeches in Wisconsin from yesterday on CSPAN. If you rude, illiterate Obama supporters shut your foul mouths and pinch that little nerve ending you call your brain for just a second and listen top both speeches you will see something very interesting. What you will see is, Obama is an excellent orator, he truly is, he is funny at times, he has many stolen lines he tosses out like doggy biscuits to his rabid clueless followers from the speeches of JFK and MLK and he for the most part stand for the common good. Oh and he also LOVES to claim he did EVERYTHING before Hillary did, like that annoying girl on SNL who always does it faster, bigger and better. I am waiting for Obama to say he invented the Internet before AL Gore next! Go listen to the two speeches and you will see what I mean. What you DON'T get from Obama, along with his MANY complaints and criticisms of everyone, is SOLUTIONS or a PLAN. Then you listen to Hillary, you will see the complete opposite, her whole speech is about what she will actually do to repair our damaged country, what she has to offer in the way of real solutions to our problems, and that to me is what we seriously need to hear and know about a candidate before voting. Furthermore, her plans are all excellent for what America needs right now like only Hillary can seriously deliver from day one. In 2000 the guy who had all the plans and details was Al Gore, stupid people voted for Bush, in 2004 it was Kerry, he won 3 straight debates, stupid people? voted for Bush, this time the smart one with the actual plan in great detail is Hillary, and what are the idiots doing once again? voting for the guy who lies to you and tells funny stories, the guy you can sit and have a beer with. If you want real change, you want actual RESULTS, you vote smart this time America, you vote for Hillary Clinton.

Hillary All the Way

Posted by: Hillary08 | February 17, 2008 7:59 PM | Report abuse

I have a warning for all the super delegates and the Democratic Party. If Obama wins the most number of votes AND the most number of states AND the most number of pledged delegates, be VERY careful if you plan on having the super delegates anoint Hillary Clinton the queen of the United States ignoring the will of the constituents. If this happens, there will be a civil war within the Democratic party. A large number of people who voted for Obama (more than 50% of the Democrats) will NOT vote for Hillary under these circumstances and some of them may even vote for McCain.

I am a Maryland Democrat but I believe in Democracy and fairness. If Hillary Clinton wins the most number of pledged delegates fair and square I will vote for her in the general election.

If the party insiders make her the candidate ignoring the will of the people (what is this, Russia?), I may just vote for McCain out of utter disgust. This wold essentially mean the end of the Democratic party and she will become the Ralph Nader of 2008.

Play fair or it will be the end of the Democratic party.

Remember the outcome of this is not meant to be a CORONATION for a queen but a presidential candidate for an INAUGURATION as chosen by the CITIZENS, not all the corrupt self serving chronies of the Clintons.

Posted by: BethesdaMD | February 17, 2008 7:54 PM | Report abuse

Guys are so afraid of a smart women. Small dickk heads are alays afraid of smart women.

Posted by: hhkeller | February 17, 2008 07:25 PM

---------------------------------------
Is that the depth of your defense of Hillary? You seem as smart as Hillary, and familiar with her political campaigning approach. I can tell this by you astute ability to attack the individual, and skip the substance of the arguments made.

You so funnnnny!

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 17, 2008 7:51 PM | Report abuse

If there was any substance in her campaign, she would not have been the first candidate to broadcast negative ads. Hillary Can't even run a proper campaign, let alone a nation. All we will get from a Clinton Administration are more miserable failures.

Hillary Clinton has shown zero leadership with her vote for the Iraq war. She did not have a backbone to stand up for a wrong war because she thought voting for the war will be good for her career. What a self-serving and opportunistic queen she must think she is!

If Hillary Clinton is coronated the Queen by corrupt party insiders, her crown will be soaked in the blood of the 3,000+ Americans and the 200,000+ Iraqi's who have died because she did not have the courage to stand up for what is right.

Thankfully we have another candidate who had the courage to stand up for what he believes in.

Posted by: BethesdaMD | February 17, 2008 7:51 PM | Report abuse

It amazes me that people chide Hillary for spending less time in Wisconsin or any other state for that matter than Obama. They claim she doesn't care about the people in Wisconsin enough to spend more time? All this from the Obama folks that say 2 million people in Florida and Michigan who voted are meaningless.

Posted by: dmurphy.hg | February 17, 2008 07:09 PM
===============

Rules are rules. If Sen. Obama was behind, and Clinton was ahead, do you still think she would want them to count? The DNC punished FL & MI for breaking party rules. The punishment was known before this election cycle began. Why didn't she "feel" for those states voters before she was behind?

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 17, 2008 7:44 PM | Report abuse

Just a quick typo correction for you, Jose. That second scheduled stop for Ms. Clinton was "Wausau", not "Wassau".

Posted by: flux | February 17, 2008 7:44 PM | Report abuse

Now I understand:

Obama's speeches are just "talk."

Hillary speeches are "solutions" and not talk.

Because Hillary will be a dictator who can unilaterally implement her solutions.

This woman is a nut.

Posted by: mnjam | February 17, 2008 7:38 PM | Report abuse

scruffy1970,

I'm not sure you exist in the same reality that the rest of us do. Clinton had to work for everything she has while Obama didn't? Her family was fairly well-to-do, and she became first lady and a New York senator because her husband was president. This isn't to say that she doesn't work hard, but a lot of where she is a result of circumstances...unless you call marrying a person who will become president "working hard," which in Hillary's case with Bill might be the right description.

And what has Obama ever been handed? He comes from a broken family that doesn't seem nearly as well off as Clinton's family, and he worked his way up as a community organizer, civil rights lawyer, and state legislator before he got where he was at today. Nobody gave him any of that.

And Clinton was also granted the "inevitable" status by the media and party powers, but Obama has worked hard to take the lead. If leading in a presidential primary is something that is given to a person just because he is black, then why haven't we had a black president yet? Jesse Jackson had a decent run but was never close, and Al Sharpton never got out the door. Give Obama credit for the work he's done and the smarts he has shown in this campaign.

Posted by: blert | February 17, 2008 7:38 PM | Report abuse

Really dmurphy?? You really want us to believe that Obama somehow is responsible for the Florida and Michigan mess? You need to review your not so past history and see that the Democratic party as a whole made the decision to not allow Michigan or Florida because they decided to go against the rules that they clearly stated in advance and in fact are rules that had been in place for years. Rules that both Hillary and Obama have voted for and supported.

Now Hillary wants a mock primary where Obama wasn't even on the ballot to somehow count. What would really be the honorable thing to do would be to support the push to have the Florida and Michigan votes redone so that the voters could actually see both Hillary and Obama on the ballot and where they could actually choose between two candidates.

