Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

In Wisconsin, Clinton Campaigns at Vigorous Pace

Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) reacts to a very long question from supporter Robert Chang, wearing a foam cheese shaped hat, during a campaign stop at St. Norbert College in De Pere, Wisconsin February 18, 2008. (Reuters.)

Corrected 3:26 p.m.
By Jose Antonio Vargas
DE PERE, Wis. -- It's a day of making up for lost time for Sen. Hillary Clinton.

Her surrogates, Bill and Chelsea Clinton, arrived in the Badger State days before she did. So, too, did her TV ads criticizing Sen. Barack Obama's health care policy and asking why her Democratic rival won't debate her in the state. "Why won't Barack Obama debate these differences?" the announcer says in the ad. "Wisconsin deserves better."

But when Clinton finally did set foot in the state, she was forced to cancel three rallies yesterday because of inclement weather. She's packing in four events today, stopping at St. Norbert College in De Pere, near Green Bay; at the Wausau Labor Temple in Wausau; then in Eau Claire, in the northwestern part of Wisconsin; and finally in Madison, the state capital. Some 1,200 showed up here at De Pere, the campaign said, though Clinton's staffers had to organize the crowd to make the space appear more packed. "Hey, folks, there are at least 15 more seats here on the side, if you want to move from the back," a staffer told the crowd.

Escorted by Lt. Gov. Barbara Lawton -- the first woman elected to that job -- Clinton talked about her economic policies. Earlier in the day, aides passed around a 12-page glossy brochure entitled "Hillary Clinton's Economic Blueprint for the 21st Century." It's detailed and heavily-bulleted, with plans such as "creating at least 5 million new green collar jobs by transitioning from a carbon-based economy to a green energy-efficient economy" and "ending tax breaks for companies that shop jobs overseas and investing those resources in the innovative potential of our own economy." Clinton's been striking economic populist tones in stops in Texas and Ohio, but the campaign was such in a rush to release the brochure that typos were inevitable. On the second page, the brochure read: "Oil prices recently hit $100 a barrel, and consumers are feeling the increased cost at the pump and in their energy bills. Gas is over $3.00 a barrel... " They meant to say $3.00 a gallon, and corrected the mistake when they e-mailed the brochure to reporters later.

"The middle class is the backbone of America," Clinton said in her speech. "It's time to take care of the middle class again."

By Web Politics Editor  |  February 18, 2008; 12:25 PM ET
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Poppa Bush Endorses McCain, McCain Honors the Son
Next: Clinton Camp Charges Obama with 'Plagiarism'


Posted by: Lilly111 | February 18, 2008 01:47 PM

Why use a lot of words to describe for whom you will voting for. It's only obvious that you're voting for Hillary because she's a female. I just love how people go through this whole dance routine to say: if you have a pee-pee vote for a male: if you have a vee-vee vote for a female.

So stupid

Posted by: amc7150 | February 19, 2008 9:51 AM | Report abuse

Anyone can win anything if they're being intimidated or bought. These traits are so typical of the Clintons.

If you can win the legal way then just have WILD BILL call and intimidate you or have BILLERY CLINTON buy your vote.

Most of you obviously don't know the history of the Clintons: Read on my friends because there is a lot on the line here.