Why is the Clinton camp not pushing for that? Why are they pushing only for a win that they got in a mock vote where most people did not go out and vote because they were told it would not count. And a vote where Obama was not even on the ballot? Please explain how Hillary is not disenfranchising the Obama supporters and the independent voters? I thought we still lived in a democracy?

Posted by: ezne1son | February 17, 2008 7:35 PM | Report abuse

Hillary and Bill are both "Drama Queens!" Enough already let's turn that page.

Posted by: LAGCII | February 17, 2008 7:32 PM | Report abuse

With hhkeller's post, I'd say this here thread has totally degenerated into meaningless trash. I sure am happy that both Obama and Hillary are smarter than us all here. Good night.

Posted by: wwtt | February 17, 2008 7:31 PM | Report abuse

Guys are so afraid of a smart women. Small dickk heads are alays afraid of smart women.

Posted by: hhkeller | February 17, 2008 7:25 PM | Report abuse

O-bomb-a. What a catastrophe. He is all smoke and mirrors and fluff. He has nothing more to offer than any other Democrat, while having practically no experience in national or executive politics. He is, as Hillary notes, all talk. He also will not be able to accomplish anything as president because he is far too liberal. He is not centrist at all. He has a few positions that are essentially Repubican, but none that are middle. He will be shot down as a tax and spender, weak on international affairs, weak on terrorism, weak on the economy, and a typical old-school Democrat. If he gets the nomination, McCain will easily win the general election, because as people get to know Obama, they will find they really don''t like him very much at all. If Hillary got the nomination, people would find they like her more and more, and she would defeat McCain fairly easily. Nominating Obama is the worst mistake the Democratic party will ever have made.

Posted by: thomjeff76 | February 17, 2008 7:25 PM | Report abuse

O-bomb-a. What a catastrophe. He is all smoke and mirrors and fluff. He has nothing more to offer than any other Democrat, while having practically no experience in national or executive politics. He is, as Hillary notes, all talk. He also will not be able to accomplish anything as president because he is far too liberal. He is not centrist at all. He has a few positions that are essentially Repubican, but none that are middle. He will be shot down as a tax and spender, weak on international affairs, weak on terrorism, weak on the economy, and a typical old-school Democrat. If he gets the nomination, McCain will easily win the general election, because as people get to know Obama, they will find they really don''t like him very much at all. If Hillary got the nomination, people would find they like her more and more, and she would defeat McCain fairly easily. Nominating Obama is the worst mistake the Democratic party will ever have made.

Posted by: thomjeff76 | February 17, 2008 7:25 PM | Report abuse

O-bomb-a. What a catastrophe. He is all smoke and mirrors and fluff. He has nothing more to offer than any other Democrat, while having practically no experience in national or executive politics. He is, as Hillary notes, all talk. He also will not be able to accomplish anything as president because he is far too liberal. He is not centrist at all. He has a few positions that are essentially Repubican, but none that are middle. He will be shot down as a tax and spender, weak on international affairs, weak on terrorism, weak on the economy, and a typical old-school Democrat. If he gets the nomination, McCain will easily win the general election, because as people get to know Obama, they will find they really don''t like him very much at all. If Hillary got the nomination, people would find they like her more and more, and she would defeat McCain fairly easily. Nominating Obama is the worst mistake the Democratic party will ever have made.

Posted by: thomjeff76 | February 17, 2008 7:25 PM | Report abuse

O-bomb-a. What a catastrophe. He is all smoke and mirrors and fluff. He has nothing more to offer than any other Democrat, while having practically no experience in national or executive politics. He is, as Hillary notes, all talk. He also will not be able to accomplish anything as president because he is far too liberal. He is not centrist at all. He has a few positions that are essentially Repubican, but none that are middle. He will be shot down as a tax and spender, weak on international affairs, weak on terrorism, weak on the economy, and a typical old-school Democrat. If he gets the nomination, McCain will easily win the general election, because as people get to know Obama, they will find they really don''t like him very much at all. If Hillary got the nomination, people would find they like her more and more, and she would defeat McCain fairly easily. Nominating Obama is the worst mistake the Democratic party will ever have made.

Posted by: thomjeff76 | February 17, 2008 7:25 PM | Report abuse

Feminist Intellectuals? Sounds like a cult to me. What I can't understand is how Hillary is a great heroine to feminsts when she has stuck with the scummy husband she has. How is that an example of empowerment? Sounds more like a worship of victimhood to me. There is no shortage of very talented women who would make a great president. Hillary is just not one of them. Obama... No Whitehouse Drama....

Posted by: barnardj1 | February 17, 2008 7:16 PM | Report abuse

"There is nothing which speaks to hate in anything I have seen from anyone who volunteers or works for this campaign."

Wow seriously?

you haven't read the blog on Obama's site lately huh?

I'm amazed their moderators actually let some of that stuff on the web.

Posted by: dmurphy.hg | February 17, 2008 7:14 PM | Report abuse

ah...svreader has arrived....must be time for tales from Hillaryland....

Once upon a time, there was a Queen....

nighty, night!

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 17, 2008 7:11 PM | Report abuse

It amazes me that people chide Hillary for spending less time in Wisconsin or any other state for that matter than Obama. They claim she doesn't care about the people in Wisconsin enough to spend more time? All this from the Obama folks that say 2 million people in Florida and Michigan who voted are meaningless.

Posted by: dmurphy.hg | February 17, 2008 7:09 PM | Report abuse

"Why Mr. Obama do you fail to be truthful to your supporters about that?"


Since when has Obama hidden his supporters?? He has nothing to hide.

Everyone who runs a business knows that real change is always built on tradition. This is another mistake the Clintons made 16 years ago...arrogantly thinking they could make real change without the old hands of the Carter administration. Read your history.

Obama has again shown his smarts by making use of the old guard. And, tellingly, many of Obama's supporters are former Clintonites who want nothing to do with the Clinton dysfunction they experienced first-hand.

again, the truth will set you free.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 17, 2008 7:08 PM | Report abuse

In all my years following politics I've never seen as brain-washed a group of policical followers than Obama supporters.

Its the closest thing we've had to a "cult" in American politics and it should be a wake-up call to all Americans.

Just like Bush, Obama is running on generic promises and hype.

We can't afford another George Bush.

Remember the last guy who promised to "change the tone in washington", "reach accross the isle" and "be a uniter not a divider"

That hasn't been working out very well, has it?

Words only matter when they are backed up with facts and actions.

Obama has neither.