February 18th, 2008 at 9:32 am
The Clinton Legacy
The Progressive Review
This list was compiled at the end of the Clinton administration. It was last partially updated in 2000
Our Clinton Scandal Index
The Clintons, to adapt a line from Dr. Johnson, were not only corrupt, they were the cause of corruption in others. Yet seldom in America have so many come to excuse so much mendacity and malfeasance as during the Clinton years. Here are some of the facts that have been buried.
- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court
* According to our best information, 40 government officials were indicted or convicted in the wake of Watergate. A reader computes that there was a total of 31 Reagan era convictions, including 14 because of Iran-Contra and 16 in the Department of Housing & Urban Development scandal. 47 individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine were convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes with 33 of these occurring during the Clinton administration itself. There were in addition 61 indictments or misdemeanor charges. 14 persons were imprisoned. A key difference between the Clinton story and earlier ones was the number of criminals with whom he was associated before entering the White House.
Using a far looser standard that included resignations, David R. Simon and D. Stanley Eitzen in Elite Deviance, say that 138 appointees of the Reagan administration either resigned under an ethical cloud or were criminally indicted. Curiously Haynes Johnson uses the same figure but with a different standard in "Sleep-Walking Through History: America in the Reagan Years: "By the end of his term, 138 administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations. In terms of number of officials involved, the record of his administration was the worst ever."
- Number of Starr-Ray investigation convictions or guilty pleas (including one governor, one associate attorney general and two Clinton business partners): 14
- Number of Clinton Cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 5
- Number of Reagan cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 4
- Number of top officials jailed in the Teapot Dome Scandal: 3
- Number of individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine who have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 47
- Number of these convictions during Clinton's presidency: 33
- Number of indictments/misdemeanor charges: 61
- Number of congressional witnesses who have pleaded the Fifth Amendment, fled the country to avoid testifying, or (in the case of foreign witnesses) refused to be interviewed: 122
- Guilty pleas and convictions obtained by Donald Smaltz in cases involving charges of bribery and fraud against former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy and associated individuals and businesses: 15
- Acquitted or overturned cases (including Espy): 6
- Fines and penalties assessed: $11.5 million
- Amount Tyson Food paid in fines and court costs: $6 million
- As of June 2000, the Justice Department listed 25 people indicted and 19 convicted because of the 1996 Clinton-Gore fundraising scandals.
- According to the House Committee on Government Reform in September 2000, 79 House and Senate witnesses asserted the Fifth Amendment in the course of investigations into Gore's last fundraising campaign.
-James Riady entered a plea agreement to pay an $8.5 million fine for campaign finance crimes. This was a record under campaign finance laws.
Drug trafficking (3), racketeering, extortion, bribery (4), tax evasion, kickbacks, embezzlement (2), fraud (12), conspiracy (5), fraudulent loans, illegal gifts (1), illegal campaign contributions (5), money laundering (6), perjury, obstruction of justice.
- Number of independent counsel inquiries since the 1978 law was passed: 19
- Number that have produced indictments: 7
- Number that produced more convictions than the Starr investigation: 1
- Median length of investigations that led to convictions: 44 months
- Length of Starr-Ray investigation: 69 months.
- Total cost of the Starr investigation (3/00) $52 million
- Total cost of the Iran-Contra investigation: $48.5 million
- Total cost to taxpayers of the Madison Guarantee failure: $73 million
Bank and mail fraud, violations of campaign finance laws, illegal foreign campaign funding, improper exports of sensitive technology, physical violence and threats of violence, solicitation of perjury, intimidation of witnesses, bribery of witnesses, attempted intimidation of prosecutors, perjury before congressional committees, lying in statements to federal investigators and regulatory officials, flight of witnesses, obstruction of justice, bribery of cabinet members, real estate fraud, tax fraud, drug trafficking, failure to investigate drug trafficking, bribery of state officials, use of state police for personal purposes, exchange of promotions or benefits for sexual favors, using state police to provide false court testimony, laundering of drug money through a state agency, false reports by medical examiners and others investigating suspicious deaths, the firing of the RTC and FBI director when these agencies were investigating Clinton and his associates, failure to conduct autopsies in suspicious deaths, providing jobs in return for silence by witnesses, drug abuse, improper acquisition and use of 900 FBI files, improper futures trading, murder, sexual abuse of employees, false testimony before a federal judge, shredding of documents, withholding and concealment of subpoenaed documents, fabricated charges against (and improper firing of) White House employees, inviting drug traffickers, foreign agents and participants in organized crime to the White House.
Number of times that Clinton figures who testified in court or before Congress said that they didn't remember, didn't know, or something similar.
Bill Kennedy 116
Harold Ickes 148
Ricki Seidman 160
Bruce Lindsey 161
Bill Burton 191
Mark Gearan 221
Mack McLarty 233
Neil Egglseston 250
Hillary Clinton 250
John Podesta 264
Jennifer O'Connor 343
Dwight Holton 348
Patsy Thomasson 420
Jeff Eller 697
FROM THE WASHINGTON TIMES: In the portions of President Clinton's Jan. 17 deposition that have been made public in the Paula Jones case, his memory failed him 267 times. This is a list of his answers and how many times he gave each one.
I don't remember - 71
I don't know - 62
I'm not sure - 17
I have no idea - 10
I don't believe so - 9
I don't recall - 8
I don't think so - 8
I don't have any specific recollection - 6
I have no recollection - 4
Not to my knowledge - 4
I just don't remember - 4
I don't believe - 4
I have no specific recollection - 3
I might have - 3
I don't have any recollection of that - 2 I don't have a specific memory - 2
I don't have any memory of that - 2
I just can't say - 2
I have no direct knowledge of that - 2
I don't have any idea - 2
Not that I recall - 2
I don't believe I did - 2
I can't remember - 2
I can't say - 2
I do not remember doing so - 2
Not that I remember - 2
I'm not aware - 1
I honestly don't know - 1
I don't believe that I did - 1
I'm fairly sure - 1
I have no other recollection - 1
I'm not positive - 1
I certainly don't think so - 1
I don't really remember - 1
I would have no way of remembering that - 1
That's what I believe happened - 1
To my knowledge, no - 1
To the best of my knowledge - 1
To the best of my memory - 1
I honestly don't recall - 1
I honestly don't remember - 1
That's all I know - 1
I don't have an independent recollection of that - 1
I don't actually have an independent memory of that - 1
As far as I know - 1
I don't believe I ever did that - 1
That's all I know about that - 1
I'm just not sure - 1
Nothing that I remember - 1
I simply don't know - 1
I would have no idea - 1
I don't know anything about that - 1
I don't have any direct knowledge of that - 1
I just don't know - 1
I really don't know - 1
I can't deny that, I just -- I have no memory of that at all - 1
- Number of persons in the Clinton machine orbit who are alleged to have committed suicide: 9
- Number known to have been murdered: 12
- Number who died in plane crashes: 6
- Number who died in single car automobile accidents: 3
- Number of one-person sking fatalities: 1
- Number of key witnesses who have died of heart attacks while in federal custody under questionable circumstances: 1
- Number of unexplained deaths: 4
- Total suspicious deaths: 46
- Number of northern Mafia killings during peak years of 1968-78: 30
- Number of Dixie Mafia killings during same period: 156
It is important in considering these fatal incidents to bear in mind the following:
The fact that anomalies need to be investigated further carries no presumption of how a death actually occurred, only that there remain serious questions that require answers.
The possibility of foul play must be taken seriously in a major criminal conspiracy in which over two score individuals and firms have been convicted and over 100 witnesses have pled the Fifth Amendment or fled the country.
If foul play did occur in any of these cases, that fact by itself does not carry the presumption that the the Clinton machine was involved. Given the footprints of organized crime, drug trade, foreign espionage, and intelligence agencies on the trail of the Clinton story, such a assumption would not be warranted. It is also well to keep in mind the classic prohibition era movie in which the corrupt poitician's job was not to engage in illegal acts but to avoid noticing them.
- Amount of an alleged electronic transfer from the Arkansas Development Financial Authority to a bank in the Cayman Islands during 1980s: $50 million
- Grand Cayman's population: 18,000
- Number of commercial banks: 570
- Number of bank regulators: 1
- Amount Arkansas state pension fund invested in high-risk repos in the mid-80s in one purchase in April 1985: $52 million through the Worthen Bank.
- Number of days thereafter that the state's brokerage firm went belly up: 3
- Amount Arkansas pension fund dropped overnight as a result: 15%
- Percent of Worthen bank that Mochtar Riady bought over the next four months to bail out the bank and the then governor, Bill Clinton: 40%.
- Percent of purchasers from the Clintons and McDougals of resort lots who lost the land because of the sleazy financing provisions: over 50%
- Number of journalists covering Whitewater who have been fired, transferred off the beat, resigned or otherwise gotten into trouble because of their work on the scandals (Doug Frantz, Jim Wooten, Richard Behar, Christopher Ruddy, Michael Isikoff, David Eisenstadt, Yinh Chan, Jonathan Broder, James R. Norman, Zoh Hieronimus): 10
- Number of times John Huang took the 5th Amendment in answer to questions during a Judicial Watch deposition: 1,000
- Visits made to the White House by investigation subjects Johnny Chung, James Riady, John Huang, and Charlie Trie. 160
- Number of campaign contributors who got overnights at the White House in the two years before the 1996 election: 577
- Number of members of Thomas Boggs's law firm who have held top positions in the Clinton administration. 18
- Number of times John Huang was briefed by CIA: 37
- Number of calls Huang made from Commerce Department to Lippo banks: 261
- Number of intelligence reports Huang read while at Commerce Department: 500
- FBI files misappropriated by the White House: c. 900
- Estimated number of witnesses quoted in FBI files misappropriated by the White House: 18,000
- Number of witnesses who developed medical problems at critical points in Clinton scandals investigation (Tucker, Hale, both McDougals, Lindsey): 5
- Problem areas listed in a memo by Clinton's own lawyer in preparation for the president's defense: 40
- Number of witnesses and critics of Clinton subjected to IRS audit: 45
- Number of names placed in a White House secret database without the knowledge of those named: c. 200,000
- Number of women involved with Clinton who claim to have been physically threatened (Sally Perdue, Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey, Linda Tripp, Elizabeth Ward Gracen, Juantia Broaddrick): 6
- Number of men involved in the Clinton scandals who have been beaten up or claimed to have been intimidated: 10
USA Today calls it "the hidden election," in which nearly 7,000 state legislative seats are decided with only minimal media and public attention. But there was an important national story here: evidence of the disaster that Bill Clinton was for the Democratic Party. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, Democrats held a 1,542 seat lead in the state bodies in 1990. As of 1998 that lead had shrunk to 288. That's a loss of over 1,200 state legislative seats, nearly all of them under Clinton. Across the US, the Democrats controled only 65 more state senate seats than the Republicans.
Further, in 1992, the Democrats controlled 17 more state legislatures than the Republicans. After 1998, the Republicans controlled one more than the Democrats. Not only was this a loss of 9 legislatures under Clinton, but it was the first time since 1954 that the GOP had controlled more state legislatures than the Democrats (they tied in 1968).
Here's what happened to the Democrats under Clinton, based on our latest figures:
- GOP seats gained in House since Clinton became president: 48
- GOP seats gained in Senate since Clinton became president: 8
- GOP governorships gained since Clinton became president: 11
- GOP state legislative seats gained since Clinton became president: 1,254
as of 1998
- State legislatures taken over by GOP since Clinton became president: 9
- Democrat officeholders who have become Republicans since Clinton became
president: 439 as of 1998
- Republican officeholders who have become Democrats since Clinton became president: 3
Here are some of the all too rare public officials, reporters, and others who spoke truth to the dismally corrupt power of Bill and Hill Clinton's political machine -- some at risk to their careers, others at risk to their lives. A few points to note:
- Those corporatist media reporters who attempted to report the story often found themselves muzzled; some even lost their jobs. The only major dailies that consistently handled the story well were the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Times.
- Nobody on this list has gotten rich and many you may not have even heard of. Taking on the Clintons typically has not been a happy or rewarding experience. At least ten reporters were fired, transferred off their beats, resigned, or otherwise got into trouble because of their work on the scandals.
- Contrary to the popular impression, the politics of those listed ranges from the left to the right, and from the ideological to the independent.
MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ was a prosecutor on the staff of Kenneth Starr. His attempts to uncover the truth in the Vincent Foster death case were repeatedly foiled and he was the subject of planted stories undermining his credibility and implying that he was unstable. Rodriguez eventually resigned.
JEAN DUFFEY: Head of a joint federal-county drug task force in Arkansas. Her first instructions from her boss: "Jean, you are not to use the drug task force to investigate any public official." Duffey's work, however, led deep into the heart of the Dixie Mafia, including members of the Clinton machine and the investigation of the so-called "train deaths." Ambrose Evans-Pritchard reports that when she produced a star witness who could testify to Clinton's involvement with cocaine, the local prosecuting attorney, Dan Harmon issued a subpoena for all the task force records, including "the incriminating files on his own activities. If Duffey had complied it would have exposed 30 witnesses and her confidential informants to violent retributions. She refused." Harmon issued a warrant for her arrest and friendly cops told her that there was a $50,000 price on her head. She eventually fled to Texas. The once-untouchable Harmon was later convicted of racketeering, extortion and drug dealing.
BILL DUNCAN: An IRS investigator in Arkansas who drafted some 30 federal indictments of Arkansas figures on money laundering and other charges. Clinton biographer Roger Morris quotes a source who reviewed the evidence: "Those indictments were a real slam dunk if there ever was one." The cases were suppressed, many in the name of "national security." Duncan was never called to testify. Other IRS agents and state police disavowed Duncan and turned on him. Said one source, "Somebody outside ordered it shut down and the walls went up."
RUSSELL WELCH: An Arkansas state police detective working with Duncan. Welch developed a 35-volume, 3,000 page archive on drug and money laundering operations at Mena. His investigation was so compromised that a high state police official even let one of the targets of the probe look through the file. At one point, Welch was sprayed in the face with poison, later identified by the Center for Disease Control as anthrax. He would write in his diary, "I feel like I live in Russia, waiting for the secret police to pounce down. A government has gotten out of control. Men find themselves in positions of power and suddenly crimes become legal." Welch is no longer with the state police.
DAN SMALTZ: Smaltz did an outstanding job investigating and prosecuting charges involving illegal payoffs to Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy, yet was treated with disparaging and highly inaccurate reporting by the likes of the David Broder and the NY Times. Espy was acquitted under a law that made it necessary to not only prove that he accepted gratuities but that he did something specific in return. On the other hand, Tyson Foods copped a plea in the same case, paying $6 million in fines and serving four years' probation. The charge: that Tyson had illegally offered Espy $12,000 in airplane rides, football tickets and other payoffs. In the Espy investigation, Smaltz obtained 15 convictions and collected over $11 million in fines and civil penalties. Offenses for which convictions were obtained included false statements, concealing money from prohibited sources, illegal gratuities, illegal contributions, falsifying records, interstate transportation of stolen property, money laundering, and illegal receipt of USDA subsidies. In addition, Janet Reno blocked Smaltz from pursuing leads aimed at allegations of major drug trafficking in Arkansas and payoffs to the then governor of the state, WJ Clinton. Espy had become Ag secretary only after being flown to Arkansas to get the approval of chicken king Don Tyson.