He's just an empty suit and a mirror.


Posted by: svreader | February 17, 2008 7:08 PM | Report abuse

Seriously David, you want to get into a policy wonk debate? Hillary may be a better technocrat than Obama but much to the chagrin of her supporters she won't be the Queen of the United States and she won't get one single policy issue passed without the support of the Republicans. There is this thing called Congress which tends to get in the way of Presidents. How do you suppose she will do this better than Obama?? Also last time I checked all of the major movements and large initiatives in this country that ultimately passed and got implemented were because of a ground swell of support among the American public which started from the ground up. Do you care to explain how Hillary can achieve this better than Obama?

And do you seriously think Obama is some little child blindly stumbling and fumbling around without any ideas or anyway to make something happen? You don't think he has any intelligence or ability to pick smart people that will surround him and actually do most of the work like every President before him? He apparently seems to be able to run a huge national campaign that coorindates thousands and thousands of people all across the United States in a way that is actually beating your candidate. Or do you think that he is doing this just by blind luck as well?

Posted by: ezne1son | February 17, 2008 7:08 PM | Report abuse

gmtiffany -- If he had been in 2000 the same guy he is now (and voters were allowed to see that), he'd have won going away.

Maybe the problem is not the candidates but we as a people that could not see that Gore was a better alternative than Bush.

Posted by: sjohn | February 17, 2008 7:06 PM | Report abuse

As to ichief's statement about "hate-mongering Obama supporters", I have two points to make.

First, I have been a political observer/activist for almost 40 years. I have worked on many, many campaigns during that time. I am now a supporter and volunteer for Obama. There is nothing which speaks to hate in anything I have seen from anyone who volunteers or works for this campaign. On the contrary, the joy and love which this group of people do their work is quite inspiring.

Second, how would this group of women's endorsement of Hillary be given any more weight than any other endorsement? In fact, why does anyone care about endorsements, period? Study the candidates, learn what they say about what's important to you. Then work for that person as much as you can.

Posted by: kbrabant | February 17, 2008 7:03 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama says we should reject "the same ole Washington players, playing the same ole Washington game, expecting different results"hmmmm...tell me then Mr. Obama, why is it your staff is made up of all those "same ole Washington players, playing the same ole Washington games" too if you're so concerned about change? Why Mr. Obama do you fail to be truthful to your supporters about that?

Posted by: dmurphy.hg | February 17, 2008 6:58 PM | Report abuse

"To those Obama maniac supporters who deride Hillary Clinton's command of policy and offers SOLUTIONS, not just PROMISES, here is an interesting story in today's New York Times about "The Charisma Mandate."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/weekinreview/17zernike.html?hp"

Should we be surprised to find out that this article slamming Obama was written by a feminist??

The author also wrote the book, "Where a 'Southern Girl' Is Also a Feminist"

As Gomer used to say" Sooprize, sooprize, sooprize!"

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 17, 2008 6:57 PM | Report abuse

One is too old, and another too inexperienced. The one left is mature and experienced, with a firm grasp of important issues and a desire to contribute since long ago.

Posted by: seungping | February 17, 2008 6:55 PM | Report abuse

"Bienvideo!" he really said "Bienvideo?" Amazing!

Posted by: ardilla29 | February 17, 2008 6:48 PM | Report abuse

sjohn, you go right ahead-that's your choice. I WILL NOT VOTE FOR BUSH OR A CLINTON under any circumstances and that's my right.

Posted by: mike_j | February 17, 2008 6:44 PM | Report abuse

"Gore had the worst run campaign in a long long time."


And as much cHarisma as molasses. Darkly sweet, but not sparkly. He should have fought for those Florida votes. Too many silver spoons.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 17, 2008 6:44 PM | Report abuse

To those Obama maniac supporters who deride Hillary Clinton's command of policy and offers SOLUTIONS, not just PROMISES, here is an interesting story in today's New York Times about "The Charisma Mandate."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/weekinreview/17zernike.html?hp

Would we call this a cult of personality?
"Today that term is all around Barack Obama -- perhaps because there seems so little other way to explain how a first-term senator has managed to dazzle his way to front-runner in the race for the presidency, how he walks on water for so many supporters, and how the mere suggestion that he is, say, mortal, risks vehement objection, or at least exposing the skeptic as deeply uncool."

"What is troubling about the campaign is that it's gone beyond hope and change to redemption," said Sean Wilentz, a historian at Princeton (and a longtime friend of the Clintons). "It's posing as a figure who is the one person who will redeem our politics. And what I fear is, that ends up promising more from politics than politics can deliver."

"From the day Mr. Obama announced his candidacy, he has billed it as a movement, and himself as the agent of generational change. He has mocked his rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton, for accusing him of raising "false hopes." "We don't need leaders who are telling us what we cannot do," he said in New Hampshire. "We need a president who can tell us what we can do! What we can accomplish! Where we can take this country!"

"Accounts of the campaign's "Camp Obama" sessions, to train volunteers, have a revivalist flavor. Volunteers are urged to avoid talking about policy to potential voters, and instead tell of how they "came" to Mr. Obama."

"If you don't talk about issues in great detail, if you do it in a way that is not the centerpiece of your campaign, of your rhetoric, then you become a blank screen," Mr. Wilentz said. "Everybody thinks you are the vehicle of their hopes."


Posted by: David2007 | February 17, 2008 6:44 PM | Report abuse

"Gore was much smarter than the average person in this country -- but we proved that we would rather have a President that ducked the draft and had a drinking problem."

Gore had the worst run campaign in a long long time. For whatever reason, his campaign strategy was to hide all semblance of a personality and do completely inexplicable stuff like releasing water from a damn during a drought to set up a photo op on canoe (no, I don't think Gore had any idea that was going on).

If he had been in 2000 the same guy he is now (and voters were allowed to see that), he'd have won going away.

Posted by: gmtiffany | February 17, 2008 6:41 PM | Report abuse

"I think we tried that in 2000 -- Gore was much smarter than the average person in this country -- but we proved that we would rather have a President that ducked the draft and had a drinking problem"

Except we KNEW he was a charlatan....we had the proof from every year of his life.

Completely different.

black and white, as it were.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 17, 2008 6:40 PM | Report abuse

mike_j - I would NEVER vote for that ticket and if Obama would agree to it I would lose all respect for him. I suggest that if the DNC should concoct some back room deal to give hillary the nod Obama should run as an Independent and forget about a party of idiots. I really don't care if McCain is elected, I will not accept hillary at any cost.

Perfect - divisions in the Democratic party and another reason we always lose. I would support who ever is nominated.