Posted by: amc7150 | February 19, 2008 9:43 AM | Report abuse

It would have been rather difficult for Barack Obama to have debated Hillary Clinton in the state of Wisconsin since she took so long to even bother showing up in the state. In retrospect, it probably wouldn't have been a complete waste of time to have called her desperate bluff on the debates. She has obviously managed to find a plentiful supply of cash lying around somewhere, and it wouldn't have been a case of providing her with free air time that she couldn't afford to buy for herself as it appeared when Clinton first made her desperate appeal. On the one hand, the debate could have saved Hillary a lot of the money she spent on negative atttack ads that aired on Wisconsin TV leading up to the Primary on Tuesday; money that Clinton could have put to good use on even more negative ads in Texas and Ohio. On the other hand, it might have ben worth the money that Senator Obama might have saved Hillary to get the chance to corner her on the long list of sordid lies she has relied upon to distort his position and launch what amounts to no less than a personal character assassination with her attack ads and her outrageous and totally unfounded charges. We can now only wait and put our faith and trust in the voters of Wisconsin to see Hillary for the corrupt and unethical, business as usual, pathological liar, do anything to win politician that she and her husband are. Tuesday is Wisconsin's opportunity to prove to Clinton that they are not "IRRELEVANT" as charged by the Clinton Campaign by giving her the wholesale rejection that she so richly deserves!

Posted by: diksagev | February 19, 2008 12:34 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton is a dirty politician, her recent surge of attacks against Obama are just another sign of her lack of standards and worse, her desperation.
Her campaign is failing miserably, so out she sends her attack dogs once more. May Wisconsin have the nerve to reject her assumption that she deserves an automatic nomination and that she doesn't have to hold to her prior claims that they should keep their campaigns clean.
Desperation and negative attacks don't befit Wisconsin voters.

Posted by: eljefejesus | February 18, 2008 11:40 PM | Report abuse

Hey Wisconsin voters dont fall for the old political tactics.Choose a candidate who is not looking for an opportunity to fight and nothing but fight.

Posted by: pk_here | February 18, 2008 10:08 PM | Report abuse

Maria Bartiromo, a woman and highly respected financial reporter interviewed Mrs Clinton and asked, "Where will the money come from to fund your programs?"

Mrs Clinton blinked and then replied, "Where does money always come from?"

Mrs Clinton may have well just said, "Not to worry, we'll just print and borrow more." She was clueless where money comes from and really didn't seem to care who paid for her agenda.

Posted by: x32792 | February 18, 2008 9:42 PM | Report abuse

Just for the sake of arguement, let's say the President's managerial skills shows in how he or she manages their campaign. So which candidate has shown better leadership, unity, and management skills?

Hillary squandered millions of dollars within months and did not even know she was broke until someone told her. Obama has ran a successful campaign on nickels and dimes donations.

McCain's campaign management is not much better.

She wasn't going to even bother with Wisconsin until someone told her she needed to make a show in Wisconsin. Obama pursued ALL THE STATES EQUALLY. That shows she is a leader not a follower.

She is going to be ready on DAY ONE. Probably because Bill will start it up for her because she cannot even get her campaign running on DAY ONE.

Her campaign staff are in discord, stepping down, walking out, shouting. No leadership. Children following the lead of the parents seem to me. Staff are fighting because that is how the parents are handling the campaign - FIGHTING.

Instead of fixing her government, she focus on tearing down someone else's camp which is running successfully. NO PRIORITIES.

She says she is better in beating McCain but she is sweating like Hell trying to beat Obama who is supposed to be the inexperienced one. INEXPERIENCE.

She repeatedly try to link smear to Obama which always come back tied to the Clintons. Then blame the media for researching and bringing that to the public's attention. PETTY

She breaks her promises publicly and show no remorse. INSINCERE

All she talk about is fighting. Isn't that what America tired of? Fighting and not gettin anything done? Now she is not managing her campaign headquarters but is spending VALUABLE TIME AND MONEY starting fights over petty issues. Doesn't that sound like more of the same? DESPERATE.

She only expressed interest in the BIG STATES and is only now interested in the smaller states because she placed all her bets on the Big ONes that did not pay off for her. GAMBLER.

She incites fear, guilt, and self-doubt in the voters to get votes. If you do not vote for me all doom will befall you like there is not others in Congress who vote on how the President govern in America.(fear). She tell you to remember when things were so good back in 1990 or remember when I did this for you? Guilt vote. If you do not get my and my insurance donaters insurance then you will not have affordable insurance. Self-doubt vote. Like you do not have sense to shop for affordable insurance yourself. You just need more money to buy insurance not Mama making you get insurance.

Leaving out pertinent information is the same as lying. You can have your wages garnished if you do not get her insurance.
Today, it is easy to be laid off from work and suddenly you are forced to pay an insurance premium when the money can be used to buy food until you get on your feet. To bad, Mama has already managed your budget fot you so insurance company is happy. PARENTIAL CONTROL OVER YOU.

Now go Vote.

Hillary nope, you won't kill my HOPE.

Posted by: bvrlyjackson | February 18, 2008 9:36 PM | Report abuse

Ms Games,

There was never any evidence that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and had plans to use them. Intel in the UK today admits there was were no WMD.

Tony and George just needed an excuse to invade and occupy the Middle East, so they told the Big Lie.

Only years later does the media report the truth after many lives and trillions of deficit dollars have been wasted.

McCain and the Clintons are a continuation of this same government Of, For and By Special Interests.

Think about your country before you vote. Vote against business as usual in Washington.

Posted by: x32792 | February 18, 2008 9:35 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's "economic 'blueprint'"?

Steal much of Obama's terminology lately, Hillary?