Posted by: sjohn | February 17, 2008 6:40 PM | Report abuse

I would NEVER vote for that ticket and if Obama would agree to it I would lose all respect for him. I suggest that if the DNC should concoct some back room deal to give hillary the nod Obama should run as an Independent and forget about a party of idiots. I really don't care if McCain is elected, I will not accept hillary at any cost.

Posted by: mike_j | February 17, 2008 6:37 PM | Report abuse

"Obama supporters should realize that their behavior will preclude any consideration of a Clinton/Obama ticket."


Please. This isn't a high school election.

Should Hillary get the nomination, Obama will not be offered the VP spot because there is no way that Hillary would have a VP who would have more people and reporters following him everywhere.
If they are together, all eyes immediately go to Obama. Bill would have to be medicated. More than usual.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 17, 2008 6:37 PM | Report abuse

Hillary just can't win.

Posted by: NookReader | February 17, 2008 6:35 PM | Report abuse

Scruffy1970: "Obama has been given everything in his life because he is Black"

Wow, you mean you didn't get the affirmative action ballot telling you to vote for Obama? How did we screw that one up?

Posted by: wwtt | February 17, 2008 6:34 PM | Report abuse

wpost4112 - Well, you can always spend the next 8 years watching reruns of "Designing Women"...the rest of us will move on to prosperity AND decency....

I think we tried that in 2000 -- Gore was much smarter than the average person in this country -- but we proved that we would rather have a President that ducked the draft and had a drinking problem.

Posted by: sjohn | February 17, 2008 6:34 PM | Report abuse

"A Wisconsin event was canceled also by Sen. Obama due to weather. But all Obama did was to go South and meet with John Edwards, as reported in another leading newspaper."

Sounds pretty smart to me. He, unlike Hillary, has crisscrossed Wisconsin for several days and he will be back in Beloit tomorrow. People were told to get off the roads in Wisc because of ice. So I think it was smart of Barack to visit Edwards (although I personally don't give a fig whom Edwards endorses).

That Hillary spent an hour in a diner in a state she has otherwise ignored doesn't exactly conjure up images of true concern for the citizens of that state.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 17, 2008 6:34 PM | Report abuse

"Obama supporters should realize that their behavior will preclude any consideration of a Clinton/Obama ticket."

If it were truly left up to Hillary, he won't be on the ticket anyway -- no Presidential candidate wants a VP who's more charismatic and has a better message than she does.

But, since neither candidate will get the needed delegates, you're looking at a negotiation of sorts to pick the candidate. And Obama has brought too many new people to the process for the party to shut him out of the Nov. election -- he'll be on the ticket either way.

Posted by: gmtiffany | February 17, 2008 6:33 PM | Report abuse

LET'S ALL JUST CUT TO THE CHASE- IF THE WAY SHE HAS RUN HER CAMPAIGN IS ANY INDICATION OF HER "BEING READY ON DAY ONE", WE ALL SHOULD JUST TEDLL HER SHE LIED ABOUT HER MANAGERIAL SKILLS AND VOTE FOR THE ONE WHO HAS RUN ONE OF THE BEST CAMPAIGNS IN THE HISTORY OF POLOTICS-OBAMA.
PURE AND SIMPLE- SHE CAN'T EVEN RUN A CAMPAIGN, HOW COULD SHE EVER RUN A COUNTRY?

Posted by: mike_j | February 17, 2008 6:30 PM | Report abuse

"Wow! I would love to go back to those days -- warts and all."


Well, you can always spend the next 8 years watching reruns of "Designing Women"...the rest of us will move on to prosperity AND decency....

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 17, 2008 6:28 PM | Report abuse

"In a direct poke at Obama, she said: "I'm not here to just give you a speech. I'm here to give you solutions about how we're going to solve problems.""

-Senator Clinton speaking to a gathering in Wisconsin

Huh?

Isn't she there to a give a speech about giving us "solutions about how we're going to solve problems."

Did the audience get their problems solved? They got a speech!

Posted by: RMGopal | February 17, 2008 6:25 PM | Report abuse

For the 3 remaining candidates (Hillary, Obama, McCain), the largest organization that any of them is this campaign. All come from the Senate where they are 1 member out of 100. In terms of true leadership, these campaign efforts are the biggest things they any of them has led.

On the democratic side, the "experience" candidate who would be ready on day one, seems to have, by far, the most dysfunctional organization. She not only arrogantly assumed and stated that the nomination would be wrapped up by Feb 5th, but behind the scenes her campaign wasn't ready for a challenge and had no plan "B" for having to run a campaign beyond that date. Ironically, she's run her campaign similar to how Bush has managed Iraq: "They'll greet me as a liberator. Oh wait, they like the other guy better? How did that happen and what do we do now?"

Financially they had shot their wad by Feb 5 and Hillary had to make a personal loan to keep things going. She ignored a large number of states (caucus states) and allowed her opponent to take her to the woodshed in those states -- so much so that Obama netted more delegates in Idaho that Hillary did in New Jersey.

She claims to be experienced and ready to lead -- I suppose we'll just have to ignore the recent evidence to the contrary.

Posted by: gmtiffany | February 17, 2008 6:21 PM | Report abuse

wpost4112 - "Yes, and his election was made possible by the Clintons and their moral and political failings."

Well, nice to see someone with such high moral standards -- you are begining to sound like the Republicans. Their high morality -- time and again -- has shown how frail we as human beings we are. If anything -- the Republicans -- have proved to us that they are all talk -- no substance. Their morality is a great 20 second soundbite on a commercial -- until they get caught.
So, apart from the Clinton's moral mistake, we saw an incredible growth of our economy and prosperity for all, peace in the world and most of the world loved us.
Wow! I would love to go back to those days -- warts and all.

Posted by: sjohn | February 17, 2008 6:16 PM | Report abuse

Interesting, this report based on the weather in Wisconsin. Interesting too what Sen. Clinton sampled in a grocery store on this down day enforced by the weather.

A Wisconsin event was canceled also by Sen. Obama due to weather. But all Obama did was to go South and meet with John Edwards, as reported in another leading newspaper.

Posted by: FirstMouse | February 17, 2008 6:14 PM | Report abuse

Scruffy1970: "Hillary is smarter than Obama. She has also had to work for everything she has gotten. Obama has been given everything in his life because he is Black." Reverse logic and racist attitude in its worst. Let's check some and be fair. Neither of them was born with a silver spoon in his/her mouth.
- Hillary Rodham Clinton was born... to Hugh Ellsworth Rodham, who operated a small but successful business in the textile industry
- Barack Obama was born Aug. 4, 1961. AT the time of his birth, Obama's parents were students at the East-West Center of the University of Hawaii at Mano
so they both had to work hard to get where they are.
Hillary inherited much fame, fortune, but also misery and attack from her marriage to Bill, but on balance, I'd say she had a head start.
So, like I said, be fair and give Barack his due. He IS good! Empty talk or not (and I definitely don't think so), wouldn't you believe Hillary would just assume that she can do the same thing and win?

Posted by: wwtt | February 17, 2008 6:12 PM | Report abuse

Maybe she can triangulate her reasoning for voting in favor of a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning!! And yet we expect her to restore first amendment rights infringed upon us by the current admistration? Get real!!

Posted by: johnklenert | February 17, 2008 6:09 PM | Report abuse

Hillary continues to lie.....


A health-care mailing that the Clinton camp distributed in Wisconsin shows a rainbow assortment of young and old Americans, asks: "Barack Obama, Which of these people don't deserve health care?" The line is a play off of Clinton's stump speech, in which she asks rhetorically who should she choose not to give health care to: The single mom? The waitress? The retiree?

On a second page it reads, "Barack Obama's plan says NO WE CAN'T, leaving 15 million people without coverage." It goes on to list bullet points claiming that the plan "wastes billions" and would cost Americans $1,700 per person." Obama has long claimed that his plan would cut costs more than any other's and would cut costs for individuals. But Clinton has seized on his plan's lack of a mandate to say he's not really offering universal health coverage.


The only sickness is in Hillary's mind.
Deceitful.
Underhanded.
Desperate.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 17, 2008 6:09 PM | Report abuse

Looks like svreader is working overtime for the Clinton campaign. Clearly no "hate-mongering" against Obama in his or her posts.

Clinton supporters asked where they were showing signs of "hate-mongering" against Obama and it doesn't take more than a minute for a poster like svreader to show up and prove the point.

Nice work.

Posted by: ezne1son | February 17, 2008 6:07 PM | Report abuse

"

Here are some exact quotes from Obama

"Of course I inhaled, that was the whole point"

"then we went out to score some blow"

Does that sound like a President of the United States???"

Sure.

Finally, a person who speaks honestly about his youth. That's exactly whom I would want as President.

We do not blame the youth for their mistakes, we do adults...like adults who don't know what "is" is. And their co=dependent spouses.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 17, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

Here are some exact quotes from Obama

"Of course I inhaled, that was the whole point"

"then we went out to score some blow"

Does that sound like a President of the United States???

Posted by: svreader | February 17, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

"I am continuously amazed at the hate spewing from the Obama supporters."

What hate?

Give me 5 examples that do not involve anonymous internet poster who could be anyone, including listeners of Rush.

5.

Cause I got at least 5 examples of Hillary supporters being hateful.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 17, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters should realize that their behavior will preclude any consideration of a Clinton/Obama ticket.

Hillary will beat Obama.

She's the only Democrat that can beat McCain.

Obama suppporters can join up or be left behind.

Posted by: svreader | February 17, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

jscameron your comment is a great example of how the Clintonites take something completely out of context and then make a huge story out of something that isn't even relevant right at this point in time.

Obama's pledge to accept public funding only relates to something that hasn't happened yet. You are assuming that he will be the nominee and you are also assuming Mccain will or will not accept public funding. I am not going to pledge to my opponent in a bicycle race to ride only a bicycle if in fact my opponent decides to drive a car in the race. Seriously, you think that is a smart strategy?? Do you think we should just give this election to the Republicans??

Obama has said he would agree to public financing as long as the Republican opponent also agreed to it. What is the confusion here??

Posted by: ezne1son | February 17, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

The Hillary Clinton campaign is:
a. in panic mode
b. broke
c. giving up on Wisconsin
d. trying to figure out how to strong-arm the superdelegates into supporting her over the popular vote
e. all of the above

Too bad, Hillary could have done well in Wisconsin but by not showing up until 3 days before the election - and then getting snowed in - she disrespected Wisconsinites and given Obama the openning he needed to give his inspirational message of hope. He'll win Tuesday.

And now on to Ohio and Texas for Hillary's last stand.

Posted by: matt_ahrens | February 17, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Latest stats show Obama's strategy is backfiring.

Bashing the Clintons is not a useful strategy for winnning a national election.

Even more encouraging for Americans who want leaders to set a good example for their kids is that more and more people are learning that Obama used Cocaine repeatedly and that it makes him a multiple felon.

Americans will not knowingly elect a felon to the whitehouse.

Obama-mania is nothing more than drug-fueled hype.

Posted by: svreader | February 17, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

I am continuously amazed at the hate spewing from the Obama supporters. I have never seen so much hate coming out of a group who supports someone because of "hope." They have overtaken right wing republicans for being the most hateful group of people in the US. Obviously this group has no better reasons to support Senator Obama than he has for asking people to vote for him. We don't need redemption or a new "messiah" figure. He has stolen the words of Martin Luther King and has cheapened them for his personal political gain.

Posted by: hazwalnut | February 17, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Re: the "24/7 hate-mongering of rabid Obama supporters", I wonder what that could be?

The bringing up the fact that Hillary voted for the Iraq war? (she did).
The bringing up that she now claims that she didn't really mean it....now that 4,000 of our troops are dead?
The bringing up the fact that she recently voted to authorize Bush to attack Iran? (she did)

("fool me once....fool me twice...",etc.)

Let's face it. Hillary does what she does because she thinks it will win her political points. ...And then pretend that "she didn't really mean it".

What to make of it? That she's in bed with the Neocon pro-war lobbies? (my guess)...or that she has bad judgement?

In the end, what difference does it make?

This country needs a change from people like the Clintons.

I vote for Obama !!

Posted by: kevinlarmee | February 17, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse

obama is getting endorsements from everywhere. what does that tell you.

Posted by: www.jmd273 | February 17, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse

"The fact that Hillary is calling for Florida and Michigan delegates to be seated is proof positive that she has no respect for the rule of law.
-------------

I have no idea what that has to do with the rule of law."


That's part of the problem.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 17, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse

hillary can't even run a successful campaign. how is she going to run this country. i don't need to read the dumbing of america. after reading that book will i start believing liars

Posted by: www.jmd273 | February 17, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Now Hillary is dividing feminists!

Susan Saradon and The New York Feminists for Peace and Barack Obama have a petition you can sign:

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/NYfeministsforpeace/

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 17, 2008 5:48 PM | Report abuse

The fact that Hillary is calling for Florida and Michigan delegates to be seated is proof positive that she has no respect for the rule of law.
-------------

I have no idea what that has to do with the rule of law.