Posted by: drama_king | February 18, 2008 7:11 PM | Report abuse

If you want to search sth online, you can google it.
If you want copy&paste sth, you can obama it.

Posted by: hgogo | February 18, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse

To the women here who are saying - "Vote For Hillary because she is a woman!!" - do you realize how biased you sound? I am a woman and a feminist and I would LOVE for this country to have a female president. But not this one. Hillary has waged her entire campaign on a theme of "experience" - meaning what? Years spent as First Lady?!? And how many Hillary supporters have I heard saying that the reason they're voting for Hillary is that they'll be getting Bill too! That is insane. A SPOUSE, no matter what his or her experience, should NOT be the unofficial third candidate on the ballot.

If Hillary was running this campaign based entirely on her own merit, as a Senator elected by a state that had chosen her for its own, rather than through connections and big money interests, then she would have my respect and I would give her the serious consideration she would deserve for the nomination. Given the type of politican she is, however, I think the truly feminist position is to dread the idea that this person could be the first femal U.S. president. She is not the role model I want for my daughters.

Posted by: why1201 | February 18, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

MsGames, Sorry Hillary made the wrong decesion about the Iraq war from the start. Even if Saddam had WMD where was the threat. Not one report, government official or agency said an attack from Saddam was imminment.

At the time the vote was passed Obama wasn't in the Senate but he was in a race to get into the Senate. He had the courgage at that time when our nation was gripped by fear to stand up and say WAIT A MINUTE, where's the threat.

Just imagine all the lives that would have been saved (American & Iraqi), all the treasure saved what could we have done with that money if someone with the courgage just stood up and said WAIT A MINUTE.

Posted by: wstoudemire | February 18, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

I'll support whoever's the nominee for the Democratic party but I think Obama will be a far superior President than Clinton. It has nothing to due with race or gender just he's not in the pocket of major industry lobbyists so I assume he will fight the good fight for the people of America. Clinton tried before to get a national healthcare plan and she deserves credit for that but she did it in the cloak of darkness or the so called backroom and we saw where that ended. Has she said she would do anything differently? If not why would the outcome be any different? We need transperency in our governement and the only one speaking that language is Obama.

Posted by: wstoudemire | February 18, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Have you Clinton supporters forgotten that Hillary supported the Iraq war from the get-go and has only backed away from her support recently for political expedience. The same with John Edwards. They voted to promote what they knew at the time was an illegal invasion of Iraq. I support the candidate that had the guts to be against it before the invasion. Hillary is clearly an opportunist who could care less about morality. By the way, I would love to vote for a woman with integrity. It ain´t HRC.

Posted by: rodinart | February 18, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Has anyone stopped to think what state Hillary Clinton represents? Does anyone remember 9/11? New York took the hardest hit that day with over 3000 of our fellow Americans killed at the hands of terrorists.

When the Bush administration presented their case to Congress, there was strong evidence that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and had plans to use them. Senator Obama, who was not in the U.S. Senate at that time, was not privy to the confidential information that was presented. Had he been, it's quite likely that he would have had a different opinion.

Many Senators, including those who have endorsed Senator Barack Obama, also voted for the resolution based on the confidential information given to them by the Bush administration. And Senator Clinton, who has an obligation to the State of New York, had no choice but to take a hard look at the evidence and to remember what happened on 9/11.

She made the right decision based on the facts given to her at that time. And she did not make the decision alone. In fact, she didn't even cast the deciding vote. She was in the majority in casting her vote for the resolution.

Why Senator Clinton continues to take a beating on this vote is beyond me. The blame should be on the Bush administration for lying. NO ONE is holding "W" or his administration accountable. Instead, everyone wants to blame the Iraq war on Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: MsGames | February 18, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton is not campaigning any differently than any man would. The only difference is we can't stand to see strong women. I suspect it's because we ourselves are jealous or afraid. I just gotta say this though... she's one SUPER SMART COOKIE!

Posted by: jack9 | February 18, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

A lot of the Clinton supporters are saying that Clinton is offering more specfics than Obama but I disagree. I think Obama has been more specfic on his healthcare plan (how he's gonna deal with people that try to game the system under his plan(he will charge people back premiums, How will Clinton deal with people who can't afford her healthcare plan because there will be a cost, foreign policy (Obama said he will talk to our enemies, What are the specfics behind Clinton's foreign policy) and dealing with lobbyists (Obama said he would like to air sessions on C-Span to provide transperency when dealing these powerful groups, what are the specfics of Clinton's plan for how to deal with lobbyists?. Just specfics please...

Posted by: wstoudemire | February 18, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

According to Barack, words matter...that is...except when they're borrowed from someone else.

Posted by: PhilTR | February 18, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Hey rozz62 from 1:11pm

Your entire post is PLAGARIZED! At the very least, you should've given props to your post's TRUE author, Gloria Steinem. For those of you not in the know, rozz62 lifted from Gloria's NY Times op-ed about poor Hillary Clinton.

And like Gloria, you should have cited some background info to explain, in its entirely, the black man's "right to vote" 50 years prior to women. The way she tells it, and the way you lift it, one from Mars would look down and think black men got the electorate green light and simply rolled up to the polls to vote. uhhh, not quite.

But back to Glo, I respect her views on feminism, and I bow down to her for what she has achieved for me, but this sexism-is-worse-than-racism drivel has got to go. It is unnecessary and it is divisive. And for the op-ed in its entirety, i give you Gloria Steinem.

Posted by: Keliza64 | February 18, 2008 3:58 PM | Report abuse

I don't really have a horse in this race. I'll probably go with McCain because he shows more leadership than Obama and Clinton combined.

But here's the deal.

Obama says nothing while being very interesting in the process.

Clinton does nothing while being very uninteresting in the process.

Time for results, not rhetoric or entitlement.

Posted by: revtork | February 18, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

I do believe that, among other positions in common, Sen Obama's senate career is marked by an Iraq War voting record identical to Sen Clinton's.

Posted by: zukermand | February 18, 2008 2:48 PM | Report abuse

Latest Wisconsin Primary poll - February 16, 2008.

Clinton 49%
Obama 43%

American Research Group

Posted by: newspix | February 18, 2008 2:48 PM | Report abuse

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 stood up for what he believes in.

Posted by: BethesdaMD | February 18, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

If you say so, zukermand. You ought to know a thing or two about poetry. You have been learning it from the very best.

Posted by: tuscany1 | February 18, 2008 01:07 PM

Since you mentioned me, I'm curious, what does this mean?

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

response to: (jobrien | February 18, 2008 01:30 PM)

Well said. Obama certainly sounds Reaganesque at times. And yes, the Clintons represent the status quo in many respects. But I'm also reminded of Ross Perrot's oversimplification of solutions that would fix Washington. In particular, the next president will essentially have to deal with a marginal Democratic majority in Congress. I haven't read too many pundits who argue that Dems will win in a landsline this November. Love 'em or hate 'em, the Clintons have been in the political game much, much, much longer than Obama has. As W.'s approval ratings reveal, wingnut Republican conservatives won't support any GD Democratic president, so that's a given. But negotiating with other Repubs will take more than asking, "Can't we all just get along?"

Posted by: con_crusher | February 18, 2008 2:04 PM | Report abuse

If Hillary is getting crowds of 1,200, and Barack is getting crowds of several thousand, it's pretty easy to see who is generating enthusiasm. I predict Obama wins by something like 56-44 -- a little wider than the current polls, because the polls are probably undercounting the youth vote here, as they have elsewhere. Obama will win big in Madison, and essentially tie most everywhere else.

Posted by: davidrmark | February 18, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

My family and I look at it this way:

There is a growing list of atrocities that need to be remedied due to the destruction of Bush and his puppet administration. Hillary has promised to do that. The first thing she will do as President is ask for every bill that was vetoed by Bush, or rendered benign by his signature.
This is not the time for a President who will have to learn on the job, nor is it time for a President who thinks he will be able to transform the disparate forces in our country into one big happy family.

Vote for Hillary if you care about the Democratic Party, and if you care about America.

Posted by: audart | February 18, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Yes, it is time for a woman to run for president of the United States. But, please, let's pick a woman with integrity and honesty. Those are traits sorely lacking in Senator Clinton. In order to have her way she has been in favor of breaking rules, ignoring the will of the people, seeing herself as the entitled nominee. She doesn't want primaries or caucases, she wants a coronation since she says she is the best candidate. The USA is not a monarchy, so let the will of the people decide who is the best candidate. If she finally ends up having her way or the highway, I see a debacle in the general election. For as much as we might disagree with Senator McCain's policies, one thing is for sure: he is a man of principles, honesty, integrity and compassion. I believe that after all the dishonesty we have suffered under the Bush administration, the number one issue in America is to raise its moral values. Issues can be debated and a concensus formed between Democrats, Independents and Republicans. Hillary is ill suited for this job.

Posted by: eduardoalonso4 | February 18, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse

I read and hear if people don't get the nominee they want,they would just stay home and or vote for McCain, that's what I been saying all alone, that's fine with me, and then the Super Delegates will decide what's best for this country and choose a candidate that's truly has the experience to tackle and fix the mess Bush will leave behind in 2009, and that's Hillary Clinton, Obama is a Newbie Senator who speak's very Inspirational and Motivational about his Dreams of Hope of creating Change, and Unity in America, but lack in-depth substance and ability to make his message become reality.

Why should I vote for Obama? He's to scared to debate a Woman anytime anywhere she challenges him to, What a Wuss and Chicken, if he was so sure of himself he would be willing and ready to step-up to the plate and take on her challenge. Obama want's to win this election by only making earth shattering Motivational Inspirational speeches, but not willing to debate the issues with a Woman named Hillary, who would mop and clean-up the floor with him in debates, because he has no substance, just a lot of eloquent words on the campaign trail, and Obama knows that, because debates are his weakness. But at least be a Man and try, I can respect him for at least trying, not running away from a challenge made by a woman candidate, if he does this now, just think what he would be like as a President, Obama will always run away and hide behind a desk when faced with a difficult challenge to tackle and overcome, Obama say's he a fighter, he can not prove that by me when he's dodging debates requested By Hillary, any time anywhere. I'm an Average African American male, who would be willing to challenge Obama to a debate on Hillary's behalf if given a chance, I bet he would turn me down, and say let me give an Inspirational Motivational speech instead, I could give him a run for his money on giving Inspirational Motivational speeches, I can Preach Earth Shattering Inspiring messages as well as Obama can believe or not, but that does not necessarily make me qualified and experienced enough to be President of America, it takes more years than Obama has effectively and efficiently perform the duties of a President.

Hillary may not be the best speaker, but what she does say on the campaign trail has in-depth substance, clarity, and realism to her platform Issues, Obama is a only a Hoper and, Dreamer with no true realism to his messages, and lacks the experience to carry out his Hopes and Dreams, and make make it a reality.

I like to ask this one major Question? Why is Obama accepting endorsements from people who have been in Congress for over 30 and 40 years and not about to retire, but back him for change when these same Congress members are the Politics as usual gang on the Democratic side of the room? as Obama state's on the campaign trail, this is hypercritical to me, because why would he accept these older Congress member's endorsements when they are considered by him to represent politics as Usual, if I where Obama, I would have only accepted endorsements from younger Congress members like him, this look's more credible to me, since Obama accepted those endorsements he will be a politics as usual President, because these endorsed older Democratic Politicians will expect something in return from him like the lobbyist and special interest groups, Obama is not going to represent the change hope, and unity he so eloquently preaches about on the campaign trail, he's got a lot of people duped, but not me, this African American Male see right through his scheme and deceit. Oh Obama can talk a good game, but lack the experience and substance to play the game and make things happen if nominated and elected President.

Go Hillary! You have the experience, substance, and ability to truly make happen, what Obama, the Dreamer, Inspirer, and Motivator can only Preach about while on the campaign trail, and definitely not in debates, because he's too chicken and a wuss to meet and take on your challenge anytime anywhere. Obama's only able talk the talk, but after the campaign is over, lack the ability, in-depth substance, and experience to walk the Walk. Obama's campaign is considered to me to be just an Fad Movement, if it was really challenged and scrutinzed fairly and balanced by the media like the Clintons Campaign, His Fad Movement would just cumble and disperse due to a lack of in-depth substance, experience, truth, and realism to make positive changes happen if Obama is nominated and then Elected President.