She's acting in her campaign's best interest, just as Obama is when he goes back on his pledge to accept public funding. Now, of course, he's back-pedaling furiously now that the contributions have poured in (fyi, the pledge was made before this campaigned discovered how much was to be had).

Posted by: JamesSCameron | February 17, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

"Hillary is smarter than Obama. She has also had to work for everything she has gotten. Obama has been given everything in his life because he is Black. Obama has a good speech where the youth believe his nonsense. I am would never vote for anyone who is so full of themselves. He is short on facts and full of nonsense."


There's a new book out: "The Dumbing Of America."
You should read it. Seriously.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 17, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

it seems to me that false accusations are acceptable.newsweek and the washington post have articles proving hillary clinton has lied on obama time after time. can you seriously support someone that has been proven to lie. do hillary believe the american people are so dumb and naive not to investigate her claims. i guess she's right. i was a hillary supporter til i saw her true self.inspiration and hope is very important contrary to her beliefs. if hillary is not leading in pledge delegates and is given the nomination, independents and the majority of young voters will feel cheated. it will cost her in the general election. what kind of example is she setting with lies. if she wins, she lost my vote

Posted by: www.jmd273 | February 17, 2008 5:44 PM | Report abuse

ichief / TruthBeTold: As long as you want to take a feminist point of view, how about Maureen Dowd of the NY Times (and NY Times endorsed Hillary). Her article "A Flawed Feminist Test" ends with the sentence "If Hillary fails, it will be her failure, not ours". The entier article can be found at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/opinion/13dowd.html

Posted by: wwtt | February 17, 2008 5:43 PM | Report abuse

@ katalusis: I think the 250 feminists who wrote to support Hillary should quickly bury their gender cards. What a terrible thing to do. Don't they realize they have done Hillary serious damage by doing this?

Posted by: dunnhaupt | February 17, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is smarter than Obama. She has also had to work for everything she has gotten. Obama has been given everything in his life because he is Black. Obama has a good speech where the youth believe his nonsense. I am would never vote for anyone who is so full of themselves. He is short on facts and full of nonsense.

Posted by: Scruffy1970 | February 17, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

it seems to me that false accusations are acceptable.newsweek and the washington post have article proving hillary clinton has lied obama time after time. can you seriously support someone that is has been proven to lie. do hillary believe the american people are so dumb and naive to investigate her claims. i guess she's right. i was a hillary supporter til i saw her true self.inspiration and hope is very important contrary to her beliefs. if she hillary is not leading in pledge delegates and is given the nomination, independents and the majority of young voters will feel cheated. it will cost her in the general election. what kind of example is she setting with lies. if she wins, she lost

Posted by: www.jmd273 | February 17, 2008 5:40 PM | Report abuse

Sad, but undeniable, there is a lot of pent up anger toward the Clintons. It's one reason why she wouldn't be effective if nominated or elected.

Posted by: starbuck1 | February 17, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

"A refreshing antidote to the 24/7 hate-mongering of rabid Obama supporters"


Of course, calling Obama supporters "hate=mongering" and "rabid" is I suppose your idea of "refreshing"??

You need to get out of the feminist ghetto, even if it's in an ivory tower, and find some real refreshment.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 17, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Seriously ichief, "hate-mongering"? Against who and what exactly? I would say the Clinton supporters have shown themselves to be even more rabid. In fact, you only see Clinton supporters attacking liberal talk show hosts and trying to get sponsors to the shows pulled because these talk show hosts are too pro-Obama. Talk about trying to eat you own. Maybe they should focus their energy on the Right-wing talk shows who really have been bashing Hillary for almost a decade. But instead they seem to be trying to implode their own party from within purely because they want to win at all costs. Trying to win at all costs to the detriment of your own party and the country makes you not all that different from the Republican party.

A perfect example of this is that Hillary wants to go against her initial pledge and the original decision of the democratic party and try to have the Michigan primary count for her when Obama wasn't even on the ballot? Seriously, you think that isn't trying to win at all costs? Even if it might destroy any chance we have of beating Mccain in November? Why isn't she pushing for a redo in Michigan and Florida where men and women could make a fair choice between Hillary or Obama? Would you as a feminist not agree that this is the only fair thing to do?

And another thing, the fact that you have to identify yourself with feminists and then qualify that statement with "intellectuals" like that somehow is even more important and impressive is in fact sexist. You have identified yourself as somehow superior to those less intelligent feminists and even to women who don't consider themselves feminists. It is time that we get beyond this divisiveness and to bring the country together, men and women of all races and religions.

Posted by: ezne1son | February 17, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

ichief and TruthBeTold: "A refreshing antidote..."
Posting the same thing 3 times makes it not refreshing any more. Let's see something else.

Posted by: wwtt | February 17, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Hillary won't be happy until she completely destroys the Democratic party.
It's tragic hearing Clintonistas calling Obama fans rabid haters when the Clintons panicked and pretty much turned on every Democrat and independent who voted for Obama.
If Hillary becomes the nominee I would like to know how she's going to get the votes of all those voters she and her camp have so alienated.
Hillary's crew seem to think insulting people now doesn't mean a thing because Democrats will rally around the nominee.
Again it's this flawed divisve logic that turn soo many off.

Posted by: sbundley | February 17, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

The fact that Hillary is calling for Florida and Michigan delegates to be seated is proof positive that she has no respect for the rule of law.

Like Bush, she believes (as we see from her stance on Florida/Michigan) that the end justifies the means. Just as Bill did when he lied under oath.

Why would anyone want another President who disrepects the rule of law???

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 17, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

A refreshing antidote to the 24/7 hate-mongering of rabid Obama supporters is a well-written letter by Christine Stansell, Distinguished Service Professor, University of Chicago, signed by more than 250 feminist intellectuals from all over the country in support of Hillary Clinton. To read the letter and review the list of signees, go here:

http://katalusis.blogspot.com/2008/02/signing-on-for-hillary-clinton-these.html

Posted by: TruthBeTold | February 17, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

A refreshing antidote to the 24/7 hate-mongering of rabid Obama supporters is a well-written letter by Christine Stansell, Distinguished Service Professor, University of Chicago, signed by more than 250 feminist intellectuals from all over the country in support of Hillary Clinton. To read the letter and review the list of signees, go here:

http://katalusis.blogspot.com/2008/02/signing-on-for-hillary-clinton-these.html


Posted by: TruthBeTold | February 17, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Senator Clinton has been effective working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle. But let's put that in perspective. She entered the Senate to repair the legacy of her husband's morally failed tenure. Successful as the Clinton team was on a number of policy and legislative fronts, they opened the country up to the "family values" shtick the GOP has been using as its only real differentiator for decades now. She is not "ready on day one" to reverse that failure and it is a critical issue. Our problems derive largely from having lost our moral compass, domestically, internationally, and in the way we treat others. Her campaign reveals in many ways that she and her team still have not accepted that responsibility (or they have and they don't know how to address it). I campaigned for them in both 92 and 94 and it was the right choice then, given the options. But it is time to move on and Hillary is simply not the leader for that challenge. She simply doesn't get it or doesn't want to do so.

Posted by: 33rdStreet | February 17, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Solutions is just a word. In a speech. Give me a break!

Posted by: epmc | February 17, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

"Improvise" is a nice spin to put on Clinton's day. "Disaster" is the other word for it. Clinton gambled that her family earlier in the week combined with attack ads would buy her time to campaign in Texas and Ohio before showing up in Wisconsin. Now, she has lost virtually half of the time that she had to campaign on the ground in the state due to a storm that has the entire southern half of the state snarled to a standstill.

All of Clinton's events for the day are canceled, which means that she ends up with Saturday night and Monday to hold events before voting begins, and one has to wonder how many people will be venturing out Monday with storm cleanup still going on and possibly more snow on the way.

Obama had to cancel his town hall meeting in an important Democratic part of the state, but since he has been appearing around Wisconsin all week, the storm cuts into his schedule considerably less. Losing one day out of five or six hurts much less than losing almost half of one's time in the state.

Considering that Clinton was already under fire from newspaper editorials and others in Wisconsin for ignoring the state in favor of later contests by not showing up until Saturday night (even as she attacked Obama for not making himself available to the people of Wisconsin by opting to avoid a Clinton-organized speech with ex-Clinton adviser George Stephanopoulos moderating), she may have made a big tactical error a) by not looking ahead at weather forecasts, which have been warning about this storm all week and b) by not arriving sooner in a state where she may actually have a chance to pull off an upset.

Especially with some conservatives and Republicans crossing over to vote for Clinton in a protest against McCain and to avoid what they perceive as a more difficult race against Obama, Clinton has a real chance here, but her belated efforts are taking a real hit with the weather.

Posted by: blert | February 17, 2008 5:15 PM | Report abuse

"Let's harness the excitement we're seeing among Democrats for BOTH amazing candidates. Sign the petition to Howard Dean"

Howard Dean is a coward and the cause of the Florida/Michigan and Superdelegate debacle.

I wouldn't ask him for anything, let alone planning for an election 4-12 years from now. We have enough to work through on this one.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 17, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

ichief: The letter by Christine Stansell is well written, but Hillary and her campaign are the ones to negate all of the good points. I do feel that the 8 years of the Clinton administration were very good years, and I did transfer all that credit to Hillary. I did not know who Obama was and I looked forward to everything being wrapped up after Super Tuesday. But that was not to be, and the actions of Bill and her Campaign and herself after Super Tuesday opened my eyes. I never understood what Clinton hatred was and where it came from, but now I do.
It is too bad that all the pros in her campaign did not get why it is the "tear" moment was such a turning point for her in NH. It wasn't a sexist thing, it was because she made a connection, because of the question, to millions of us who work hard, but things still does not turn our way. It is a struggle. But, instead of capturing the essence of that moment, her campaign and Bill and herself turned ugly. Now that we have a moment to reconsider her inevitability and look at Obama, we like what we see. As ready as she was on Day One as the inevitable candidate, she was not able to put it away. And the way her campaign (the biggest thing either Hillary or Obama has ever run) is conducted speaks volumes about her inability to run a good organization.

Posted by: wwtt | February 17, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

"Remember Bush in 2000"

Yes, and his election was made possible by the Clintons and their moral and political failings.

No need to relive that.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 17, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Let's harness the excitement we're seeing among Democrats for BOTH amazing candidates. Sign the petition to Howard Dean and the DNC at http://www.16yearplan.com

Posted by: steven4 | February 17, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

The strategic mistake was to follow Bill's 1992 strategy of pretending she was already the candidate. That way she never really "campaigned" for the job. Instead, she is in the defensive. She tried the New Hampshire tears, but that made her seem not tough enough to face Al Kaida and Putin. She tried the good cop - bad cop tactic with Bill, but he lost votes for her. Now she tries 35 yrs. experience, but that makes her look old. The real problem is that all these things are true, and if she gets chosen, the Dems will lose. Only with Obama could they win against McCain.

Posted by: dunnhaupt | February 17, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Remember Bush in 2000 -- how he said that he was a uniter and not a divider. It was unrealistic then as it is now -- however, we have enough people that bought into his message of 'hope' -- look what it has got us.
Mr. Obama's message sounds like a cross between JFK and MLK and I am proud that there is a Democrat that can articulate as well as he can.
Unfortunately, we need someone who can parlay his/her words into action -- be realistic -- not idealistic. I don't want another 7 years of idealism -- I am glad to say that I left that behind when I finished college.
Wake up Democrats -- nominating Mr. Obama -- will give the WH to the Republicans. McCain will gobble him up for breakfast. Since we don't have Richardson or Edwards the only candidate we have is Clinton. Let us not squander this chance.

Posted by: sjohn | February 17, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

I really hope the Democrats finally stop trying to pick the "most electable" candidate (e.g., Kerry, Clinton) and finally pick the "best" candidate (Obama). Clinton is an uninspiring candidate who cannot win a general election. Once again, with Clinton the Dems would be throwing away what would seem to be a tailor-made chance to win back the White House...

Posted by: dc_attorney | February 17, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

"It is not only in Illinois Legislature, that Sen Barack Hussein Obama missed a lot of voting. He and Sen McCain voted less in the US Senate than Sen Clinto.

Sen Clinton actually have guts to vote more than these gents. She is less talk than Sen Barack Hussein Obama. She is more of a doer exactly the same as Pres Bill Clinton."

First of all, Barack did not "miss a lot of voting" in the Ilinois Senate....he voted "present" (an accepted tactical maneuver) 139 times in over 4,000 votes. Hardly "lots".

Second, Ms. Clinton missed over 245% of her votes in the US Senate. Hardly cause for a gold star.

Thirdly, 2 Senators did not vote on the very important FISA bill last week...those 2 would be Hillary and MCCain. Barack was there and voted to protect our privacy rights and to protect the Constitution.

Where was your "ready on day one" candidate??