Posted by: Lilly111 | February 18, 2008 1:47 PM | Report abuse

response to: (rozz62 | February 18, 2008 01:11 PM)

You make some valid points. Warning lights should have gone off when Chris Matthews, a one-time Democratic insider, made several unacceptable sexist comments about Hillary and her campaign. The origin of the sexism is America's Puritanical roots, as is the racism. Voters should take a second look at Obama. Yeah, he sounds good. But Clinton has an edge on providing specifics and having experience. After a two-term presidency, conventional wisdom says that the opposition is supposed to be somewhat of a polar opposite of the incumbent. Obama is not inarticulate and is not some multi-millionaire redneck. That said, the NY Times' endorsement of Hillary got it right. The differences between Hillary and Obama on policy issues is marginal, and Obama is certainly a better orator. That said, (Bill) Clinton was right in arguing that Obama's relative inexperience would make his presidency somewhat of a crap shot. Most politicians will say anything to get elected, so their records are a better gauge of what they'd probably do if they won. In that regard, there's too much of a contrast between McCain and Obama. And while Obama is siphoning independents from McCain, he'd inherently surrender some Midwestern and Southern states that Hillary could put into play.

Posted by: con_crusher | February 18, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

E Pluribus Unum

In Wisconsin and Ohio, Hillary and Bill Clinton are once again on the attack. They claim that they offer deeds, solutions not rhetoric. They claim that words don't matter. It would seem that a growing, young electorate clamoring for change doesn't matter. The Clintons have decided that they own the "solutions for America." They claim that they are battle tested and ready to fight. They claim to have the answers, before we have fully vetted the questions. Do they? The last thing this country needs is another set of canned ideological solutions. The Bush administration has given us one "solution" after another. Most of those solutions have been disasters because they excluded two thirds of government, one half of the Congress and the American electorate. In place of many possible solutions, there was one. In the place of many voices, there was one.

In America we are mired in a war because George W. Bush offered a short-sighted, one-sided solution. It was a solution devised by ideological absolutists, a solution that lay dormant in a neo-con white paper waiting for a time to be introduced. That time was September 11, 2001. But the solution did not match the problem. We faced an enemy known and identified, Osama bin Laden and a terrorist faction called al-Qaeda. We had been warned, and those warnings had not been heeded. Instead of focusing on this enemy, the Bush administration presented a solution...start a war against another enemy, Iraq. Their solution however, did not reflect reality. It did not involve the majority of Americans, the majority of global allies or a full accounting of Congress. Now, after years of conflict, we are not more secure from terrorists. We are less secure. Al-qaeda is not weaker, it is stronger. The days of pre-canned, pre-packaged, untested, unvetted, one-sided solutions must come to an end. We need solutions for Americans created by a consensus of Americans, not lobbyists, not interest groups, not think tanks, not political campaigns but by American majorities, parties working in unison, willing to entertain a range of ideas and solutions. Out of many voices, consensus will offer the best solution.

Our problems are not Republican problems or Democratic problems. They are American problems. I am suspicious of anyone who claims to hold all the answers. I am suspicious of anyone who offers their process for America, without Americans in the process. I am suspicious of the politician who says he or she owns the specifics, the one true path. I am suspicious of politicians who offer experience and solutions on the campaign trail, when their previous solutions and experience have been polarizing and rejected. As the playwright Eugene Ionesco once said, "Illumination does not lie in the answer, but in the question."

The challenge in a democracy is to find a solution from differing views. When disparate voices are heard and represented, synergies, not compromise will emerge. What we need are leaders who invite dissent, who value feedback, who encourage different viewpoints. We need leaders who inspire us, challenge us, involve us and invite us to participate in the discussion. We don't need leaders who claim to have the answers, we need leaders who aren't afraid to embrace the questions. We need leaders who have the wisdom to open up the dialogue, to reach across the aisle, to encourage people to speak up and speak out. We don't need leaders who offer their solutions. We need leaders who offer our solutions.

Much has been made of the argument that Hillary Clinton is a survivor, a fighter, one who won't back down. We need more than that. We need someone who can unite us, a coalition builder, a pragmatist willing to open up the discussion. If you are known only for fighting those who oppose you, how will you benefit from their ideas? We need someone with more than a quest for survival. We need leaders who can inspire us to develop new solutions, who take us beyond our divisions, to new insights. In New Hampshire, Hillary said she found her voice. Better that she be seeking ours.

Think of the greatest leaders in history. Do we remember them because of the specifics of their policy or for their ability to inspire and challenge us to act? Consider our most inspirational teachers. In the classroom, the learning takes place when the teacher stops talking. We don't need leaders to spoon-feed us solutions, we need leaders who challenge us to seek solutions within ourselves, to create new approaches to the challenges that face us. In a democracy, it is essential that the electorate is engaged, involved. Out of many voices, we will find one path.

Barack Obama offers more than rhetoric, more than words. He has dared us to dream, to get involved, to seek new solutions, to embrace change, to build coalitions with those who both agree with us and disagree with us. It is from this dialogue that true change will emerge. It is not the answers that will illuminate, but the questions; the invitation to all of us to think, speak out and get involved. We have had enough of a stubborn, intractable administration telling us what to do, claiming a monopoly on the truth, acting in secret, defying oversight and accountability. It's time to elect a President who will listen to what we have to say, to invite us to participate in our democracy. That leader, who will challenge us to find new solutions among a broad range of voices will draw from us our greatest ideas, our boldest initiatives, our most complete solutions. E pluribus unum: out of many, one.

Barack Obama is inspiring a new generation to act and inspiring older generations to once again find their voice. Out of many voices, one. Let us seek the best solutions for America, not simply his, but ours.