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 17, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

I cracked up when I read the report on the Hispanic grocery owner's greeting to Hillary: "Bienvideo, Hillary!" Despite the Washington Post's strenuous efforts to reach out to the Hispanic readership, it's clear there's no one on the staff to proofread Spanish phrases. What the owner almost certainly said was "Bienvenida, Hillary!" (and not even Bienvenido," which would be masculine). "Bienvideo Hillary" means, of course, "Goodvideo, Hillary!" Hilarious.

Posted by: pilot143 | February 17, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

It shouldn't come as a shock to anyone that both Hillary and Obama are guilty of being politicians, and are going to be disingenuous on occasion.

It's unfair to attack Hillary's Senate record in terms of the "meaningful legislation" that she's helped to pass, because as a junior senator, one isn't really given the opportunity to draft legislation. And as for the Iraq vote, Obama wasn't in the Senate yet, and in 2004 stated that he didn't know how he would have voted if he had been...

Other than Obama's oratory and message of hope, I have not seen one attribute about his competency to be President that outshines Hillary's. I also find his message of "changing the game" to be misleading, and I'm sure he's aware of the innate naivety in the message.

She's so often cited as divisive, and I'm starting to believe it seeing the vile that gets spewed in her direction, for *what a shock* being a politician. This may sound trite, but it really does show the not-so-thinly veiled misogyny that runs rampant in our society.

Overall, I like both Hillary and Obama, and I think both of them would make a great commander-in-chief...but Obama would after 4 years as VEEP. I just think Hillary is more prepared for the job right now. She knows far better what she's getting herself into than Obama does. Knowing how to play the game is important, and although surrounding yourself with great advisors is good, it's always best to also have a good command of the issues yourself so that you can't easily be manipulated. Perhaps Americans just want a glorified figurehead right now with a rousing oratory?

Posted by: theprude | February 17, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

In a direct poke at Obama, she said: "I'm not here to just give you a speech. I'm here to give you solutions about how we're going to solve problems."

But she is saying this repeatedly during her campaign speeches. Why doesn't Wapo point this out when they repeat her quote.

Posted by: saj29 | February 17, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

It is refreshing to see an unbiased article around Clinton. Seems the media has been so focused on expressing their infatuation with Obama. I prefer the media to report the news, not influence it.

For those who haven't noticed, Obama attacks her in every stump speeach. The media plays it down so they can make Hillary look like the negative one. Don;t be fooled. I encourage everyone to evaluate the candidates on their actual merits - what they have done in the past and what they will do in the future.

Posted by: MAB2 | February 17, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Why is Hillary always on the defensive? "I didn't come here to give you speeches" why can't she simply talk about her policies without referring to the fact that she doesn't give good speeches per-se? I am an Obama supporter who has been an admirer of the Clinton's but I just don't get why Hillary always starts from the negative. Mus things always be negative? How about talking about her policies, well, strongly and convincingly enough to win peoples votes. each candidate runs on his strength. Obama is using his ability to inspire and speak. Hillary should use her's in addition to Bill? Chelsea? and whatever else she's got. Any negativity from her simply turns me off.Besides it makes the audience think of her winning rival. She promotes him without acknowledging it because by saying I didn't come to give speeches, she is indirectly saying my opponent is a good speaker and he is winning!That gives Obama more points!

Posted by: boys4wonders | February 17, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

It is not only in Illinois Legislature, that Sen Barack Hussein Obama missed a lot of voting. He and Sen McCain voted less in the US Senate than Sen Clinto.

Sen Clinton actually have guts to vote more than these gents. She is less talk than Sen Barack Hussein Obama. She is more of a doer exactly the same as Pres Bill Clinton.

It is becoming a very close and contentious Primary. Eventually, all the large states that matter to the democrats come general elections, will count on to Sen Clintons side. Including Florida and Michigan.

If Sen Barack Hussein Obama miscalculated of not having his name in Michigan, only Florida should have counted for him.

He should have been ready from day one, that he needs to have his name not only in Florida but Michigan too to have those delegates.

All votes should be counted. Millions of voters from Michigan and Florida should not be disenfranchised. Counting them out, is tantamount to suicide, hence turning over Michigan and Florida to the Republicans.

Posted by: thefreeliving | February 17, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton voted for the war in Iraq and claims to be a foreign policy whiz!!!
Hillary can never take the mantle of idealism after taking more money from lobbyists than any other candidate - Democrat or Republican. She is against the message of hope - for she would like to continue dynasty politics - a quarter century of either Bush or Clinton in the White house.

Posted by: shobhan | February 17, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

The first two comments say it all. People are 'reading her like a book'. Same ol, same ol. Sen. Obama on the other hand is a breath of fresh air with ideas and ideals.
Sweep baby, sweep I hope and pray.

Posted by: dpi2Dan | February 17, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

A refreshing antidote to the 24/7 hate-mongering of rabid Obama supporters is a well-written letter by Christine Stansell, Distinguished Service Professor, University of Chicago, signed by more than 250 feminist intellectuals from all over the country in support of Hillary Clinton. To read the letter and review the list of signees, go here:

http://katalusis.blogspot.com/2008/02/signing-on-for-hillary-clinton-these.html

Posted by: ichief | February 17, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Talk about your empty words, lies and just plain bull crap. What solutions did Hillary give those people? The anser is, "SHE DIDN'T". Just as she hasn't given ius any solutions during her 7+ years as a US Senator. It's so painfully obvious when you examine Clinton's Senate record and find it completely wanting. Forget about her vote to authorize Bush's War in Iraq or her vote to designate the Iranian Army as a terrorist organization. Forget about Hillary making the top ten list in the Senate last year for her $340 Million in earmarks attached to bills that were authored by more caring Senators who took time to author meaningful legislation, tackling real probelems facing our country. I defy anyone to come up with a list (even one would be a good start) of bills that Hillary has authored in an attempt to make life better for any of us. Where are the solutions that Hillary keeps harping on, other than in the words she speaks? What makes her "words" any more tangible than the words spoken by Senator Obama? The fact that they are less interesting, less inspiring and more tedious does not make them carry any more weight. For all of her ideas and all of her promises of "solutions"; Clintons record of inaction for the last 7 years in the Senate show which candidate is really the empty suit thatshe has been talking about for so many months.

Posted by: diksagev | February 17, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

I don't understand why Clinton feels compelled to proffer her credentials as a technocrat. Was it ever in doubt that she has a command of policy? How is her "I know what I'm talking about" shtick supposed to act as a new counterbalance against the upwelling of support for her more inspirational opponent?

Posted by: cnstanton | February 17, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company