Posted by: jobrien | February 18, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Jose Vargas is going to check grammar and spell check every document of Obama from now on. How sic a reporting is this. This cultism of Obama has to STOP. Maybe Wisconsin can set the ball rolling. I am a liberal democrat from Massachusetts and I am sick of my party now. I keep hearing that Gov Deval Patrick will be recalled with a petition drive soon...

Posted by: vs_sv | February 18, 2008 1:28 PM | Report abuse

There is a new ARG Poll out today that has Hillary up by six points in Wisconsin! Go Hillary go!


Posted by: customsjs | February 18, 2008 1:27 PM | Report abuse

HIllary Clinton is the type woman our mothers warn is about. Stay away. DOn't walk, run as fasty as you can. If her Campaign is an example of how she'd run the government her "nomination" is deserving to go down in flames. Vote MCCain or Obama. Hillary isn't BILL!! In fact we don't need a "re-do" of his presiency either.


Posted by: LAGCII | February 18, 2008 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Wisconsin and Hawai'i -- PLEASE do not vote for Hillary Clinton:

-- Hillary supported NAFTA in the 1990's. NAFTA is responsible for the USA losing hundreds of thousands of high paying job to companies over seas.

-- Hillary voted for the war in Iraq without even reading the Intelligence Report. She said she trusted George W. Bush. Hillary lacks proper judgement. The war is costing us trillions of dollars.

-- Hillary said at a debate on national TV that she is happy to take money from lobbyists. Hillary receives more money from lobbyists than just about any other US Senator. She is in their pockets.

-- Hillary can never make up her mind. She changes positions based on public opinion and she is stubborn. She does not like to compomise or bend. That will mean trouble with congress on her part and stagnation for America.

-- Hillary is running on her husband's record and name. Her "experience" has not been completed revealed. She refuses to turn over her first lady records to the public.

-- Hillary has a loose cannon husband. If she can not keep he marriage under control, how is she going to run the country?

-- Hillary wants to force health care coverage on the poor and middle class. She plans to garnish wages as punishment for not joining her health care plan.


Barack Obama is ahead in pledged delagates. Hillary had a chance to catch up, but lost the opportunity. Hillary can not win the nomination now and is refusing to tell her supporters that. She is not a forth coming and honest person.

Plus, where are her tax returns?

Barack Obama is the BEST candidate for president!

Posted by: AndreaT1 | February 18, 2008 1:24 PM | Report abuse

HELP Hillary Clinton Make History. Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions of power, from the military to the boardroom, before any women .Why is the sex barrier not taken as seriously as the racial one? The reasons are as pervasive as the air we breathe: because sexism is still confused with nature as racism once was; because anything that affects males is seen as more serious than anything that affects "only" the female half of the human race; because children are still raised mostly by women so men especially tend to feel they are regressing to childhood when dealing with a powerful woman; because racism stereotyped black men as more "masculine" for so long that some white men find their presence to be masculinity-affirming (as long as there aren't too many of them); and because there is still no "right" way to be a woman in public power without being considered a you-know-what. I'm supporting Senator Clinton because she has community organizing experience, but she also has more years in the Senate, an unprecedented eight years of on-the-job training in the White House, no masculinity to prove, the potential to tap a huge reservoir of this country's talent by her example, and now even the courage to break the no-tears rule. If you look at votes during their two-year overlap in the Senate, they were the same more than 90 percent of the time. Besides, to clean up the mess left by President Bush, we may need two terms of President Clinton But what worries me is that he is seen as unifying by his race while she is seen as divisive by her sex. What worries me is that she is accused of "playing the gender card" when citing the old boys' club, while he is seen as unifying by citing civil rights confrontations. What worries me is that male Iowa voters were seen as gender-free when supporting their own, while female voters were seen as biased if they did and disloyal if they didn't. What worries me is that reporters ignore Mr. Obama's dependence on the old -- for instance, the frequent campaign comparisons to John F. Kennedy -- while not challenging the slander that her progressive policies are part of the Washington status quo. What worries me is that some women, perhaps especially younger ones, hope to deny or escape the sexual caste system; thus Iowa women over 50 and 60, who disproportionately supported Senator Clinton, proved once again that women are the one group that grows more radical with age. This country can no longer afford to choose our leaders from a talent pool limited by speeches, celebrities, sex, race, money, powerful fathers and paper degrees. It's time to take equal pride in breaking all the barriers. We have to be able to say: "I'm supporting her because she'll be a great president!!

Posted by: rozz62 | February 18, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

"but the campaign was such in a rush to release the brochure that typos were inevitable"

This phrase has a certain poetry to it.

Posted by: zukermand | February 18, 2008 12:46 PM

If you say so, zukermand. You ought to know a thing or two about poetry. You have been learning it from the very best.

Posted by: tuscany1 | February 18, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

"Her surrogates, Bill and Chelsea Clinton"
I'd be interested to know how often the Post has referred to Michele Obama as Sen Obama's "surrogate". I'm guessing not very.

"... though Clinton's staffers had to organize the crowd to make the space appear more packed. "Hey, folks, there are at least 15 more seats here on the side, if you want to move from the back," a staffer told the crowd."

Gratuitous poke, check.

" Clinton's been striking economic populist tones in stops in Texas and Ohio,"

Like she has been for 10 months. Why does Mr Vargas imply this represents something new? It can't be he's making unsupported "observations" and "characterizations" to imply Sen Clinton is not "authentic" and "genuine" about her rhetoric, can it? Why would a journalist believe that is part of his job?

" but the campaign was such in a rush to release the brochure that typos were inevitable. "

Never mind the delicious typo in the typo report, are we to expect all campaign lit typos will be reported in the WaPo Trail now, or just the ones that the Clinton campaign makes on a day the reporter decides he wants to type a novel about a hectic campaign?

Posted by: zukermand | February 18, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

A word of caution regarding this man (Barack) who would be president.

If it seems to good to be true,

It probably is.

Posted by: PhilTR | February 18, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Who do you predict will win the Wisconsin Democratic Presidential Primary?


Posted by: jeffboste | February 18, 2008 12:49 PM | Report abuse

"but the campaign was such in a rush to release the brochure that typos were inevitable"

This phrase has a certain poetry to it.

Posted by: zukermand | February 18, 2008 12:46 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company